Poll: Is it Sexual Assault? UPDATE post #157

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

 

It wasn't just about wearing a blindfold though.

 

There were a number of things that seemed to suggest that something odd was going on.  Blindfold, weird clothes, no touching. 

 

As a general rule, if someone you barely know is doing a bunch of things that might suggest something is being hidden, it is probably a good idea to ask yourself "gee, I wonder if something here is being hidden?"

[SKL]

It wasn't just about wearing a blindfold though.

 

There were a number of things that seemed to suggest that something odd was going on.  Blindfold, weird clothes, no touching. 

 

As a general rule, if someone you barely know is doing a bunch of things that might suggest something is being hidden, it is probably a good idea to ask yourself "gee, I wonder if something here is being hidden?"

 

And you and I probably wouldn't have fallen for it.  But not everyone is so analytical about sex in the heat of the moment.  :P  Besides, he did give her a reason for it (scars?) and she apparently found that believable.

[marbel]

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.

 

Yeah that wouldn't occur to me either.  I was thinking more generally. 

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

The article didn't make it clear if the liar tries to present as male generally or not. Based on the photos and the first half of the article, it sounds more like a woman who pretended to be a man just in this relationship, rather than a trans man in all of life.

[Bluegoat]

And you and I probably wouldn't have fallen for it.  But not everyone is so analytical about sex in the heat of the moment.  :p  Besides, he did give her a reason for it (scars?) and she apparently found that believable.

 

It happened over time though, so presumably she wasn't always hormonally overwrought.

 

My best guess is that she was very emotionally needy, and that created a lack of perspective.  It is also possible she was very dim.

 

I do feel though that there is always an element of caveat emptor with casual sexual relationships - they are never risk free.  You don't know the person, there are all kinds of things that might be kept back, and which normally are kept back with people you don't really know.  I think this is what it is worth passing on to young people.

 

I actually don't really think a prosthetic penis is substantially different than an artificially created one, I don't think the comparison to a sex toy is actually a good one.  And there are plenty of people who think there is no obligation for a transsexual person to reveal their situation in a casual sexual encounter, any more than anyone else is obligated to reveal sexual history that is not a health issue.

 

What makes this instance seem obvious to people is, I think, that the guy clearly had an intent to hide what would have been obvious to the eye, so we consider his motives bad. 

 

But would we say the same thing about a situation where it was a fake, but more biologically integrated, penis?  Do we think that artificial limbs should be treated as substantially different than a real one?  If we were in a sexual encounter with Luke Skywalker, would he be obligated to point out he had a bionic hand (or a bionic penis)?  How do we make the distinction between something fake or real?  If this woman could not have been able to see that the penis was fake, because it had been created to look real through surgery, is there a requirement to disclose?  If yes, than is it because we think transsexuals always have an obligation to disclose, or for some other reason?

[SKL]

Does it matter how she felt about it?  She was lied to, and she felt violated.  She didn't consent to what happened.  She shouldn't have a duty to be expansive in her personal concept of consent so it doesn't leave out any of the myriad possibilities.  If you consent to have sex with your husband, does it really matter if his twin brother steps in, or his uncle, or his aunt for that matter?  Would you be totally cool if you accidentally found out your husband was bisexual?

[Joanne]

I am modifying my original response to a more definitive "sexual assault."

[go_go_gadget]

Does it matter how she felt about it?  She was lied to, and she felt violated.  She didn't consent to what happened.  She shouldn't have a duty to be expansive in her personal concept of consent so it doesn't leave out any of the myriad possibilities.  If you consent to have sex with your husband, does it really matter if his twin brother steps in, or his uncle, or his aunt for that matter?  Would you be totally cool if you accidentally found out your husband was bisexual?

 

No one has argued that she has no right to feel violated. People are just saying that it's probably not ''assault' as such. 

 

I do think that the prosthetic-ness of the penis isn't the real issue (we wouldn't have much sympathy for a man who found out his new girlfriend's boobs were fake and got his briefs in a twist about it), but that the person attached to the prosthetic penis had engaged in a pretty significant deception. The woman has every right to feel deceived and violated, but it's probably not assault (which does have a legal definition).

[marbel]

<snip>

 

 

But would we say the same thing about a situation where it was a fake, but more biologically integrated, penis?  Do we think that artificial limbs should be treated as substantially different than a real one?  If we were in a sexual encounter with Luke Skywalker, would he be obligated to point out he had a bionic hand (or a bionic penis)?  How do we make the distinction between something fake or real?  If this woman could not have been able to see that the penis was fake, because it had been created to look real through surgery, is there a requirement to disclose?  If yes, than is it because we think transsexuals always have an obligation to disclose, or for some other reason?

 

I think if a person cares about another person, he or she wants to know the other person well, and be known. So that would mean disclosing relevant information. 

 

When I first met my husband, I didn't feel I needed to tell him I'd been married before.  But before too long we reached the point where I wanted - maybe needed - him to know.  I wanted him to know for a couple of reasons:  so he'd know more about me, and so he could decide if he wanted to continue a relationship with me before we were too deeply involved.

 

So I would say a transsexual person would want to disclose that information if they care about the other person.  It seems to me that is  an important part of being known, and it allows the other person to make a decision about the relationship. 

 

Obviously the relationship we're talking about wasn't a healthy one.  I don't know what the expectation would be for more... typical... casual relationships 

 

[Bluegoat]

Does it matter how she felt about it?  She was lied to, and she felt violated.  She didn't consent to what happened.  She shouldn't have a duty to be expansive in her personal concept of consent so it doesn't leave out any of the myriad possibilities.  If you consent to have sex with your husband, does it really matter if his twin brother steps in, or his uncle, or his aunt for that matter?  Would you be totally cool if you accidentally found out your husband was bisexual?

 

People get lied to and misled all the time, but that doesn't make it assault, or even illegal.  Look at all the products and diet plans and services that are totally bogus in their claims. 

 

People can be totally emotionally distraught over compleetly legal interactions.

 

As far as I know, you cannot claim you were assaulted because it turns out someone you had sex with was actually of the opposite sex, or a transsexual.  They might be s%#&s, but it isn't a sexual assault.

 

Several people seem to be arguing that it is assault specifically because they are considering the prosthetic penis a foreign object.  If that is the argument though, it seems to require pretty careful thinking about how that is framed.  Even the language is suggestive.  "Dildo" or "sex toy" clearly point to an idea of it being an object.  "Prosthetic penis" suggests something more integral, like a prosthetic hand - we tend to treat them as if they were biological, even if we know they aren't.  And that is why we might ask - what about a biologically integrated false penis? 

 

THis is an easy argument for people who feel that all sexual history needs to be revealed in sexual encounters, although the law doesn't say it.  It's a little more complicated for those think people are still entitled to some privacy, and maybe especially so for those who think that sexual categories are largely or completely culturally created.

[Bluegoat]

I think if a person cares about another person, he or she wants to know the other person well, and be known. So that would mean disclosing relevant information. 

 

When I first met my husband, I didn't feel I needed to tell him I'd been married before.  But before too long we reached the point where I wanted - maybe needed - him to know.  I wanted him to know for a couple of reasons:  so he'd know more about me, and so he could decide if he wanted to continue a relationship with me before we were too deeply involved.

 

So I would say a transsexual person would want to disclose that information if they care about the other person.  It seems to me that is  an important part of being known, and it allows the other person to make a decision about the relationship. 

 

Obviously the relationship we're talking about wasn't a healthy one.  I don't know what the expectation would be for more... typical... casual relationships 

 

 

I totally agree about wanting to be straightforward with people you care about.  And I think a significant part of what makes questions like this tricky is that it is much less clear in a superficial encounter.  We all know that some people choose to pursue sexual encounters with people they don't really care about at all, beyond whatever fellow feeling they have for humanity in general.  And there are some few who even seem to have them with people they actually dislike.

 

But - I guess everyone agrees such who don't come forward with things they know wold be sensitive are big fat jerks. But what privacy do they have a right to? What are they obligated to disclose?

[sarasue7272]

I finally read the article. If the victim is being completely truthful, then I seriously hope the other woman was breaking some law. She pretended to be a man to be in a (mostly online) relationship with one person. She claims she expressed her attraction to the victim before 'Kye' came into the picture.

Creepy and weird and definitely assault.

[SKL]

I have an issue with the hidden prosthetic-ness of the penis though.  I mean, this is way too personal, but isn't sex about mutual sensuality?  You're not just thinking about what it does for you, but also what you're intending to do for him.  The boob job comparison, I don't know, but don't you still have the same basic sensuality there?

[Farrar]

i am modifying my original response to a more definitive "sexual assault."

 

I'm curious as to why and appreciate your thoughts. I agreed with your initial statement that it was likely not legal assault but that she was still a victim, just perhaps not in a legal way.

 

This is such a strange case. I don't think that if you agree to put yourself in a compromising position as she did that anything goes by any means... but she seems to have overlooked so many sensible precautions in a situation like this.

[Farrar]

The man in The Crying Game was sexually assaulted too, IMO.

 

But in that case, it's clear that the trans character believes that he knew. He came to the bar, he said things that implied he knew about her previous relationship and past... He was deceiving her... and that's what led to their encounter.

[JumpyTheFrog]

The article mentioned the victim made an unsuccessful attempt to call the police after she took off her blindfold. If the perpetrator tried to forcibly stop her from calling, then that sounds like some form of regular assault/battery, doesn't it? I wish the article explained why the call wasn't completed.

[happypamama]

I think it's still assault, because she didn't consent to what the other person was doing, and the other person didn't have a clear affirmative for the action she was performing. She consented to have s*x with the man's p*nis, and so if a partner had wanted to substitute something else, I think it's assault to do so without express consent. If he'd had a biologically integrated false p*nis, I think that would not have been assault because it would still have been *his* p*nis. That's just my two cents.

[Cindy in FL.]

She did not consent to what actually happened. Assault.

[go_go_gadget]

I have an issue with the hidden prosthetic-ness of the penis though.  I mean, this is way too personal, but isn't sex about mutual sensuality?  You're not just thinking about what it does for you, but also what you're intending to do for him.  The boob job comparison, I don't know, but don't you still have the same basic sensuality there?

 

Not always. In the case of full reconstruction (as after a radical mastectomy), a nipple can be grafted out of other tissue and injected with dye to achieve a ''normal'' look, but stimulating that nipple probably won't have the same physical effect as it would on an natural nipple. ETA: even more relevant: entirely prosthetic nipples

 

Or maybe some people could rewire their brains so it would, like the ones who learn to orgasm by having something other than their genitals stimulated, after trauma to the genitals. Still, it's definitely true that there are women walking around with entirely reconstructed breasts that don't respond the same way a natural breast would. That doesn't mean that the woman attached to the breast would respond differently, since so much of sex is visual and psychological. But in the same vein, a person with a prosthetic penis could also respond sexually to using the prosthetic in sexual acts, for the same visual and psychological reasons.

 

ETA: I wonder if the emotional response is different because we think of breasts as passive body parts and penises as active ones. If a woman with a prosthetic breast blindfolded a man and put her prosthetic in his mouth, it wouldn't functionally be different from this case. Yet perhaps breasts are associated with soft and friendly vibes and penises are associated with dominance, there's a different emotional response to what is rationally no different.

[ktgrok]

The woman has every right to feel deceived and violated, but it's probably not assault (which does have a legal definition).

Wouldn't penetrating someone with an object without their consent fall into the legal definition of sexual assault, if not rape?

[go_go_gadget]

Wouldn't penetrating someone with an object without their consent fall into the legal definition of sexual assault, if not rape?

 

She consented to be penetrated with a penis, and she was. The fact that it wasn't the kind of penis she was expecting is the tricky bit. What if her partner had a prosthetic finger, and penetrated her with that? Is that rape?

[PrincessMommy]

It may not legally be assault.. but what about fraud?   Morally, I think it is assault.

 

But, is the perpetrator a trans?   I don't get that impression.   The photos in the article seem to identify the woman as the perpetrator and the victim is not  identified.   She doesn't even look like a woman who is in transition.  I read it several times, but maybe I'm missing something.  DM isn't know for great editing.    Also, it seems to indicate that there was more than one woman Gayle Newland had a relationship with, but perhaps just this one woman came forward to press sue/press charges.

 

[ktgrok]

She consented to be penetrated with a penis, and she was. The fact that it wasn't the kind of penis she was expecting is the tricky bit. What if her partner had a prosthetic finger, and penetrated her with that? Is that rape?

 

If you have a medical device attached to you, I would buy that argument. But I read it as a regular old dildo. And a dildo is not a penis. 

 

Also, by your argument, if she agreed to be penetrated with a penis and he/she/whatever brought in a different man, say his brother, and had the brother have sex would her, well, she agreed to be penetrated with a penis and she was. 

 

Obviously, there is more to it than that. She agreed to be penetrated by HIS/HER? penis, and that isn't what happened. 

 

If she'd agreed to be penetrated by his finger, and he had another person do the honors instead, also assault. 

[Katy]

Did I miss something in the article?  Nowhere did it say that the perpetrator is transgender.  Only that she was, at the least, bisexual and was catfishing the victim.

 

The victim considered herself to be engaged to a man she loved and agreed to be blindfolded.

 

Yes, it was assault.  It was also fraud.  In this case I think the fraud was worse than the assault.

[Joanne]

I think it's still assault, because she didn't consent to what the other person was doing, and the other person didn't have a clear affirmative for the action she was performing. She consented to have s*x with the man's p*nis, and so if a partner had wanted to substitute something else, I think it's assault to do so without express consent. If he'd had a biologically integrated false p*nis, I think that would not have been assault because it would still have been *his* p*nis. That's just my two cents.

 

(Note, I think it was assault).

 

However, I don't know that we can "say" she consented exclusively to penis and vagina sex.

[go_go_gadget]

If you have a medical device attached to you, I would buy that argument. But I read it as a regular old dildo. And a dildo is not a penis. 

 

Also, by your argument, if she agreed to be penetrated with a penis and he/she/whatever brought in a different man, say his brother, and had the brother have sex would her, well, she agreed to be penetrated with a penis and she was. 

 

Obviously, there is more to it than that. She agreed to be penetrated by HIS/HER? penis, and that isn't what happened. 

 

If she'd agreed to be penetrated by his finger, and he had another person do the honors instead, also assault. 

 

The article uses the words ''prosthetic penis,'' not ''dildo.'' She consented to be penetrated by this person, and she was. You're trying to say that because the person turned out not to be the kind of person she thought they were, that her consent was based on a falsehood and therefore invalid. But if she had had sex with someone she thought was a great person but turned out to be a murderer, she would also not have been raped by them. You'd have to come up with some way of measuring for a court of law how accurate a person's impression of another person is for their consent to be valid, and that's not possible. Similarly, when a man has multiple families and is lying to all of them, he can be prosecuted for bigamy, but not rape.

[kitten18]

I voted that yes, it's assault. But I find the whole thing confusing.

[kitten18]

Am I reading the article correctly that the victim was friends with this person IRL as a woman but when she met Kye she didn't know it was the same person?

 

Ok, maybe not. This paragraph confused me

 

"The two women, both then students at the University of Chester, became friends at around the same time the alleged victim had met Kye, the court heard. "

[PrincessMommy]

Am I reading the article correctly that the victim was friends with this person IRL as a woman but when she met Kye she didn't know it was the same person?

 

Ok, maybe not. This paragraph confused me

 

"The two women, both then students at the University of Chester, became friends at around the same time the alleged victim had met Kye, the court heard. "

 

yes, that is my understanding too.

[luuknam]

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. "

 

I don't agree. A lot of sexual contact happens with implicit rather than explicit consent. If my wife were to blindfold me (with my consent), I wouldn't call it assault if she used a dildo on me while I was blindfolded, even though she has a functioning penis. Consenting to blindfolding tends to be consenting to mild kinkiness, imo. Of course, if the reason given for the blindfold is scars that the other person doesn't want to be seen, that does change the situation a little, but I just can't imagine agreeing to that, especially along with the no-touching.

[aggieamy]

That was a weird story.  I would consider it to be fraud but I don't know about assault.  Maybe?  I don't know.  I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

[Joanne]

I totally agree with violated - on more than one level.

 

Is violated, in terms of law, the same as assaulted?

[SKL]

And I don't care how politically incorrect it is - if I think I'm having sex with a man, I'd better not find out it's a woman.

[Corraleno]

Am I reading the article correctly that the victim was friends with this person IRL as a woman but when she met Kye she didn't know it was the same person?

 

Ok, maybe not. This paragraph confused me

 

"The two women, both then students at the University of Chester, became friends at around the same time the alleged victim had met Kye, the court heard. "

 

That's my understanding, too. The women were supposedly close friends, and Newland told the victim that she was "not entirely heterosexual." Newland then invented this male character, Kye, and basically seduced the victim (mostly online) by pretending to be male. The second time they had sex, the victim took off her blindfold and realized that she'd just had sex with a woman, not a man.

 

There's nothing in the article indicating that Newland is trans; it seems she just purposely disguised herself as a male in order to have sex with a friend she was attracted to, who was not attracted to her (as a woman). 

 

The issue isn't that the victim was tricked into having sex with a fake penis vs a real penis, it's that she was tricked into having sex with a woman instead of a man, which she would never have consented to. 

 

If a man tricked a lesbian into thinking he was a woman and would be using a strap-on, and then it turned out he was a biological male using a real penis, would that not also be considered assault? To me this is the same case, just with genders reversed. Since the victim in this case did not consent to sex with another woman, what happened to her is assault.

[ErinE]

I don't know if this is authoritative, but this link seems to show that it was assault.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

 

I've excerpted some parts below.

 

 

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by: 

• Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse.

 

​The Act sets out the offences requiring the prosecution to prove absence of consent at sections 1-4. They are:

• rape;
• assault by penetration;
• sexual assault; and
• causing a person to engage in sexual activity.

In relation to these offences a person (A) is guilty of an offence if she/he:

• acts intentionally,
• (B) does not consent to the act, and
• (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.

[Laura Corin]

I don't know if this is authoritative, but this link seems to show that it was assault.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

 

I've excerpted some parts below.

 

The CPS is definitely the right site to go to: the Crown Prosecution Service decides whether a case should go to court.

 

L

[Corraleno]

I don't know if this is authoritative, but this link seems to show that it was assault.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

 

I've excerpted some parts below.

 

According to that site, this case clearly qualifies as sexual assault, and the courts have already ruled on a similar case:

 

 

"Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellants deception."

[texasmama]

The woman is the victim of a sexual assault.  As a therapist, I would treat her as a sexual assault victim.  I don't know under what law(s) this can be prosecuted, but that woman was sexually assaulted.

[shinyhappypeople]

If consent is obtained through fraud, it's not consent.  

 

 

This situation reminds me of the rape scene in Revenge of the Nerds.  Only it wasn't called "rape" back then.  It was called a prank and presented as if she deserved it.

 

:mad:

 

 

[ktgrok]

The article uses the words ''prosthetic penis,'' not ''dildo.'' She consented to be penetrated by this person, and she was. You're trying to say that because the person turned out not to be the kind of person she thought they were, that her consent was based on a falsehood and therefore invalid. But if she had had sex with someone she thought was a great person but turned out to be a murderer, she would also not have been raped by them. You'd have to come up with some way of measuring for a court of law how accurate a person's impression of another person is for their consent to be valid, and that's not possible. Similarly, when a man has multiple families and is lying to all of them, he can be prosecuted for bigamy, but not rape.

 

The article used that terminology, but the details lead me to believe it is an innacurate term. This was not a transsexual, who would have a prosthetic penis, it was a woman who was pretending to be a man. Different thing, which leads me to believe this was  a sex toy of some sort. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Did anyone else notice that it took four months of this relationship before the victim discovered that her "boyfriend" was a woman? Four months!

[Bluegoat]

Did anyone else notice that it took four months of this relationship before the victim discovered that her "boyfriend" was a woman? Four months!

 

Yeah, it really was all a little weird. 

 

[Bluegoat]

That's my understanding, too. The women were supposedly close friends, and Newland told the victim that she was "not entirely heterosexual." Newland then invented this male character, Kye, and basically seduced the victim (mostly online) by pretending to be male. The second time they had sex, the victim took off her blindfold and realized that she'd just had sex with a woman, not a man.

 

There's nothing in the article indicating that Newland is trans; it seems she just purposely disguised herself as a male in order to have sex with a friend she was attracted to, who was not attracted to her (as a woman). 

 

The issue isn't that the victim was tricked into having sex with a fake penis vs a real penis, it's that she was tricked into having sex with a woman instead of a man, which she would never have consented to. 

 

If a man tricked a lesbian into thinking he was a woman and would be using a strap-on, and then it turned out he was a biological male using a real penis, would that not also be considered assault? To me this is the same case, just with genders reversed. Since the victim in this case did not consent to sex with another woman, what happened to her is assault.

 

An awful lot though seems to hinge on the sexual identity here.

 

It isn't actually that uncommon for people to misrepresent themselves to a prospective sexual partner, even including by name, but normally we would consider that something other than sexual assault - maybe fraud, maybe bigamy, depending on the circumstances.

 

How much does someone have to know for consent to be considered valid?  And are there things that are always essential to know?  I can see saying gender or sex is an essential, but I also think there are some popular theories about gender and sex that make it seem a lot less important.  If this had been a man who had given a false identity, would we still tend to think of it as assault?  In that case there would not be a question about a fake penis.

[Free]

I'm curious as to why and appreciate your thoughts. I agreed with your initial statement that it was likely not legal assault but that she was still a victim, just perhaps not in a legal way.

 

This is such a strange case. I don't think that if you agree to put yourself in a compromising position as she did that anything goes by any means... but she seems to have overlooked so many sensible precautions in a situation like this.

 

Yes some people overlook sensible precautions and end up more likely to be assaulted. Her gullibility / stupidity does not let the other person off the hook for what she did.

[SKL]

An awful lot though seems to hinge on the sexual identity here.

 

It isn't actually that uncommon for people to misrepresent themselves to a prospective sexual partner, even including by name, but normally we would consider that something other than sexual assault - maybe fraud, maybe bigamy, depending on the circumstances.

 

How much does someone have to know for consent to be considered valid?  And are there things that are always essential to know?  I can see saying gender or sex is an essential, but I also think there are some popular theories about gender and sex that make it seem a lot less important.  If this had been a man who had given a false identity, would we still tend to think of it as assault?  In that case there would not be a question about a fake penis.

 

I think the right to decide whether or not to have sex with a person of gender x is pretty fundamental.  It was obviously very important to the victim here, and the perp obviously knew that.

 

Popular theories don't get to decide personal matters like how an individual defines what is OK sex for her.

 

In fact, I think it would be assault if a woman agreed to vaginal sex with a man but he forced anal sex in the same encounter.  (Or vice versa.)  The courts might not sympathize, but I think it would meet the definition technically.  For good reason.

 

[Chess Dad]

I'm in Kentucky and this situation would not fit the Sexual Abuse 1st or 2nd.

 

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19768

 

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=40852

 

It also doesn't fit the KRS Rape statue.  I does however fit this KRS

 

510.140 Sexual misconduct

 (1) A person is guilty of sexual misconduct when he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with another person without the latter's consent. (2) Sexual misconduct is a Class A misdemeanor. Effective: January 1, 1975 History: 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 94, effective January 1, 1975.

 

I could see an attorney arguing for this charge claiming the victim never gave to consent.

 

This is a Class A Misdemeanor, which if convicted she could serve 6-12 in jail.

 

Now, I've been in LE for over 20 years and I know my way around a court room.  I've also dealt with many lawyers.  It's my opinion that she can file a complaint but she won't win.  

 

It would be interesting to follow this case just to see the outcome,  But, IMO she loses and loses big.  

 

:patriot:

[Joanne]

There is clearly lots weird about this case, but there is also some areas that are unclear.

 

For the predator to have pulled this off requires some significant logistics that seem....unlikely?

 

There is something missing to this story as written on daily mail.

[Kathryn]

The summary in the OP left out information from/misrepresented the article that I'd consider pertinent to the question.

 

The victim had "known" the "man" for two years online/on the phone and considered herself engaged to "him." This wasn't a casual encounter in her mind. The accused was a female friend of the victim who orchestrated this whole charade. She was not transgendered. She does not identify as a "he." There is no labeling her a "him." She's a woman who considered herself not quite heterosexual and knew that her friend was. This was not a case of a transsexual wishing for "privacy" or someone in transition. This was a woman who set up an elaborate ruse and bedded someone whom she knew would not want to be with her.

[marbel]

I've read the article a couple of times now.  It's been updated/more information has been added more than once.  Today was the first day I recall seeing that the couple were engaged. 

 

It just gets sadder and sadder to me.

[Word Nerd]

The Daily Mail is a tabloid known for sensationalism, so I take its news coverage with a grain of salt. This is a gay woman who pretended to be a man to deceive her online girlfriend, not a transexual who identifies as male or even dresses as a male. She had put off meeting IRL to prolong the deception. A Guardian story said the victim didn't even see the accused when they met, as she didn't come out of the bathroom until the woman had a blindfold on. The woman never saw her boyfriend at all, not just during sex. I think it's bizarre that anyone would agree to those conditions, but it doesn't make her not a victim.