Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

What do you think of this...(possible rape)

370 replies

differentnameforthis · 06/05/2015 10:20

Now I think this is rape. I appear to be a lone voice however, as most are calling those who fell for this stupid.

Opinions?

Rape?

OP posts:
OutragedFromLeeds · 06/05/2015 20:36

'Outraged, what's your view of the case I outlined where the recipient of sexual contact was deceived as to the sex of the provider of that contact and that invalidated the consent?'

I remember that case, but don't know all the details. If someone said they were a boy online and then turned up and they were a girl, and then at that time the other person consented to sex, I don't think it's rape. As another poster said earlier 'What the person consents to is sex with that physical human in front of them'.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 20:36

Mengog, I'd put that on my spectrum above. I'd place it slightly more towards the poet/Rockstar end but yes, I think it's still a deception on a point that's essential to meaningful consent, so it's still rape.

I don't know how a court would rule, though.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 20:38

Outraged, the girl who pretended to be a boy (who was found guilty) never took off her clothes so the victim did not know; the deception was continued in person.

Iirc the people involved were around 15.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 20:39

I think if the person making the sexual contact is doing so in full knowledge that the consent is based on a significant deception then they do not have valid consent to proceed and a sexual crime has taken place.

paxtecum · 06/05/2015 20:41

The female activist who had a child with the undercover cop got a payout of £425,000.

Yonic, no doubt there will be another thread soon asking why so many posters avoid the Feminism threads.
Basically they are not welcome here if they don't agree with some of you.

Amethyst24 · 06/05/2015 20:46

The other thing is, presumably he didn't just say, "Let's meet for blindfolded sex, here's what I look like." He would have said all kinds of other things too - "I'm 25, I'm six foot tall, I work out, here's a photo." He set out to obtain sex with women who he knew would never consent to have sex with the real him.

I find the "too good to be true" argument deeply disturbing - there's an unpleasant whiff of "In your dreams, love" about it.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 20:49

If you advance search bowl, you'll see what I mean. Up to you, pax.

OutragedFromLeeds · 06/05/2015 20:49

'Outraged, the girl who pretended to be a boy (who was found guilty) never took off her clothes so the victim did not know; the deception was continued in person.

Iirc the people involved were around 15.'

I see your point, but I still think that you agree to have sex with the person in front of you. Not removing his/her clothes is the same as not removing the blindfold. You have the opportunity to check, if you choose not to take it that's your risk.

It's horrible to deceive people like that, but I don't think it's rape.

If the people involved were under age then that is obviously a different matter. It was an offence because they were under age regardless of anyone's sex.

bowlofoldoats05 · 06/05/2015 20:50

YonicScrewdriver

In the boy/girl case, the victim had established the identity of the person she was engaging with as [John Doe - a male] - the victim actually KNEW [John Doe - a male] as a real person in her mind because thats the person she had been involved with.

When it transpired that John was actually [Jane - a female] the deception to negate consent was complete.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 20:51

Ok, so you'd've decided differently to the court on that one (I don't think the underage thing was a factor as both people were of similar age; it might have been used in court to counteract a "surely she must have known it was a girl.." Type argument)

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 20:53

Bowl

The woman in this case knew her "John Doe" as a 20 something good looking male; surely he also completed a deception that negated consent.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 06/05/2015 20:54

No it was an offence because of the deception.

The law is not used or intended to be used in the UK to criminalise similarly aged teens having genuinely consensual sex (no coercion, power imblanaces etc).

I would not want to see 15yo being prosecuted for having cheerful consensual sex with each other and I'm always a bit surprised when I find people who would.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 20:57

Here's the case, outraged:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110430/Gemma-Barker-jailed-Vctims-girl-dressed-boy-date-speak-anguish.html

NB it wasn't rape as no penetration with a penis was involved.

bowlofoldoats05 · 06/05/2015 21:03

"...The woman in this case knew her "John Doe" as a 20 something good looking male; surely he also completed a deception that negated consent..."

But that's the thing - she didn't know her John Doe at all. She saw a picture on the Internet. Had she actually known a young man in real life who looked like the model and had his (user)name, and this old man was tricking her into thinking her was that young man......then her consent is negated.

bowlofoldoats05 · 06/05/2015 21:04

Sorry....

...."he was that young man....."

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 21:11

I disagree with you. The extent of their knowledge of each other was internet based. They both had "a person in their mind " as the person they wanted to have sex with. Unfortunately he perpetrated a deliberate, massive and persistent deception as to who that person was, just as Gemma Barker did.

It's good that you've stopped calling other posters on the thread dim, that's progress. (Pax - you might like to note that bowl said that before I said anything judgmental to him)

Micah · 06/05/2015 21:12

So bowl, if I understand correctly;

Legally, it's not rape. Because she didn't know, as in had never met, the man she had sex with. The fact she had a photograph is not classed as knowing or having a relationship of any sort with either the person in the photograph or the person claiming to be the person in the photograph.

Therefore, legally, the photograph is irrelevant, and the case is treated as if she met a stranger, allowed herself to be blindfolded without seeing him, and consented to sex.

If he had sent the young model to meet her and blindfold her, then swapped and had sex with her, then that, legally, is rape.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 06/05/2015 21:15

Well, in his opinion, Micah.

OutragedFromLeeds · 06/05/2015 21:15

That case is mad! I can't see anywhere why exactly she was found guilty though. According to that information she was reported for sexual assault back when they still thought she was a boy....so it can't have been just because she lied. Surely she must have done something in addition to that to warrant the police becoming involved in the first place?

Also, on the age issue it says 'Judge Moss added: "And it's very serious. The girls she preyed on are much younger than her."

00100001 · 06/05/2015 21:17

Yes ^^

bowlofoldoats05 · 06/05/2015 21:18

YonicScrewdriver

Before I described anyone as "dim", I was myself attacked as follows, simply because the person didn't agree with/understand my argument:

"...Unless you believe in shape-shifters or invasion of the body snatchers, in which case I think you have bigger fish to fry than this thread..."

Yet, you seemed quite happy to ignore that.

BuffyNeverBreaks · 06/05/2015 21:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 06/05/2015 21:19

Is there also an element in here that people who behave in a certain way, eg lie, or are dishonest etc, assume everyone else is, and proceed on that basis.

But of course not everyone is like that.

Like people at work who are ruthless assume that everybody else is the same and are forever watching their backs, and it never occurs to them that some people just go in do the job go home.

So here, is there a difference in how people feel about it, depending oh whether they are themselves honest and / or trusting, or not? Just a thought.

Some really interesting things coming out. IMO. I think there's a lot of stuff to do with ideas about certain types of women / how women ought to be when it comes to selecting sexual partners in here.

Like the old thing of if a woman is "up for it" then she's just "up for it" - the idea she might discriminate between men is usually completely overlooked.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/05/2015 21:22

That's not a personal attack within the rules of MN, to my mind, bowl, but report it if you have an issue with it.

You directed your "dim" comment at posters on the thread who disagreed with you in general.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 06/05/2015 21:23

Well you said that what people look like is entirely subjective.

Which is a patently ludicrous thing to say.

I think you deserved to have the piss taken for that.

In fact I think it bears repeating:

"Whether or not he 'looks' like the model is irrelevant, because what someone 'looks' like is subjective."

YY obviously nearly 70yo men who are fat and bald frequently get mistaken for young male models. Obvious, innit.