abba12 Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3226030/Woman-posed-man-befriend-naive-25-year-old-Facebook-used-bandages-bind-chest-sex-toy-dupe-thinking-male.html Came across this news article this evening, and my husband and I have had quite a discussion about it. Curious what the hive thinks. Summary: Woman has sex multiple times with a partner she believes is male, seems to be they were dating but fairly superficially. In these sexual encounters she agrees to wear a blindfold, to not touch his penis directly, and he wears a swimsuit because of surgical scars. During a later encounter she removes her blindfold to find her partner is actually a WOMAN, using a 'prosthetic penis' (do they mean sex toy? or is this an actual thing?), and binding her chest, hence the swimsuit. The woman is now trying to charge the other person with sexual assault, on the grounds that she never consented to sex with a prosthetic penis. I am of two minds about this.... Of course what the person did was wrong, no doubt it was wrong. But, was it criminal? Was it sexual assault? On one hand, yes, she was involved in a sexual encounter that was not what she agreed to, even if she didn't discover that until later. In her mind it was a lesbian encounter, even though it appears the partner identifies as a 'he', and she didn't agree to that. On the other hand, she completely consented to the encounters, and the rules surrounding them. She was upset later because she discovered she had been lied to, not because she didn't consent to the what happened perse. There was no assault because she entirely willingly participated. If we call it assault on the grounds that the other partner was lying then, where do we draw the line? I don't know the laws on this but is it sexual assault to not tell someone you have a (minor) STD? (obviously I know the laws for HIV/AIDS are different). To me that seems like the same situation, perhaps I don't consent to having sex with someone who has herpes even though the encounter was consensual, is that assault, can I charge someone when I test positive? Of course it is WRONG, but is it CRIMINAL? There is a difference. Or, to take it the other direction, what if someone who has had gender reassignment surgery doesn't tell their partner they were previously another gender? Does someone who identifies as a 'he' but still has female parts and uses a dildo without saying anything differ from someone who has had male parts surgically attached? Where is the differentiation? I thought it was just a really intriguing moral conundrum.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Girls' Mom Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Personally, I would feel assaulted. If given all the correct information, she would have said no. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinyhappypeople Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Assault. She never consented to have relations with a female. "Kye" Is a total nutjob. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abba12 Posted September 8, 2015 Author Share Posted September 8, 2015 Assault. She never consented to have relations with a female. "Kye" Is a total nutjob.The attacker seems to identify as male, what if he had had gender reassignment surgery and not told her, would it still be assault? If not, doesnt that negate the entire 'gender is psychological not physiological' argument? Does the status of their physical features determine legality if they consider themselves male either way? And we still have the fact she agreed at the time. For the record im not sure what I think here, just playing devils advocate to your argument :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 This is not ambiguous. She did not consent. The man in The Crying Game was sexually assaulted too, IMO. A prosthetic penis is a real medical device. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Summary: Woman has sex multiple times with a partner she believes is male, seems to be they were dating but fairly superficially. In these sexual encounters she agrees to wear a blindfold, to not touch his penis directly, and he wears a swimsuit because of surgical scars. So, basically, she has sex with a guy who she hasn't even seen naked, with weird requirements (seriously, how many people have sex with a guy who wears a swimsuit, and whose penis they can't touch and they have to wear a blindfold)? And she's fine with it several times until one day she discovers it isn't what she thought it is, but with no negative consequences (unlike the STD example)? No, I would not call that assault. I don't think that it's an example of ethically great behavior, either, fwiw. Anyway, yet another reason casual sex with someone you barely know (dating superficially) is not a great idea. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Oh, what an awful story. I am not sure, but my first thoughts are that I have a hard time considering it assault. She consented to the sexual relationship and to all the rules around it. I'm sure I'd feel assaulted too, but I'm not sure this fits the legal definition. I do feel sorry for the victim. She says she was so happy to have "a proper relationship" and then to find out she had been fooled in such a way... so sad. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Would you consider it an assault if she thought she was having sex with a female/dildo but it was actually a man and his actual penis? Would/should it be a crime for a man to hold himself out as a female in order to become another female's roommate? Whether it's "assault" may depend on state law, but I would most definitely feel violated. I don't see how anyone can view it as "consent" when you thought you were consenting to sex with a man. Then again ... I couldn't imagine how I would react. I would probably not tell anyone because it is just too weird. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Yes, assault. NOT because she was a female not a male, etc etc. But because something was inserted into her vagina without her permission. She agreed to "his" penis in her, NOT a medical object. If I agree to have sex and then someone uses a beer bottle on me instead of their body, I'd call taht assault. Tricking someone into something doesn't remove the need for consent. 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 And no, I don't think the fact that the person "identifies as a man" changes things. To consent, the woman would have had to know she was having sex with someone who "identifies as a man" but doesn't have a penis. I'm not sure where you draw the line legally, but I think morally the person should be honest about being transgender or whatever. And I guess this is what they mean when they say "look before you leap." :P 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 My only thought is that she needs to step away from 50 Shades and join the rest of us in the real world. Christian Grey is fictional! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I suspect that it wouldn't legally be assault in many places. It seems like it is a pretty nasty thing to do to someone. That being said, there is a lot of discussion that goes on around the question of what people who are transexuals are obligated to reveal to partners, and there seems to be a lot of disagreement. So it it is easy for me to imagine that someone could consider not revealing something like that acceptable. There seems to be a strong argument made by some people that the physical body we are born with is irrelevant - if you believe that, it makes it seem more like an attempt to overcome a disability, and a private thing. I think if it were me, I would be put out about it - though I can't imagine having agreed to the bizarre conditions. having accepted them, my assumption would tend to be that something odd was going on. But I would be a lot more put out to discover the person was, say, married and hadn't told me,and I would not consider that assault. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Would you consider it an assault if she thought she was having sex with a female/dildo but it was actually a man and his actual penis? Well, if I thought I was consenting to sex with a dildo and instead turned out to have sex with a real dick, then I'd be upset about the possibility of pregnancy and the probably increased risk of STDs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 So, basically, she has sex with a guy who she hasn't even seen naked, with weird requirements (seriously, how many people have sex with a guy who wears a swimsuit, and whose penis they can't touch and they have to wear a blindfold)? And she's fine with it several times until one day she discovers it isn't what she thought it is, but with no negative consequences (unlike the STD example)? No, I would not call that assault. I don't think that it's an example of ethically great behavior, either, fwiw. Anyway, yet another reason casual sex with someone you barely know (dating superficially) is not a great idea. There is a whole lot of moralizing going on here- which is fine- but fundamentally sexual assault is "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. " If someone goes to great lengths to deceive you, and you agree to it, that doesn't equal consent. That's being victim to a con artist. 22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Yes, I think it is assault, but I also think that she agreed to it. Kind of like how S&M is assault, but both parties agree to it. The problem lies in the fact that she was allowing someone to penetrate her, just trusting that they were using a body part and not a device. She allowed her senses to be blocked. In doing so, is seems like she didn't set boundaries around what was ok with her and what was not ok. If she was told it was a penis and it was not, then I would say she was a victim. If she was not told it was a penis and only assumed it to be so, then I would say she was not a victim. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I am not a legal expert, but I would say that the person was not a *legal* victim of assault. I, would, however, respect that they feel assaulted. That said, there are alarming consent decisions in this story and both adults must have significant "back story" for this to have occurred. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Well, some women don't necessarily look at the penis before having sex. Just sayin'. I still think it's fair to assume it's a penis - or at least a biological male - unless otherwise informed. I mean, how many women even think it might not be a guy they are having sex with? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Like a lot of people do it in the dark. Is that consent to have sex with someone who isn't actually a guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Am I the only person who thinks there's a really big difference between a penis and a dildo? I mean sex is supposed to be different from masturbation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Assault. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Like a lot of people do it in the dark. Is that consent to have sex with someone who isn't actually a guy? I agree, but most people don't have a 'no touching and you must be blindfolded' rule. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Legally? I think it is probably not assault. Morally? Definitely yes. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Consent was obtained by fraud, and she didn't consent to the medical device. It's assault. I feel very sorry for the victim and hope she obtains good counseling. The proper relationship? So sad. :( 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyacinth Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I don't know about the legal standing, but I certainly understand her feeling victimized. I'm also really grateful for my never-make-the-newspaper-nor-chat-forum-headlines sex life. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momto10blessings Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Assault. How could she not tell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I'm all about honesty and consent. That was a violation for sure. I'm a little baffled that the person was able to pull it off and even more baffled that it occurred to him to try. Yes, I think it is assault, but I also think that she agreed to it. Kind of like how S&M is assault, but both parties agree to it. Big difference. In an S&M encounter that goes as planned, both parties define what is ok to happen. It's built on honesty and consent. If something happens outside those parameters, then there might possibly be assault. This woman did NOT agree to what happened. I think it's reasonable and fair to press charges. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyacinth Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Consent was obtained by fraud, and she didn't consent to the medical device. It's assault. I feel very sorry for the victim and hope she obtains good counseling. The proper relationship? So sad. :( This was my original thinking, too. So . . . surely we've all heard about (or know) some guy who lies about his job, his wealth, his integrity or whatever in order to get a woman into bed. Is that also assault in that consent was obtained by fraud? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 There is a whole lot of moralizing going on here- I don't see it as moralizing, as much as common sense. If you agree to all kinds of weird requirements from a person you don't know that well, you are putting yourself in an unwise and vulnerable position, regardless of the morality of it. I would add, an unsafe position as well. ETA, I do understand why she would feel assaulted. I don't figure it as legal assault though. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I don't see it as moralizing, as much as common sense. If you agree to all kinds of weird requirements from a person you don't know that well, you are putting yourself in an unwise and vulnerable position, regardless of the morality of it. I would add, an unsafe position as well. ETA, I do understand why she would feel assaulted. I don't figure it as legal assault though. This is where my brain gets all knotted up. Of course, it is wrong to blame the victim. But, sometimes, victims put themselves in terrible spots (such as with this story). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 This was my original thinking, too. So . . . surely we've all heard about (or know) some guy who lies about his job, his wealth, his integrity or whatever in order to get a woman into bed. Is that also assault in that consent was obtained by fraud? His job and money aren't penetrating her body. Sure, those are creepy, crappy things to do, but not assault. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I don't see it as moralizing, as much as common sense. If you agree to all kinds of weird requirements from a person you don't know that well, you are putting yourself in an unwise and vulnerable position, regardless of the morality of it. I would add, an unsafe position as well. ETA, I do understand why she would feel assaulted. I don't figure it as legal assault though. That's what I was thinking. Yep, common sense. And I expect to get dinged for blaming the victim. But, really, wouldn't we all advise our daughters to be wary of relationships like this*? Wouldn't those requirements raise some red flags? (*Among other things we'd advise our sons and daughters about relationships.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 This was my original thinking, too. So . . . surely we've all heard about (or know) some guy who lies about his job, his wealth, his integrity or whatever in order to get a woman into bed. Is that also assault in that consent was obtained by fraud? The thing the defrauder did was not what she consented to. That's the difference. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 There is a whole lot of moralizing going on here- which is fine- but fundamentally sexual assault is "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. " If someone goes to great lengths to deceive you, and you agree to it, that doesn't equal consent. That's being victim to a con artist. As you probably know, I am alert to and sensitive regarding slut shaming. However, the conditions of intimacy outlined are best agreed to with INFORMED consent which includes adequate time for intimacy and trust to develop. I worry for this victim that she ignored red flags that the trans male was a predator. Clearly the problem here is not trans but being a predator. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 The thing the defrauder did was not what she consented to. That's the difference. Is giving consent for blindfolding implied consent for what happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Being naive or even dumb doesn't mean you have no legal recourse if you get duped. It's not a crime to be foolish . It is a crime to prey on fools if it results in harm. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 It's simple. Someone inserted an object in her vagina for which she did not give consent. She didn't want that to happen. It is assault. Yes, it seems she put herself at risk of being assaulted through her questionable actions, but that doesn't mean it wasn't assault. Just that she made some poor choices. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I think the ambiguity is, on her end - when you say yes to those weird conditions, what are the assumptions behind that? Most people would tend to think - there is something more going on here than what I understand. So - are they agreeing to something unspecified then? In a more long-term scenario, people often agree to intimacies largely on the basis of trust. In this case the woman seems to have thought that she was in a "real" relationship. It's really hard to figure out what she thought was going on. I think though it is worthwhile to consider how the other person thought of the situation. If he understood lack of a penis as a disability, is that different than someone who has, say, a reconstructed penis that includes hardware? In his mind it might not be different. Should we think of it more like a dildo, or is it like an artificial leg? However - it seems clear that he understood that there was some necessity to conceal the reality of the situation. Which makes it dishonest in any case. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 That's what I was thinking. Yep, common sense. And I expect to get dinged for blaming the victim. But, really, wouldn't we all advise our daughters to be wary of relationships like this*? Wouldn't those requirements raise some red flags? (*Among other things we'd advise our sons and daughters about relationships.) Well, none of that is my cup of tea, but who am I to tell my daughters how (in detail) their consensual sex life should be? I wouldn't advise my kids not to ever do it in the dark, or to always get a good look at the goods first. It shouldn't be up to me to make sure nobody ever pulls a switch on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Is giving consent for blindfolding implied consent for what happened? No. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 On the other hand, this might be a good example to use to discuss with young women (and men) what "consent" is and isn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Is giving consent for blindfolding implied consent for what happened? No of course not. Consenting to be blindfolded during sex is not implicit permission for the partner to do just anything he wants with her body. As another poster mentioned, It is not for example permission to have a beer bottle thrust inside her. It is also not permission for her partner to let a third person have sex with her. Even among long time partners where there is no deception involved, I would still find it bordering assault if one of the partners used a sex-toy or an object on the other without permission. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 This was my original thinking, too. So . . . surely we've all heard about (or know) some guy who lies about his job, his wealth, his integrity or whatever in order to get a woman into bed. Is that also assault in that consent was obtained by fraud? I don't think those things would be considered material to the decision. The actual sex of the person and penetration with a foreign object instead of a penis I would consider highly relevant and significant to consent. Wealth or job status = lipstick on a pig This isn't even a pig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 This was my original thinking, too. So . . . surely we've all heard about (or know) some guy who lies about his job, his wealth, his integrity or whatever in order to get a woman into bed. Is that also assault in that consent was obtained by fraud? Did he sneak his job into her vagina? :huh: 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinE Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Just because there's a blindfold, doesn't mean the partner gets to do what he or she wants. The woman thought she was with a biological male, and given the other person's attempts to conceal his biological reality, he knew this. I would consider it assault. As mentioned up-thread, if a biological male tried to deceive a lesbian, it absolutely would be considered assault. It's no different just because the sexes are reversed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 If she was told it was a penis and it was not, then I would say she was a victim. If she was not told it was a penis and only assumed it to be so, then I would say she was not a victim. I find this to be a weird requirement that one must ascertain the modus operandi of the penetration before one engages in the sex act. I mean, I would always tend towards assuming that sex involves body parts unless explicitly specified. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I think lieing about not being married is assult, I'm not kidding. I have single friends who meet people on Match who say stuff like, "I'm in Witness Protection" and of course they are married. I think those lies are fraud and should be illegal, I'm not kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go_go_gadget Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 On the other hand, this might be a good example to use to discuss with young women (and men) what "consent" is and isn't. This is most definitely the take-away from this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Well, none of that is my cup of tea, but who am I to tell my daughters how (in detail) their consensual sex life should be? I wouldn't advise my kids not to ever do it in the dark, or to always get a good look at the goods first. It shouldn't be up to me to make sure nobody ever pulls a switch on them. Your (or my) cup of tea or not, I think it's reasonable to expect people to begin a sexual relationship with their eyes open, so to speak. Blindfolds and such have a place in some couples' lives, no doubt. An insistence on blindfolds and secrecy at the beginning of a relationship would raise a red flag for me. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyacinth Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Did he sneak his job into her vagina? Obviously it's not the same level of victimization. I'm just musing on the implication of whether consent received through deception is consent at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Your (or my) cup of tea or not, I think it's reasonable to expect people to begin a sexual relationship with their eyes open, so to speak. Blindfolds and such have a place in some couples' lives, no doubt. An insistence on blindfolds and secrecy at the beginning of a relationship would raise a red flag for me. I must just be really naive, because even if I didn't like blindfolds, it wouldn't occur to me that maybe the guy has a fake penis that he's hiding. Unless there were other signs that he might be a woman. Of course I don't think it's ideal for people to enter into sexual relations before knowing the other person pretty well. But theoretically, this could have happened after lots of clothed interaction. I mean, there have been married women who never guessed their husbands were gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.