to be shocked at the sentencing in the Gayle Newland case?

[hackmum]

Eight years seems excessive to me. This is the woman who had sex with a female friend while pretending to be a man. Story here:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/12/gayle-newland-sentenced-eight-years-prison-duping-friend-having-sex

It seems to be a harsher sentence than a man would get for rape.

She'll serve 4 years apparently.

Do you honestly think that's too much for raping someone ten times?

Yes, it seems lenient to me. Of course, it goes without saying that countless sentences handed out to men who have raped are way too lenient too.

I found this an utterly weird and unbelievable case. I find it very hard to believe that the complainant spent so much time with the defendant, especially spending hours watching television (wearing a blindfold!) and having sex multiple times, without finding the fact that the defendant was always wearing multiple layers of clothing plus a wooly hat at all all times, sufficiently odd that they didn't smell a rat sooner.

I am much more inclined, personally, to believe that this was a mutually consensual role-play. The jury didn't agree, though, obviously, and they had access to a lot more information than I do.

Is it rape she was convicted of? Article didn't say.

I'm not saying that some rapists are not sentenced too leniently but a man who committed ten rapes on the same victim would not get eight years.

It's a peculiar case however you look at it; but the fact is that the victim was up for sexual relations with a man, not a woman, and this was a nasty offence.

But I still think eight was too much. Six would have been right.

I wonder how her fellow residents will take to her.

Have just read the article. How weird.

Really - the complainant really kept their blindfold on for over 100 hours,including while watching tv and sunbathing with the defendant? Hard to believe.

Also, surely a prosthetic penis doesn't feel like a real one? So she never touched it? Mind you, if she was happy to have sex with someone without ever having seen their face then that's odd.

She was convicted of sexual assault.

Of course, what makes this a rather more nuanced case than people like SaucyJack are implying is that the victim consented.

Guardian headline says:

Gayle Newland sentenced to eight years in prison for disguising her appearance and persuading woman to wear blindfold while they had sex -

but surely that can't be the actual charge?

The victim consented to sex with a man, not a woman.

A very strange case, anyway, and I found the story from both sides mindboggling.

Right, I'm really not trying to be goady here, but under the new transgender thinking orthodoxy, if the accused identifies as a man, then is she not a man?

I think its harsh given its so far fetched there must surely be mental health issues involved.

I think a stay in a hospital for both of them would have been more appropriate.

Right, I'm really not trying to be goady here, but under the new transgender thinking orthodoxy, if the accused identifies as a man, then is she not a man?

When reading the article it did cross my mind - I wonder what some of them at MN would make of this.

Without doubt, this is one of the most baffling news stories I've read. I just don't understand how 100 hours into a relationship and something hasn't quite twigged. I mean, they met up at hotels, did she arrive first and put her blindfold on and then answer the door still blindfolded or what...I mean how? The mind boggles.

Tmi alert, when I first started dating my husband he was going through a nasty flare up of psoriasis and for the first 2 times of DTD, he kept a tshirt and shorts on. However, if he had asked me to wear a blindfold not just during sex but even whilst dating, it would have just been too weird.

They both sound bloody wierd to me.

I think the extent that she went to, to groom the victim went towards the sentence tbh.

It's a very bizarre case and I did have to wonder if the victim had some sort of disability then classified her as vulnerable....which also may have added to the sentence.

It does seem odd that the victim never knew. But the jury believed her so who are we to doubt her?

I was wondering where the MN thread on this was . . .the whole case seems very, very odd. I read a few different articles about it today and none of them made it any clearer to me tbh.

I did think the sentencing seemed harsh. I also thought it was one of those cases which (from how it's been reported) would have completely failed Occam's Razor on both outcome and sentencing.

It is a very strange case but I don't think it's an unduly harsh sentence.

There is a huge level of pre - meditation and deception involved. The victim consented to sex with a man, she did not consent to sex with a woman.

And this didn't happen once, it happened several times. In the eyes of the law she's been convicted of sexual assault and I think lucky to not have been given a more serious charge.

I've been wracking my brains to think of a comparable scenario and what I've come up with is imagine idential twin men A and B. And a woman has met Twin A. She's attracted to him, met him a few times, enjoyed his company and wants to take it further and have sex and invites him over. So one night he comes over to consumate the relationship but it's not twin A, it's twin B but she still thinks it's twin A.

They have sex and have sex a few more times after that. But it's not the twin she consented to have sex with, she consented to sex with twin A and Twin B had sex with her.

She had sex. She consented to sex but the person having sex with her wasn't who she thought she was having sex with or consented to sex with.

I would consider that rape if I was the victim.

And that may be a totally shit comparison but as this is such an unusual case it's what I came up with!.

I don't believe a word of it.

I find this mind boggling.

I strongly suspect that this will be overturned on appeal.

The whole case had me thinking 'wtf'.
There's nowt so queer as folk - excuse pun.

I'm a lawyer (admittedly crime is not my area) and this whole case baffles me tbh, I'm not even clear on what the charges were. It's almost as though the crime is sex by deception...can that be correct?

If it had been a man using a prosthetic penis (because of impotence or injury, let's say) could that have still been an offence if the use of the prosthetic had been hidden from the victim?

The transgender aspect also confuses me, as per the pp above.

Actually, the sentence could have been a lot worse. 8 years was the starting point.
After reading the sentencing report I think it's a fair sentence. Hopefully it isn't overturned.
Tinklylittlelaugh self identification isn't legal in the UK. The person has to apply for a document to have their gender officially changed.

I remember reading about another case about 20 years ago. Very similar details, the attacker knew the victim and pretended to have some sort of illness or injury to justify keeping her clothes on.

Tinkly: "Right, I'm really not trying to be goady here, but under the new transgender thinking orthodoxy, if the accused identifies as a man, then is she not a man?"

That's exactly what I thought - there's been so much transgender stuff on MN recently, it was at the forefront of my mind. And yes, that does seem to be the logic. Newland could have just said, "I identify as a man. Are you saying that if I don't have a penis I can't be a man? How very transphobic!"

It doesn't seem so very different from sending a man into a women's prison or allowing a teenage boy to get changed in a girls' changing room.

Having read the judge's sentencing remarks (www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/r-v-newlandsentencing.pdf) I do think the victim really believed that Newland was a man. She seems to have been very trusting and gullible, so I do feel sorry for her. But the case seems to operate in a very grey area.

I can't help thinking of all those women activists who formed sexual relationships with fellow male activists, who eventually turned out to be undercover policemen. The level of deception was the same - greater, in fact, because continued over a longer period of time - but they were never prosecuted.