UK: A non-binary sailor has been cleared of a sexual assault charge after arguing in court that he was "demisexual" and therefore could not have committed the crime.

[Butitsnotfunnyisititsserious]

Did anyone see the below? (Not sure if it's been posted). A sailor was cleared after non consensually kissing, licking and 'grinding up' on a fellow serviceman, despite there being a female witness because he's claimed his demisexual identify meant he couldn't commit the crime.

t.co/wlOlPyVK1z

The worlds gone mad. What's next, someone saying 'I identify as innocent' on the stand. That's pretty much what he said. It's giving sexual predators and paedos the green light to commit assaults, even if you have witnesses, it still doesn't matter.

What a load of bullshit. So does having an “identity” absolve you of responsibility for your actions? Did being an NB mean that he couldn’t control his behaviour? Fucksake.

The nonsense people are making up nowadays is beyond belief.

Also I thought it was quite an established view that sexual crimes are about power, and not sexual attraction.

Wtf.

It was a court martial and not a civilian court so I'm wondering if that makes any difference.

The court appears to be saying that the motivation of the accused is important, not the perception of the victim. So if his grinding, kissing etc wasn't for sexual reasons then it doesn't count as an offence. However, the recent shift seems generally to have been to give more credence to the victim/complainant as in non-crime hate incidents. So this is all arse about face.

Hopefully there is a lot more to it than this as the ‘defence’ as reported makes no sense whatsoever. Quite apart from the ‘identifying as innocent’ aspect mentioned above, surely in the year 2022 we’re well aware that sexual assault isn’t all about uncontrolled attraction towards the subject of that assault.

It is nowhere stated that he was acquitted because he said he was demisexual - just that it was part of his defence.

Most likely he was acquitted due to lack of evidence, as in most such cases, ie no one else to corroborate one way or another. A shame, as its unlikely the victim lied. But unfortunately the Mail is using this to shit stir about sexual identity.

I do find the demisexual thing rather BS - to me it's not a sexuality it's just an attitude to relationships , which is not that same thing.

There was a female witness who corroborated the victim's account.

Another, female, crew saw it. Her testimony corroborated the victim!

I very much hope that the senior officers in charge of this able seaman tell their whole team that no one should be hugging or kissing anyone else in the workplace, under any circumstances. Regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.

What I would like to say about the defendant in this case would likely get me banned...

'he had only briefly touched and kissed the alleged victim.' - well that's fine then.

'Smythe suggested that his sexual identity made it so that he could not have sexually assaulted anyone unless he had a strong emotional bond with them. Smythe argued that he did not find the alleged victim sexually attractive, and thus there was no sexual undertone to his touching'

JFC.

I sincerely hope none of this rapey bullshit influenced the judgement.

This is they:

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-56187485

'"The pan-sexual side is more of a type of bisexuality," said AET Smythe.

"It's me saying that I don't conform to any gender so I don't care what genitalia you have - if I like you as a person, I will be interested," they added.'

...
'"For some it wouldn't matter, but for someone who doesn't identify as male, to have a toilet I can go in and not be questioned as to why I'm in there is awesome," they said.'

Smythe seems to think that the only thing that matters is Smythe's inner feels, and to hell with everyone else.

Thread title reads like it came from the funnies section in Private Eye.

As for Smythe's justifications, after all it's a well-known fact that rapists only ever target people they are powerfully attracted to, so that's all good.

Yes. There was no lack of evidence, they simply didn't care about the victim or witness and instead cared about what the sexual predator identifies as. It's a slippery slope, I don't doubt more people would try this bullshit as a defence.

As a demisexual, can I explain what it actually means?

I literally have no sexual attraction to anyone until I fall in love with them. Literally no one. Not an actor or singer, not even my husband when I first met him. I have never experienced lust for a stranger. I have never 'fancied' anyone.

I can appreciate when someone is aesthetically pleasing, in the same way that I might admire a painting or think that a landscape is beautiful but there's never been a moment in my life when I've thought 'I want to have sex with that person' or even fantasised about anyone like that.

It doesn't mean I don't enjoy sex, just that I don't experience any form of chemical sexual attraction at all until I have a deep connection with someone.

Mine, I think, is a byproduct of my autism as my brain is wired differently anyway.

I hope that helps explain what it is a little better :)

In regard to the story I don't see how the person could use demisexuality as a defence. If he knew the victim well then he very well could have developed an attraction to them.

Sexual assault is founded in power and control, not attraction. (Sounds like the tribunal members were off sick on training day.) It should be irrevelant whether he was attracted to the victim.

We can anticipate defenses based on 'she's ugly so it wasn't rape' if they's reasoning is accepted.

I was possibly going to add that of there was a witness she was a woman and thus ignorable. Because women always have a motive to 'get a man in trouble' because of their vengeful lady brains or something. 😠

@TheBirdintheCave - thanks for your post. I understand what DS is as a thing but I'm still not really sure in my mind it counts as a sexuality so much as a way of approaching relationships. But that's for another thread i suppose😊

This would apply to me.

I don’t really understand why it needs a special name though. What difference does it make to anything?

What?

Setting aside the fact that an actual witness is not compelling enough, she was a mere woman after all, you don’t honk the fire at that the perpetrator admitted that they did it is evidence enough? They acknowledged they committed the act, they just claimed it couldn’t have been ‘sexual’ because, ‘reasons’.

Sheesh.

Think the fact - not - honk the fire - autocorrect is amazing .

He sounds like an absolute knob but I would hope that this is just attention grabbing reporting off the media, and that there is lots more to the story that wasn’t reported.

I can’t think of any jury who would accept this as an excuse.

People aren’t SA or raped because of how they look, it’s often a play of power or convenience.

It’s a very outdated and offensive attitude to imply that someone is more at risk of rape or SA if someone is attracted to them.
It’s like saying it depends on what you’re wearing.

Most likely he was acquitted due to lack of evidence, as in most such cases, ie no one else to corroborate one way or another. A shame, as its unlikely the victim lied. But unfortunately the Mail is using this to shit stir about sexual identity.

Odd that he used the demisexual thing as part of his defence, if the prosecution case was so weak, then.

Sexual assault includes ‘unwanted kissing and touching’. Which is what this was. The perpetrators intent is irrelevant.