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

Ugh, bolding didn't work. Try again.

Man blindfolds a woman and ties her up as part of consensual bondage.

Woman then has sex, thinking it is the same man. Unknown to her, another man has entered the room and it is him she is having sex with.

No one would argue against that being called rape. I fail to see how, in the GN case, the factual matrix is significantly different. Just substitute a dildo for the second man's penis and what you have is identical.

Really?? If my DH and I were to have consensual sex involving bondage, and he used a dildo on me without telling me, then I probably wouldn't care very much. If he sneaked his best mate in to take part, without telling me, I would be horrified!!!

To me the GN case is far closer to the first than the second in terms of what actually happened. (Although of course I don't mean that the victim in this case shouldn't care. Clearly there has been a deliberate and sustained deception here)

If someone says they would like a cup of coffee, then don't make them a cup of tea and force them to drink it instead

But this isn't what happened, is it? It's more like "don't make them a cup of tea, blindfold them and pretend it's coffee".

There wasn't any force, and the drinker drank it happily until she realised what she was drinking.

hackmum - no I can't point to a case where that happened but it does seem to me to be logical and therefore it would stand up in court - agreeing to penetration in one way and then being subject to another without knowledge.

in fact, this case kind of is the proof that that would happen.

boom No need to stop concentrating on the criminals. It's not either/or. And we could say 'no point stopping them because they'll only do something else' about every crime.

I don't think anyone is second guessing the verdict. We were discussing the implications for consent and the issues around conviction for deception. The GN case prompted the discussion but a lot of the posts have been about trying to determine when/if deception becomes illegal or if the illegality was around unauthorised penetration.

It's an important distinction because as PPs said they have had sex with someone who was deceiving them (eg saying they are single when they are married). Yet most people don't think you could be prosecuted for that.

stopping - yes, you could say that about a lot of crimes. Putting resources into things like burglar alarms for instance, generally just pushes burglary off onto the houses without alarms. Does little to lower overall rates. You can say that you can do both, and you can. But whatever you do uses up resources. If you're concentrating on victim blaming you're doing less to tackle the criminals.

The thing about the victim blaming in sexual crimes like you're doing here is that it hurts crime fighting because it makes victims very reluctant to come forward. It also compounds the damage done by the crime in the first place.

There was a programme about this a year or two ago that I watched. A girl dressed up as a boy and actually dated her best friend and 'met' her family etc and had sex. Weird.

I can't point to a case where that happened but it does seem to me to be logical and therefore it would stand up in court - agreeing to penetration in one way and then being subject to another without knowledge....in fact, this case kind of is the proof that that would happen.

I don't think I agree, Lorelei. I think a lot of this case seems to hinge on the deception about identity. I don't think that tells us much about what would happen if a woman brought a rape charge against, let's say, her husband, for penetrating her with something other than his penis without her consent/knowledge.

This is too weird. I am not victim blaming but, really ? You didn't take one tiny peek? You didn't recognise the voice? Or anything about them?

Furthermore if I'd been the victim I'd have been too embarrassed to admit to the whole shenanigans. The pair of them were, to say the least, bonkers.

She did recognise the voice, but 'Kye' explained that away by saying he'd been to school with GN.

This is the story that the programme I watched was aboutwww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184539/The-girl-boys-I-idea-boyfriend-girl.html

I've just read the judgement in whole and I'm not convinced that the judge has proven that there was a sexual assault. My thinking is that this needs to go to appeal. Totally unusual and I'm sure that the victim feels terrible but was there a sexual assault? There was no indication that the penetrative sex was non-consensual and to that end there is a significant issue with the conviction.

The fact that the assailant did not have a penis and used a device instead might not matter. It would be interesting to learn if certain language were used during the sex.

I am not blaming the victim or condoning the behaviour however the unmasking was driven by something. That could be the point when the victim realised something was wrong.

I'm surprised that the media have not taken up the story in a more interesting way.

Isn't the Assange case partly about rape where the woman agreed to one thing (sex with a condom) but he then went ahead without a condom? Judges here ruled that if proven it would count as rape under British law when they approved the deportation.

Isn't the Assange case partly about rape where the woman agreed to one thing (sex with a condom) but he then went ahead without a condom?

Yes, but sex without a condom poses a risk of harm that sex with a condom doesn't (or does to a much lesser degree). It's hard to see what risk of harm sex with a prosthetic penis poses.

I detest the term victim blaming but bloody hell the level of it on this thread is astounding.

There is no doubt what so ever that this case is incredibly bizarre, but to question the victim's reliability after a verdict has been reached and a sentence handed down? really?

Let's look at this situation another way:

Let's say that GN was in fact a man pretending to be a woman rather than the other way around. All other details of the case remained the same, except the victim believed that she was going to be penetrated by a dildo, but instead she was penetrated by his penis and sex occurred. Would people still be saying that the victim's case was questionable? somehow I don't think so.

From that article: the complainant was “by her nature a very gullible and ... naive person.” She also described herself as desperate for love, and there is reference to her having had a difficult life before meeting Newland.

This kind of thing has happened before (the true story behind the film starring Hilary Swank?) and in each case the person deceived was gullible, and vulnerable. I find it remarkable that posters are preapred to disbelieve her so readily.

Surely rape is rape? Isn't that what we're instantly told at the moment? Ken Clarke was lambasted for suggested there were degrees of rape. Why is this any different?

constantly told

I really think the issue here is consent. The victim consented to sex but the consent was given to "Kye" not Gayle. The charge was not rape because according to law a female cannot commit rape.

A really unusual case and maybe a prompt that the sexual offences act 2003 may need updating.

I think the fact that Newland had also tried to dupe another woman online shows a worrying pattern of behaviour.

Newland had been in contact with the victim online for two years before the first face to face contact took place so goodness knows what deception occurred.

Good point WannaBe. Although, perhaps in consenting to sex with a penis with the risks involved (pregnancy/STIs) sex with a dildo would be considered 'less' somehow because there are less risks involved? I don't know... Just musing here.

Eccles the degree of harm is irrelevant to the definition of the crimes though. Degree of harm might come into potential sentencing, but it doesn't impact whether or not a crime has occurred.

Fewer

Eccles the degree of harm is irrelevant to the definition of the crimes though. Degree of harm might come into potential sentencing, but it doesn't impact whether or not a crime has occurred

Oh I absolutely agree a crime of some kind has occurred (and am not for one second victim blaming). The harshness of the sentence is what I am shocked by.

It really was, ESD.

I was posting about this on a thread in Chat earlier and I originally thought that the victim must have been really stupid to be deceived like that. Having now read the full verdict on this thread I totally retract that. I had no idea it was such a sophisticated plan that took place over so many years. I feel really, really sorry for the poor victim and I can see why she fell for it. Any doubts she had would have been confided to her best friend Gayle, who would have talked her out of them. It's so twisted! Anyway, I was completely barking up the wrong tree earlier.