luuknam Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 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. With the additional info on what happened (rather than the short summary by the OP) I agree that the woman was a victim, but I also think that she should count herself lucky nothing worse happened to her. Based on this, I'm also guessing she never met her "fiancé" in a safe public location first. ETA: I'm not sure *what* she was a victim of. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 With the additional info on what happened (rather than the short summary by the OP) I agree that the woman was a victim, but I also think that she should count herself lucky nothing worse happened to her. Based on this, I'm also guessing she never met her "fiancé" in a safe public location first. ETA: I'm not sure *what* she was a victim of. She didn't meet in public. But, it says she did google him and "he" had other social media accounts, lots of pictures with friends and family, etc., AND they had a friend in common--that friend just happened to be the accused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 She didn't meet in public. But, it says she did google him and "he" had other social media accounts, lots of pictures with friends and family, etc., AND they had a friend in common--that friend just happened to be the accused. Googling someone and having a friend in common are not substitutes for normal safety procedures. It's not rocket science to meet someone in a safe public location before meeting them in private. I sure as hell hope I'll be able to teach my kids that amount of common sense (says the person who married a guy she met online... and did meet in a public place before even giving out my address, even though we knew just about everything about each other and I'd talked to his mom on the phone briefly before). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Googling someone and having a friend in common are not substitutes for normal safety procedures. It's not rocket science to meet someone in a safe public location before meeting them in private. I sure as hell hope I'll be able to teach my kids that amount of common sense (says the person who married a guy she met online... and did meet in a public place before even giving out my address, even though we knew just about everything about each other and I'd talked to his mom on the phone briefly before). I agree. I'm just restating what was said in the article about why she acted as she did. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicia64 Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 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. I'm tired of our victim society. There are real victims, of course, but this "victim" put herself into an unusual situation. Plus, I've met many women who dress and identify as men. It's obvious (unless they've had a load of testosterone therapy or something like that). If they're women dressing and attempting to look like a man, fine, but you can still see that they're women. (And I never once saw one naked or in a bathing suit.) What bothers me is that the "R" word has gone out of style in our culture: responsibility. Alley 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Plus, I've met many women who dress and identify as men. It's obvious (unless they've had a load of testosterone therapy or something like that). If they're women dressing and attempting to look like a man, fine, but you can still see that they're women. (And I never once saw one naked or in a bathing suit.) Except you wouldn't know how many you've met who weren't obvious, because you wouldn't know. In my experience, it's not as straightforward as you're saying it is. It's easier if you're familiar with transpeople, but even then it can be tricky at times. A lot of perception is brain-based anyway... people see what they expect to see. There are many examples of that, e.g. http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html Which says it's an example of selective attention, but it's also largely due to not seeing what you don't expect to see... can't think of a better example right now, but I'm sure they exist. ETA: seeing the person sure increases the odds of noticing the person is female though, over never seeing the person. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm tired of our victim society. There are real victims, of course, but this "victim" put herself into an unusual situation. I don't disagree that she put herself in an unusual situation—her behavior was foolish and even dangerous. But I don't believe that people who've been catfished can't be victims just because they made stupid decisions and fell for the deception. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Is this catfishing? Is that a crime? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 With the additional info on what happened (rather than the short summary by the OP) I agree that the woman was a victim, but I also think that she should count herself lucky nothing worse happened to her. Based on this, I'm also guessing she never met her "fiancé" in a safe public location first. ETA: I'm not sure *what* she was a victim of. Yes, I think I would agree with this. I am leaning to some version of fraud rather than assault - I think its actually important to maintain the definition of assault as something more directly non-consensual. I just can't get my mind around how this scam could have worked though - if she had seen this person at all, presumably she would have recognized her, wouldn't she? - she supposedly knew her well. So - she was having sex, blindfolded, without ever actually setting eyes on her supposed fiance? And if there was google information about this alter-ego, the "friend" must have gone through a ton of trouble to set it up. It's like bizarro-world. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Except you wouldn't know how many you've met who weren't obvious, because you wouldn't know. In my experience, it's not as straightforward as you're saying it is. It's easier if you're familiar with transpeople, but even then it can be tricky at times. A lot of perception is brain-based anyway... people see what they expect to see. There are many examples of that, e.g. http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html Which says it's an example of selective attention, but it's also largely due to not seeing what you don't expect to see... can't think of a better example right now, but I'm sure they exist. ETA: seeing the person sure increases the odds of noticing the person is female though, over never seeing the person. To reiterate, the accused is not trans. She is a bisexual woman who pretended to be a man in order to get a straight woman into bed. Imagine if the shoes were reversed, if a bi man tricked a straight man into being penetrated by him by pretending to be a straight woman. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 To reiterate, the accused is not trans. She is a bisexual woman who pretended to be a man in order to get a straight woman into bed. I didn't mean to imply the person was trans. I already understood this person wasn't several posts ago. I was just countering Alicia's comment that it's easy to spot whether someone is a woman in men's clothes unless someone has had a massive dose of steroids. It isn't always obvious, and Alicia saying that she's seen plenty in which it was obvious doesn't mean Alicia hasn't seen ones where it wasn't obvious, since, well, she wouldn't have noticed. Of course, blindfolded, you wouldn't be able to see anything, no matter how obvious it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Ok, reading more, this is really messed up. She was FB friends with "Kye" (the boyfriend) and then met Gayle who said she knew Kye and that he was a great guy. Basically, Gayle set up this whole thing from the beginning?? They had sex several times over the course of months, I think. During one encounter, she pulled off the blindfold and found Gayle. Did Gayle think that she could convince a straight woman to love her when the truth came out? Did she just plan on having her wear a blindfold forever? What a sad mess. I change my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 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.... Yes, she did not consent to have sex with a woman or anyone other than the person to whom she extended consent.. Though why she is having sex with people she doesn't know well and agreeing to be that vulnerable is beyond me. I was flipping through one night and landed on that Catfishing show. Turns out - and you know where this is going - some young woman thought she was having an online relationship with a male rapper, but it turned out to be some masculine female. When questioned at the end, after the young lady didn't want anything to do with her, she bragged about wearing prostheses and fooling many women that she was a man all the way up to ...the moment. What a lowlife. Ugh. Somehow this person couldn't find a relationship! Imagine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I didn't mean to imply the person was trans. I already understood this person wasn't several posts ago. I was just countering Alicia's comment that it's easy to spot whether someone is a woman in men's clothes unless someone has had a massive dose of steroids. It isn't always obvious, and Alicia saying that she's seen plenty in which it was obvious doesn't mean Alicia hasn't seen ones where it wasn't obvious, since, well, she wouldn't have noticed. Of course, blindfolded, you wouldn't be able to see anything, no matter how obvious it is. How can it not be obvious that a "man" is a woman if she still has breasts? Absent surgery, I have no idea how you are going to hide that one, even if you wear a fake penis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 How can it not be obvious that a "man" is a woman if she still has breasts? Absent surgery, I have no idea how you are going to hide that one, even if you wear a fake penis. Binding. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 This whole thing is so confusing to me. Morally, it was obviously wrong. There's no question there. But was it assault? If my husband blindfolded me and used a dildo instead of himself and I didn't find out until after, would that be assault? I don't feel like it would, unless I explicitly said beforehand not to use anything but a penis. And if it's the misrepresentation of identity that pushes this into assault, how far does a person have to go before it reaches the point of being assault? If someone has sex with a hermaphrodite (I'm blanking on whether or not that's the correct term now- if not, someone please correct me) who is externally male but internally female, for example, is that assault if the partner didn't know? And I'm bisexual. If I divorced my husband and started a relationship with a woman, if I didn't tell her I'm bi and was previously with a man, is that fraud, even if she never asks? How much does a person have to reveal to be morally okay if the other person never requests the information? If a racist white woman has sex with a biracial man who looks white, is he wrong for not coming out and telling her he's half AA? Should he have to disclose that even if she asks? I don't know. I really don't have answers to these questions. For some of them, I don't think there really are answers. Obviously the person in the article did something morally wrong, but was it assault? I don't know. I think it could go either way. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm surprised that you're not giving the accuser a hard time for not loving the person for who they are. How phobic it is to insist on a specific body type and gender! What difference does it make, really? Shouldn't they be more broadminded than this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm surprised that you're not giving the accuser a hard time for not loving the person for who they are. How phobic it is to insist on a specific body type and gender! What difference does it make, really? Shouldn't they be more broadminded than this? Nice trolling. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 This whole thing is so confusing to me. Morally, it was obviously wrong. There's no question there. But was it assault? If my husband blindfolded me and used a dildo instead of himself and I didn't find out until after, would that be assault? I don't feel like it would, unless I explicitly said beforehand not to use anything but a penis. And if it's the misrepresentation of identity that pushes this into assault, how far does a person have to go before it reaches the point of being assault? If someone has sex with a hermaphrodite (I'm blanking on whether or not that's the correct term now- if not, someone please correct me) who is externally male but internally female, for example, is that assault if the partner didn't know? And I'm bisexual. If I divorced my husband and started a relationship with a woman, if I didn't tell her I'm bi and was previously with a man, is that fraud, even if she never asks? How much does a person have to reveal to be morally okay if the other person never requests the information? If a racist white woman has sex with a biracial man who looks white, is he wrong for not coming out and telling her he's half AA? Should he have to disclose that even if she asks? I don't know. I really don't have answers to these questions. For some of them, I don't think there really are answers. Obviously the person in the article did something morally wrong, but was it assault? I don't know. I think it could go either way. If this situation happened to me, I would feel assaulted. IMO, the situations you describe are not comparable unless you divorce your dh, take up a relationship with a woman while representing yourself as a man, and then trick her into having sex with a dildo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 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. I voted probably not legal assault based on the laws in my area. Based on this link it may actually be a crime there. Either way it is still a violation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Nice trolling. Au contraire. I know quite a few people who would make exactly that argument, and they would be serious. I'm truly surprised that it hasn't been made here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm surprised that you're not giving the accuser a hard time for not loving the person for who they are. How phobic it is to insist on a specific body type and gender! What difference does it make, really? Shouldn't they be more broadminded than this? I was thinking something along similar lines. Not this exactly. IIRC, Accuser was quoted as having told Gayle "I don't go for girls." (I think that is the exact quote from an article.) So, what if Gayle set herself up as Kye to make Accuser fall in love... and planned to later reveal herself as Gayle... thus showing Accuser that she could indeed "go for girls" after all. Could this make sense to people who take the position that gender is a social construct? Maybe I'm getting too fascinated by this story. It's like the car wreck that you don't want to look at but can't stop looking at. ETA: I'm not trying to be trollish, and I don't think Carol was either. If I'm being dense about it, feel free to point that out, but please don't be scornful because I don't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Binding. I've seen that on a few kids (because it seems every high school has a few these days). Nope. Not sufficient, unless maybe the girl is very tiny to begin with. It is still obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Some women are fairly flat-chested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm tired of our victim society. There are real victims, of course, but this "victim" put herself into an unusual situation. Plus, I've met many women who dress and identify as men. It's obvious (unless they've had a load of testosterone therapy or something like that). If they're women dressing and attempting to look like a man, fine, but you can still see that they're women. (And I never once saw one naked or in a bathing suit.) What bothers me is that the "R" word has gone out of style in our culture: responsibility. Alley Wait. I'm confused. If a person feels they've been unjustly violated, they shouldn't pursue recourse, legal if necessary? They should just suck it up because it could be worse, or others have it worse? And why wouldn't one appeal to the "R" word in the direction of one secretly sticking foreign objects in a woman's vagina? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I was thinking something along similar lines. Not this exactly. IIRC, Accuser was quoted as having told Gayle "I don't go for girls." (I think that is the exact quote from an article.) So, what if Gayle set herself up as Kye to make Accuser fall in love... and planned to later reveal herself as Gayle... thus showing Accuser that she could indeed "go for girls" after all. Could this make sense to people who take the position that gender is a social construct? Maybe I'm getting too fascinated by this story. It's like the car wreck that you don't want to look at but can't stop looking at. ETA: I'm not trying to be trollish, and I don't think Carol was either. If I'm being dense about it, feel free to point that out, but please don't be scornful because I don't understand. I don't care about her gender identity or her motives here. It's really irrelevant. You don't insert foreign objects into someone else's private parts without consent using deception. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Au contraire. I know quite a few people who would make exactly that argument, and they would be serious. I'm truly surprised that it hasn't been made here. Are you making that argument, or just sharing with us that it exists... somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I was thinking something along similar lines. Not this exactly. IIRC, Accuser was quoted as having told Gayle "I don't go for girls." (I think that is the exact quote from an article.) So, what if Gayle set herself up as Kye to make Accuser fall in love... and planned to later reveal herself as Gayle... thus showing Accuser that she could indeed "go for girls" after all. Could this make sense to people who take the position that gender is a social construct? Maybe I'm getting too fascinated by this story. It's like the car wreck that you don't want to look at but can't stop looking at. ETA: I'm not trying to be trollish, and I don't think Carol was either. If I'm being dense about it, feel free to point that out, but please don't be scornful because I don't understand. Are you suggesting the responsibility ought to be on the victim to look past the behavior and genuinely feel affection for the person who deceived her and then stuck a foreign object into her vagina without her consent or even knowledge? That doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting something else? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Are you suggesting the responsibility ought to be on the victim to look past the behavior and genuinely feel affection for the person who deceived her and then stuck a foreign object into her vagina without her consent or even knowledge? That doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting something else? No, I'm not suggesting anything wrt to the victim. I was just thinking about what the accused assailant might have been thinking as she devised this elaborate ruse. Probably an unnecessary derail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 No, I'm not suggesting anything wrt to the victim. I was just thinking about what the accused assailant might have been thinking as she devised this elaborate ruse. Probably an unnecessary derail. Gotcha. That makes a world of difference, lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Yes, she did not consent to have sex with a woman or anyone other than the person to whom she extended consent.. Though why she is having sex with people she doesn't know well and agreeing to be that vulnerable is beyond me. I was flipping through one night and landed on that Catfishing show. Turns out - and you know where this is going - some young woman thought she was having an online relationship with a male rapper, but it turned out to be some masculine female. When questioned at the end, after the young lady didn't want anything to do with her, she bragged about wearing prostheses and fooling many women that she was a man all the way up to ...the moment. What a lowlife. Ugh. Somehow this person couldn't find a relationship! Imagine. There was a Dr Phil episode last year about this. A BUNCH of girls (maybe 15?) at BYU were catfished in a similar situation by a lesbian. It didn't get to a blindfolded sex stage there, but I think this sort of thing happens a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 If this situation happened to me, I would feel assaulted. IMO, the situations you describe are not comparable unless you divorce your dh, take up a relationship with a woman while representing yourself as a man, and then trick her into having sex with a dildo. No, they're not as bad as what this person did. I'm just trying to figure out where the line is. How much do we have to tell another person we're having a sexual relationship with? Which information falls into the "none of your business" category, and which into the "I have a right to know" category? If this person was actually a man who used a toy on his girlfriend while she was blindfolded and unaware, would we even be having this discussion? Is it the fact that this person misrepresented her sex that makes us so upset? I have exactly zero answers for any of this, btw. I don't even know if there are any. I'm just thinking out loud about it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 No, they're not as bad as what this person did. I'm just trying to figure out where the line is. How much do we have to tell another person we're having a sexual relationship with? Which information falls into the "none of your business" category, and which into the "I have a right to know" category? If this person was actually a man who used a toy on his girlfriend while she was blindfolded and unaware, would we even be having this discussion? Is it the fact that this person misrepresented her sex that makes us so upset? I have exactly zero answers for any of this, btw. I don't even know if there are any. I'm just thinking out loud about it. In general~ I think nothing about the PAST is necessary. Anything in the PRESENT, and affects the situation at hand, is necessary. So, "I used to be a woman" may or may not come into play if you're justgoing to have sex a few times. But "I have herpes" definitely comes into play, if you're only going to have sex once. "I am currently deceiving you about my identity in order to have sex with you" strikes me as extremely relevant in the present moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Consent was obtained through misrepresentation which is a form of fraud. So there was no consent. That means it was sexual assault. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Consent was obtained through misrepresentation which is a form of fraud. So there was no consent. That means it was sexual assault. I guess I'm trying to work out in my own mind how much misrepresentation there has to be in order for it to cross the line into fraud. (Not that I'm currently trying to trick anyone into sleeping with me, lol.) Lying to someone about your sex? Obviously fraud. Telling your partner you're a natural blonde when in reality you dye your hair every month? Obviously not fraud. The line would have to lie somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, but where is it? I think we'd all agree a person needs to disclose any STDs or things like that, but otherwise, it's a tricky subject. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I read another article that said that "he" told her shortly after they met online that he was in a car accident. Then while he said he was in the hospital for that, he told her that they discovered that he had a brain tumor. He said he was in a private hospital this whole time and he checked himself out for the afternoon to meet in a hotel with her. The brain tumor and accident were the excuse for the hat and bathing suit and asking her to cover her eyes, because he was embarrassed about all of his scarring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 IMO "let's have sex" and "my sexuality is none of your business" don't ever go together. But maybe I keep the bar too high. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 No, they're not as bad as what this person did. I'm just trying to figure out where the line is. How much do we have to tell another person we're having a sexual relationship with? Which information falls into the "none of your business" category, and which into the "I have a right to know" category? If this person was actually a man who used a toy on his girlfriend while she was blindfolded and unaware, would we even be having this discussion? Is it the fact that this person misrepresented her sex that makes us so upset? I have exactly zero answers for any of this, btw. I don't even know if there are any. I'm just thinking out loud about it. Well, that is a line that everyone will define differently, I think. And that is okay because we all get to make our own informed or ignorant choices in this area, KWIM? Misrepresenting her gender and then using an object to simulate sex is the issue for me, particularly the using an object part. I think the questions you are asking are interesting and would make a decent spin-off thread. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm surprised that you're not giving the accuser a hard time for not loving the person for who they are. How phobic it is to insist on a specific body type and gender! What difference does it make, really? Shouldn't they be more broadminded than this? Well, we *could* go down that road, but I think the outcome of that would be pretty predictable to everybody, so why bother? Also, even if we went down that road, that wouldn't mean that people have to be so open-minded as to love everybody. If I turned a guy down because he's e.g. poor but we remain friends, and he invents an online persona that is rich, and as such seduces me, and I eventually meet up with this person while blindfolded and have sex, then I'd still feel victimized (and quite stupid too). I'm not a fan of deception. We even have a sentence in our marriage vows that says "I promise to be open and honest with you and respect you always.". But, deception is more akin to fraud than to assault (unless the deception increases the physical risk, such as deception about STDs), and the whole situation is iffy and weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 I think the questions you are asking are interesting and would make a decent spin-off thread. After the hellish day I've had I don't know if I have the energy to manage something like that, but I will happily read it tomorrow if you want to start one. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Misrepresenting her gender and then using an object to simulate sex is the issue for me, particularly the using an object part. I'm not sure what the big deal about the object is, given that it is an object that's supposed to be used for sex (as opposed to someone's beer bottle example, which is quite different, and I've read stories about those getting stuck due to air pressure issues or w/e nonsense). I just wouldn't have thought that explicit separate consent would be needed for things other than the guy's penis... I'd assume that fingers, tongues, and normal dildos would be fair game without asking for further consent (as opposed to 'weird' things like beer bottles, carrots, entire fists, oversize dildos, etc). That said, I don't have much experience, what with my total number of sex partners ever being, er, one. However, I could also easily see that as a generational or cultural difference. ETA: when I said I'm not sure what the big deal about the object is, I meant that I'm curious to know what the big deal is. What *is* the big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 The more I think about this, the weirder it is. You know how in movies people disguise themselves and then somehow fool everyone around them and you think, ha, good plot device but that would never fly in real life... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 After the hellish day I've had I don't know if I have the energy to manage something like that, but I will happily read it tomorrow if you want to start one. :001_smile:Lol I've had a primal scream day myself so we will sit on our laurels here. ;) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I'm not sure what the big deal about the object is, given that it is an object that's supposed to be used for sex (as opposed to someone's beer bottle example, which is quite different, and I've read stories about those getting stuck due to air pressure issues or w/e nonsense). I just wouldn't have thought that explicit separate consent would be needed for things other than the guy's penis... I'd assume that fingers, tongues, and normal dildos would be fair game without asking for further consent (as opposed to 'weird' things like beer bottles, carrots, entire fists, oversize dildos, etc). That said, I don't have much experience, what with my total number of sex partners ever being, er, one. However, I could also easily see that as a generational or cultural difference. ETA: when I said I'm not sure what the big deal about the object is, I meant that I'm curious to know what the big deal is. What *is* the big deal? It's a big deal to me and to the victim. Maybe not to you. To each his own. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamaraby Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I'm surprised that you're not giving the accuser a hard time for not loving the person for who they are. How phobic it is to insist on a specific body type and gender! What difference does it make, really? Shouldn't they be more broadminded than this? I can't even figure out how this is even a thing anyone is required to do. What difference does it make? Consent. That's the issue at hand. I can acknowledge the value and dignity in other human beings without that meaning that I have to find all men personally attractive (and consent to having a intimate relationship with all these men) just because I find one man attractive and am in an intimate relationship with him. Nor does my support for the rights of others to engage in consensual intimate relationships of their own choosing require that I engage in those same relationships myself. I can support others without being required to be a) personally attracted to everyone and b) give up my own right to consent. Consent is the main issue here, the rest, imo, is less important. I think intimate relationships require explicit consent which means that some people could explicitly consent to more implicit consent in certain situations. From what I understand of this particular case, I would say that it was non-consensual and that to me says assault. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dulce Domem Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 So I am incredibly naive in this area, but - a prosthetic pen*s? Would that ever fool someone? Why would someone wear one? I'm guessing someone transgendered may wear one, but is it effective in any way? And are there really people who would want to have relations with a prosthetic? I find the idea so bizarre. I am so curious, but SO afraid to google! :huh: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I think a good case can be made both ways. My defense attorney brain says, consent to sex is consent to sex. The penis was not a random object bit a prosthetic designed for that purpose. Prosecutor brain says: analogies the consent here to theft. A theft where you obtain title to property by tricking the other person into signing it over to you on false pretenses is still theft, even though the property wasn't forcibly taken. The same logic applies to sexual consent here. It may not fit the statutory definition of rape in the particular jurisdiction, but it should fit some form of prosecutable sexual assault. Taking off the lawyer hat(s), as a trans man I think it's important both to distinguish this situation from a transgender person navigating the perils of sexual relationships, where the trans person's fears may factor in and the issue would be disagreement about the legitimacy of the person's gender. If that was the case, it would not be fair to put the burden on the criminal defendant to prove that his gender was legitimate, but rather on the prosecution to show that it was unreasonable to act on the assumption that it was. If the prosthetic had been worn by a cisgendered man who had been injured and scarred, including loss of his external genitals, but he wore a prosthetic because he couldn't afford reconstructive surgery, would it be fair to claim deception? The same "deception" argument has been used as part of a "trans panic" defense for men who murder trans women upon discovery of their birth-assigned gender. It's not justification for murder. It also doean't strike me as justification for crying "rape" when it is only information obtained after the fact, not refusal or passive nonconsent at the time of intercourse, which the person found traumatizing. However, this does not appear to be a "trans panic"/transphobia situation, but a straight up (twisted and messed up) deception. Different ball of wax. As a trans person with common sense, I would counsel other trans people that if you're involved in anything intimate and you're pre-op/non-op, you need to disclose in a safe setting, to ensure no one gets hurt on either side. Post-op, disclosure for casual sex isn't quite as crucial, but in a relationship? Yeah. I hope and pray that however this comes out, it's not turned around and used against the transgender community. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Some women are fairly flat-chested. man-boobs. I read another article that said that "he" told her shortly after they met online that he was in a car accident. Then while he said he was in the hospital for that, he told her that they discovered that he had a brain tumor. He said he was in a private hospital this whole time and he checked himself out for the afternoon to meet in a hotel with her. The brain tumor and accident were the excuse for the hat and bathing suit and asking her to cover her eyes, because he was embarrassed about all of his scarring. it's sad to think some people are that gullible. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I think the main issue was that this wasn't a man and she consented to sex with a man. A man with a prosthetic penis is still a man. I still think the guy should tell you if he's using a prosthesis to do the deed (and get your consent), but at least it's a man you're dealing with. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 I guess the moral of the story is: look the person in the face before you turn off the lights or put on a blindfold. 2 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.