woman sent to prison for "sexual assault" for misrepresenting her gender

Well, I would have voted 'not guilty' if evidence had been presented that the female victim was bisexual and had slept with other women before (or after).

I think she would still have been violated, since she was shown a false picture of "the man before his accident". But I wouldn't be prepared to apply the law here, if that was all there was to this situation.

Being tricked into having sex with her same gender is a significant thing.

(Now, I'm not sure what I would have voted if the issue was race rather than gender)

 

It's completely different!

This person didn't lie about some extraneous feature of their lives . they lied about their body and identity. No consent for sex with a woman was asked or received. That makes it NON-consensual sex.

 

So you believe it's okay to rape a bisexual woman but not a gay or straight one?

If the act is rape it would be regardless of the victim's sexual orientation.

Why would that make a difference

 

She did not KNOW she was having sex with someone she hadn't consented to have sex with (ie, a female).

 

I'm glad to see the cases being brought to court. IMO it's definitely rape, and should be treated as such legally.

 

like pretending to be rich or single

 

No, still very different.

Though you are correct that some analogy can be drawn.

 

So a good way to determine whether or not your logic is consistent is to apply it to different situations.

Let's see a man and his wife were the costume party and another man dressed up in the same costume is This woman's husband and tricked her into having sex with him it wouldn't be right because she's heterosexual only women can rate heterosexual women this way because she likes men right?

 

No, those are NOT lies about body/identity (ie, the very essences of the person we consent to have sex with). They have nothing to do with body and physical consents.

 

I think it is rape, but should not be treated exactly like ordinary rape.

So I guess I take a middle of the road position on this.

 

for two years she consented to having sex.... then claims for 2 years she was raped?

 

I think a strong argument could be made that that was rape.

Though there would have to be more details to your hypothetical, since I am sure in ordinary circumstances the man could look at the person's body and tell that it was not his wife.

(Maybe it was pitch black, limited light, the man used fake but realistically feeling breasts, some alcohol involved, etc)

 

But my woman couldn’t. The so called raped woman couldn’t tell the difference between a dildo and a penis. There is an enormous difference, in every sense of the experience, like texture, movement, uh… a few other things perhaps we shouldn’t discuss.

 

exactly

 

Irrelevant. If you're seriously trying to use that as a defence for the perp, then consistency demands you apply the same 'victim blaming' approach to anyone raped by their partner.

 

That's why I argued she should only be hit with one count of rape.

Why do you think 2 years is different than 1 night in this type of situation?
The issue is she did not feel with her hands or see the person who was having sex with her.

If a woman finds out the next day, or after sex, how is that different from finding out after 2 years?

How about if a woman finds video footage that shows that 2 years ago the man (whom she is still with) was engaging in "stealthing" with her?

 

very relevant, as that is the facts in this case

 

False, you don’t get to decide someone’s criteria for having sex with another person. If she tells him she won’t date meat lovers, and he lied, she didn’t give informed consent.

 

So give it a separate category under law. But we should still REGARD it as rape, morally. These creeps need to learn the hard lesson now, while 'transgender culture' is still young.

Fail to declare yourself well before any physical contact, and you should be prosecuted. It's a sinister and narcissistic game, with zero regard for its impact on victims.

 

I think you should, at least with certain things.

There are certain lines that should not be crossed.

What exactly those particular things are, we might disagree with.

I think you meant to say "you don’t get to decide your own criteria for having sex with another person". That would make your statement have more logical sense.
Obviously I don't get to say that someone else cannot have sex with a trans person, if that person consented to that.

 

So you blame the victim when a partner of two (or more) years rapes them.

Nice ... and sadly not surprising.

 

I agree with you, but to be completely fair that woman (victim) was really stupid and sort of had this coming.

 

Like we already told you, she probably did not have much experience with real ones.

She wouldn't have known how it "was supposed to feel".

 

I said it fine. You can’t make rules based on your own opinions on the criteria for sex. Is there a committee that decides which lies are unimportant and which constitute rape?

 

I understand your opinion, but I disagree with you.

If the victim did not consent to something, and that thing is very big and important, society can set laws and intervene.

However, I can envision an extreme Libertarian argument that says we should not have intervened because this woman should have been responsible for verifying those things for herself. But I do not believe you are such a Libertarian in your belief and ideology, so I have my doubts you could even use that argument without being very inconsistent in other political areas)