Woman jailed for sexual assault on man….

[SuperSleepyBaby]

Anyone else find this BBC article unclear?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64919747.amp

The judge noted that “…neither he, nor the prosecution, could find any similar case anywhere in the UK.”

"Factually this case involved a woman having sex with a man without his consent and there should be parity between male victims of sexual crime and female victims," the prosecution solicitor said.”

Factually…….?

Why did this lesbian sexuality assault a man….?

m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/courts/lurgan-woman-jailed-for-sexual-attack-on-sleeping-man/1720711226.html

”The court heard however that as Lord “is a lesbian and he knew her sexual propensity” he reasonably assumed there would be no sexual activity.”

And i wonder what jail this woman is going to…

shes a lesbian she will go where women go to jail

Are you sure ‘she’ is a ‘lesbian’?

I can’t see any reason here not to think Tanya is female. This kind of thing does happen.

Ehhhh…. Has anyone seen the photo of Tanya in the article…..?

i know women can engage in sexual crimes

my point is about misleading language- and unclear reporting - as evidenced by the two responses so far.

Or maybe i’m wrong and Tanya is a woman!?! I no longer can tell what’s true?

She has a vagina, so she’s probably a woman.

Screenshot of the relevant E&W charge - presumably the NI one is the same?

www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2023/03/10/news/lurgan_woman_jailed_for_sex_attack_on_sleeping_man-3124815/

“A Lurgan-based woman has been jailed for two years after she admitted causing a sleeping man to engage in sex with her.”

Women do sometimes commit sexual assault against men - that teeny percentage of sex offences that aren’t committed by males are still crimes and those crimes have victims .

The judge pointed out how unusual it is in the following extract:

“Ordering Lord (41) to also serve two years on supervised licence conditions, Judge Patrick Lynch KC said neither he nor counsel could find any similar case anywhere in the UK”

Rarity of an offence doesn’t make it any less traumatic for the individual victim.

I hope he is able to find some peace now that a conviction has been secured.

Oh, i stand corrected so -ooops!

some random reddit thread says “The accused (now convicted) is an androgynous appearing biological female (not trans or male)”.

some people can have ‘vaginas’ constructed- so i thought the article meant that.

I am suspicious of newspaper reporting in cases where i feel like the journalist might not be disclosing the correct sex of a person accused of a crime.

I know some woman can sexually abuse

i suppose i don’t trust newspaper reporting on some topics where there is a ‘gender’ issue - but i was wrong in this case.

It’s totally understandable to be sceptical of newspaper reports in this climate.
How awful that we have gotten to the stage where we can no longer trust publications to be honest about the very basic facts of male/female.

I'm mainly impressed that the first case prosecuted is successful because he was automatically believed, unlike the huge number of women that don't report because you went home with him, what did you think would happen mentality.....hope this improves outcomes for women too since such a hard line was taken.

The photos are a bit ambiguous but I think Tanya is female from the description of the evidence. What is annoying me is the judge's remarks. There is a real MRA flavour to them. He says men are susceptible in exactly the same way as women to the consequences of sexual assaults by someone of the opposite sex. I disagree. They would have some of the same psychological reactions - but not for example the fear of being overpowered. She tricked him by claiming to be a lesbian but he was at least able to push her off when he woke up. And men can't get pregnant.

The victim has my sympathy and I am glad this assault was taken seriously by the police. Many women who have been in this situation don't even bother reporting it to the police because they know what the reaction will be.

Yes.
I don't blame you for being sceptical, @SuperSleepyBaby!

I don't blame you for thinking this crime was misrepresented. Especially given the fact hardly any rapes are even prosecuted.

I don't understand the mechanics of this.

The reporting is confusing. Sexual assault and rape are separate crimes under the law.

I've just checked and NI, like the rest of the UK, defines rape as penetration with a penis.

The Belfast Telegraph indicates the offence was "penetrative intercourse" and that it was her DNA found on the victims penis - suggesting she is actually female.

Therefore the judge's comments are odd because you'd think he'd know the legal difference and also wouldn't be taking in general terms about offences that are easily confused ("see women rape too")

Exactly.

The judge used the word rape, for which a penis is required, so that's more of a puzzler.

I no longer believe any news outlet and have got totally fed up with having to read carefully between the lines to discover what they actually are trying to say.

I definitely understand your confusion, OP.

There is a real MRA flavour to them. He says men are susceptible in exactly the same way as women to the consequences of sexual assaults by someone of the opposite sex. I disagree. They would have some of the same psychological reactions - but not for example the fear of being overpowered

Yes I agree with you and I have some experience of this. My husband was "raped" by a woman (my words not his - basically she fed him ketamine, he used to be into that. She got amorous, he said no to sex but was incapacitated and she took advantage). In my head this seems like rape and it certainly would be if a man gave a woman drugs, and she said no but he went ahead anyway.

But the way my husband told me was: he thought it a bit dodgy but he didn't really mind, it was just one of those things. She was just a long standing friend who fancied him but he didn't fancy her. He found it a bit flattering. His only real concern was that a condom wasn't used. Apparently they stayed friends afterwards too for a while before going their separate ways.

The thing that gets me about this case (apart from the fact that we can't always trust what newspapers write these days) is that the judge feels the need to voice his opinions on this. What reasonable person thinks rape of a man is any more acceptable than rape of a woman (although I take PPs point about the aggravating factors of fear of violence or death which are much greater for a woman than a man). Why does he have to make a point about this? I don't think it's his job to do this or at least should be. Because it's his opinion not a point of law. In this case it's a very reasonable one but it opens the door for him to voice unreasonable views, and also gives the impression that his opinion might be relevant to a legal trial.

I was totally confused by the initial reporting which referred to rape which in NI is penetrative with penis. Not such if it was lazy reporting/interpretation of the Judges comments or whether his comments were poorly framed. I hate the feeling of not being able to believe the news and constantly having to dig to find facts.

Well as they found DND from her vagina on his penis I'd say she was a woman. Just because she's a bitch looking lesbian doesn't make her a man.

The judge’s words are reported slightly differently on other websites- eg “there seems to be no distinction to be drawn between this and the rape of a female, it seems to me” rather than there is “no distinction between male and female rape" in the BBC report.