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

I don't think it's a harsh sentence, if she did it, but I'm struggling with the concept of the victim not knowing. The defence was it was some kind of wired role play that they were consenting to, which sounds a hell of a lot more likely, but as a pp said, the jury will have more info than us.

I don't understand how you can have sex with someone and not notice a thing like that. It's not just the penis, but she has an entirely female body, with breast and a waist and women's skin and muscle distribution. She even has a woman's haircut, which I read somewhere was the give-away in the end.

Noeffing. Claiming to be a man was a horrible deception yes, but is it worse than claiming to be a single man if you are married with a couple of kids? You are still obtaining sex by deception. Your victim could still be left feeling used and abused.

I don't think her sentence is surprising. From the judges statements:

"You are an intelligent, obsessional, highly manipulative, deceitful, scheming and thoroughly determined young woman."

"You pursued this course of conduct over a lengthy period during which you played with her affections, acting entirely for your own sexual satisfaction and choosing to ignore the devastating impact that the eventual discovery of the truth would have on her."

The sentencing notes reference "the additional cruelty of giving the complainant a ring", too.

How would you be able to keep up a fake male voice for 100 hours?

Really weird case.

Did she know the complainant before she set up the fake Facebook account? How did she get her friend to become Kye friend on FB? Or is that not what happened?

I don't think gender is really the issue here. The victim was penetrated with a prosthesis, which is not what she consented to. Therein lies the crime.

So strange. I assumed the victim must have mental health issues? If this the case, the sentencing is easier to understand.

She wore breast bindings, and a hat. She said she wouldn't take her hat off, or the complainants blindfold, because she has scars from a brain tumour. The prosthetic penis appears to be medical-grade, rather than a vibrator type thing, so probably would feel authentic.

Claiming to be a single man when you are married is being deceptive about your circumstances. Claiming to be a man when you are actually a woman is being deceptive about who you actually are.

The complainant was described as "extremely naive and vulnerable".

The "fake" man had updated social media profiles going back over seven years, a separate mobile phone, a job, a dog.

Whether you think the complainant should have seen through it is irrelevant. Most people think that victims of bank fraud scam should see through sending money to random people, but they wouldn't go so far as to say that the scammers shouldn't be punished.

I believe that men do get away with sex by deception and that this seems to come under this category - although I can see it is a complex situation. The deception thing is very damaging to the victim.

I have slept with someone who had I known the truth about I would not have consented to have sex with him, I would not have let him anywhere near me. And although I 'consented' I wasn't in possession of the facts - there could be no criminal repercussions for him, but it left me feeling used and abused - very psychologically damaging when you know someone has simply used you as a thing to have sex with.

hackmum: There are different things you can pretend. I think men who pretend to use a condom, or people of either sex who pretend to not have an STD, or men who pretend to be women, ought to be charged with, what's it called, inflicting grievous bodily harm on someone. Because that's what it is.

tinkly that's your opinion, and not the legal position.

I am amazed at how harsh the sentence is. Especially compared to the sentences many men receive for rape.

I've been confused by this case, too, but I think cel982 has it.

If I consent to penetrative sex with a man and he then inserts an object into me. I'd consider that rape.

I am not defending Newland's behaviour, but am also confused by the sex by deception part. At what point does "deception" stop? I thought you loved me and you didn't? The comparison with thr undercover cops who haven't faced any charges is interesting

It is kind of sad that I am not really surprised, EcclefeachanTart. Of course they would give a member of an oppressed class a harsher sentence. And some lesbophobia probably also figured into it - the judge likely considered it an added crime that the victim was tricked into lesbian sex. While man-on-woman rape is considered "natural".

Saucy "It's a very similar situation to the Ched Evans case to my way of thinking."

please could you say what you think the similarities are - I must admit I can't see any.

hackmum - yes, I am minded of the book "Skin Deep" by Toeckey Jones. Where do we draw the line - "i thought I was having sex with..."?

I am also confused by the law here.

Cel "I don't think gender is really the issue here. The victim was penetrated with a prosthesis, which is not what she consented to. Therein lies the crime"

ah, that would make sense!! (cross posted)

I honestly don't get sentencing in this country. There was a recent case where a woman had sex with an 11 year old boy and she got a suspended sentence but this woman got 8 years for sexual assault. It seems so inconsistent.

I think maybe Saucy meant that the victim in the Ched Evans case was reported to have consented to one sexual situation but ended up in another.

the judge likely considered it an added crime that the victim was tricked into lesbian sex. While man-on-woman rape is considered "natural"

I sadly agree, Vestal.

And I'm not sure about the "additional cruelty" parts either, really. So she gave the woman a ring presumably with the implication they might marry as a man and woman? Well I'm sure lots of men have implied to women that they might marry them in order to get them into bed. Grim, but we don't usually treat it as sex by deception.

I think the parallel with the undercover policemen is accurate.

The woman with the suspended sentence is being reviewed and she will almost certainly get a jail sentence, it was massively too lenient. I don't know if she'll get eight years, but she will serve time.

To be fair, I think it's a good thing, no one should obtain sex by deception, everyone should have to be completely honest. I look forward to seeing this being applied across the board.

But I won't be holding my breath.

I think maybe Saucy meant that the victim in the Ched Evans case was reported to have consented to one sexual situation but ended up in another.

Yes, but it's nothing like that case, really, since the victim here was having sex with the person she consented to have sex with. GN didn't become a different person just by claiming she was male.

73dexter that sentence has been apealled against. (to get a higher sentence)
Some sentences are too light, that doesn't mean they all should be though.

I don't think they should all be light but, to me, raping an 11 year old boy is worse than what happened in this case. It's the randomness of the sentences that I find strange.

Some sentences are too light, that doesn't mean they all should be though

True. But sentences for men who commit sex crimes are typically too light. Often even when those sex crimes involve underage girls.

That doesn't translate as sentences for women who commit sex crimes should be harsh.