Woman jailed after posing as man and duping partner into sex

Unless you have experienced both, I don't think you can possibly know that rape by a man is worse than penetrative sexual assault by a woman. And even if you have experienced both, you can't know what another victim's reaction would be. It isn't just about physical violence. I have worked with a number of rape survivors, and many say that the breach of trust that occurs in rape by a partner/friend is one of the most difficult aspects to process. I can imagine this being the same if assaulted by a woman.

I agree with the general point that rape is under-prosecuted, but it does not follow that we should underplay the effect on women of being sexually assaulted by someone of their own sex.

Except in UK law, rape is defined in terms that only an OG male can be guilty of. Because it specifically requires a penis.

I guess the law could be change to remove the penis as the defining characteristic.

I guess there is an edge case where a man who may have lost their penis and used a prosthetic to penetrate someone that would be interesting.

Exactly. There’s no comparison between this and a woman being physically overpowered and raped by a larger, violent man. But the man is very unlikely to suffer any consequences.

Jailed for 15 years https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/world/man-who-lured-straight-men-into-sex-after-posing-as-woman-on-dating-apps-jailed-for-15-years-297541/

I cant find that one, but have found this one (not sure of the verdict) https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/28/man-didnt-know-he-was-receiving-oral-sex-from-another-man-until-he-lifted-his-blindfold-7986988/

Does anyone recall a case from a couple of years ago - a passing transwoman performed oral sex on a man at a party. The recipient of the oral sex didn't know the giver of the oral sex was a male bodied transwoman until later in the sexual encounter, when he physically assaulted the transwoman. He was quite rightly convicted of assault and sentenced to prison, but the Judge's ruling did not in in any way ackowledge there had been a gender deception. Instead the judge blamed the man for having sex with someone he hardly knew and that he had not bothered to discover their trans status.
I remember at the time people here comparing this case with Gayle Newland. I can't find any details via Google though,

@Iamtheelephantintheroom
These cases are bizarre, how does the victim have no clue? The Newland case js beyond odd; they spent over 100 hrs together with the victim blindfolded??

You make a very good point.

While you'd think a woman would notice if she was being penetrated by a strap on rather than a penis.
Its probably more difficult for a man to be dubbed in the same way. A trans-woman, doesn't really have anywhere for the penis to go and I'd doubt you can get a realistic strap on fanny!

The consequences on the victim could be even worse. Not that I think a man using a condom would make it less traumatic for the victim at the time obviously, but the consequences afterwards could be significant, which I think needs to be acknowledged.

how the hell did the victim not realise? Blade does not have passing privilege. They have a female face.

Depending on the nature of the alleged cancer, I don't find it completely out of court that the victim was deceived about the perpetrator's sex (e.g., impact of steroids, standard chemo, immunotherapy, maybe a claim of androgen suppression etc.). (I've only seen the photo in the Guardian, I've no idea of overall body habitus/size.)

Great point!
It's a really interesting precedent to set.

Would have been interesting to see how the case would have unfolded if the defendant had insisted they were a man (because identified as one).

Obviously goes without saying unacceptable behaviour.

I suspect that many men deceived into sex would not want to go public about it.

And the main failure to prosecute rape is because the CPS doesn't want to have a low conviction rate, and even when the police have done a good job, and the case has been presented well, it is just as likely a jury wont convict. Even juries with women on them are more likely to be concerned about the impact on the man's reputation.

This is why Scotland is proposing holding rape trails without juries, and instead just allow a Judge to decide.

Why are the CPS keen on prosecuting women for these sex by deception cases, but not men for raping women?

Is it because they think they're more likely to get a conviction? And why is that?

Sorry hit post too soon.

So if the sex is no longer consensual isn't it either rape or sexual assualt?

I think UK law is still that rape is about and can only be committed by biological males as it is about the penis.

Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape

There have been several of these cases - women posing as men, convicted for 'sex by deception'.

Yes I did post upthread where these cases have been discussed on FWR, which include how the trans lobby responded to the consultation on this law..

In other countries (usually men) have been prosecuted and convicted on sex by deception, eg a woman agreeing to sex on the understanding they were to be married, but in fact the man was already married, at least one based on the man lying about his ethnic identity, so have also understood the law to be about as it says "deception". ie if consnsual sex was only arrived at based on lies, then it isn't consensual. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4888757-court-extends-custody-of-rabbi-suspected-of-rape-by-deception-of-32-women

Rape and sexual assault by penetration carry the same sentence. So it's really down to how the victim wishes to describe what happened to herself. In many ways it was the manner of deception that makes it worthy of the sentence.

The sentence for both is life imprisonment so both are taken equally seriously.

It is the same in principle. The UK is very much an outlier in defining rape as with a real penis by a male. In most countries in the western world, Europe, US, etc. women can also be prosecuted for rape. The uk has a very unusual narrow legal definition.

I am puzzled by the responses in this thread - it is wrong to deceive others. I definitely would classify this as rape.

LOL - they must have somehow missed this story, in the Christmas rush...

Why aren’t Stonewall all over this? This is a trans man being treated by the court as if he is not a man. If he says he’s a man he’s a man. There’s no crime here. Stonewall: come on, get angry!

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that consent is simple. They are arguing that a woman committing sexual assault by penetration, using deception, is analogous to a man committing rape by penetration, using deception.

Yes, I think that's reasonable potentially. But I don't necessarily think it's an easy line to draw.

Consent isn't that simple, as much as people would like it to be.

But UK law already recognises deception by men - if sufficiently severe - as a form of rape. Consent is recognised as conditional on not being deceived as to the conditions under which you are consenting. Deception of sufficient severity vitiates consent.

I don't think that way of constructing consent is really viable if you want to maintain a clear definition of rape.

There are all kinds of things someone could lie about in order to make them seem like an attractive sexual partner. Who else they have had sex with, marital status, how much money they have, etc.

The tendency to want to make these very general, flat definitions around sexual crimes isn't helpful, I don't think.

I would compare to how we think about theft. There is a difference between mugging someone, extortion, burglary, mugging, financial abuse, for example. All can be very serious, but we do differentiate between someone who embezzles money from an employer, and someone who threatens someone with a weapon to mug them, maybe even using direct violence. Even when the amount of money is larger in the former instance.

There is even stuff we recognize as immoral but not necessarily a crime, like hard sells to people who are a little vulnerable, or some kinds of telemarketing.

So is rape less serious if the man uses a condom?