"Woman finds out her boyfriend of two years is a woman using a strap-on"...

Reply 40

The Socktor

18

Original post by Mochassassin

Yep, they'd meet up in hotels for sex but under the condition that the woman was blindfolded. :lol:

Do women actually get pleasure from giving strap-on sex? :colondollar:

Reply 41

username996405

OP

3

Original post by The Socktor

Do women actually get pleasure from giving strap-on sex? :colondollar:

I'm not the best person to ask, sorry. :mmm:

Reply 42

thecatwithnohat

20

what a deception. :rofl:

Reply 43

username1723547

21

Original post by sqwertylol

it raises an interesting point.

the strap on girl is probably wants to become a transexual.

You can't 'become' transgender.

It was just Banter

1) How could she not tell the difference between a strap-on and real penis?
2) Surely, someone wanting to 'watch' television whilst blindfolded is a red flag.
3) This woman is dumber than those women that go abroad, find a young old man, then get mugged off for a VISA after believing it was love.

Original post by driftawaay

If you are stupid enough to be 'scammed' (I don't even know wat word to use) like that, you deserve it. I don't even know why a court would even consider taking this on.

Because lawyers want a pay day, pure and simple.

Reply 46

dhr90

18

This is hilarious. How could she not have spotted the flags?! Bet she doesn't trust anyone for a long time now!

Reply 47

garfeeled

16

Original post by Kadak

Strap ons ?Pff ,cant beat the original .

I was going to say. Her friend must have spent a hell of a lot on premium quiality strap ons. Though given the story I wouldn't be surprised if she cut it off some ex boyfriend instead.

Reply 48

battycatlady

13

It's a massive abuse of trust. But really, wearing a blindfold for 2 YEARS?

I have sympathy for the girl not feeling comfortable with her sexuality, but that does not excuse the lying and complete betrayal.

Reply 49

sqwertylol

9

Original post by Mactotaur

You can't 'become' transgender.

she wants to be post op.

you know what I mean. people are too touchy over the labels today. take a hike

Reply 50

NolofinwÃ«

8

Original post by zippity.doodah

...was this technically a crime, though? I assume they're not actually going to say "it was rape because she didn't know it was a woman" - how does that make it sexual assault?

Original post by silverbolt

It think it will come under sex under false pretenses or something like that. It cant have been rape as the "victim" was willing

Original post by driftawaay

If you are stupid enough to be 'scammed' (I don't even know wat word to use) like that, you deserve it. I don't even know why a court would even consider taking this on.

I’m not going to enter the general commentary on this apart from saying that some of the comments in this thread (not accusing anyone in particular) seem inappropriate against an alleged victim of a possibly serious offence.

Legally speaking, given the evidence reported in that article, I think they may seek to prosecute the accused for Assault by Penetration, a crime which exists alongside rape and sexual assault in the order of severity. It cannot be rape, as the accused does not have a penis, but the object used here is sufficient for assault by penetration. As to the issue of consent, there is authority for the proposition that there cannot be consent in situations of mistaken sex/gender. The authorities say this is because the alleged victim was not able to make a choice with sufficient freedom and capacity, as is required for consent under the Sexual Offences Act, if (s)he lacks knowledge of certain essential pieces of information (which include knowledge of the accused’s sex/gender), such knowledge being considered necessary before consent can be valid.

This only constitutes my reflection on the law. Given that the case is ongoing, I must emphasise that I am making no reflection whatsoever on the law as should be applied (i only offer my analysis of what I think they might be able to argue), on what the facts of the case are/what the evidence says, or what the outcome (innocent/guilty) should be.

Reply 51

driftawaay

3

Original post by Nolofinwë

I’m not going to enter the general commentary on this apart from saying that some of the comments in this thread (not accusing anyone in particular) seem inappropriate against an alleged victim of a possibly serious offence.

Legally speaking, given the evidence reported in that article, I think they may seek to prosecute the accused for Assault by Penetration, a crime which exists alongside rape and sexual assault in the order of severity. It cannot be rape, as the accused does not have a penis, but the object used here is sufficient for assault by penetration. As to the issue of consent, there is authority for the proposition that there cannot be consent in situations of mistaken sex/gender. The authorities say this is because the alleged victim was not able to make a choice with sufficient freedom and capacity, as is required for consent under the Sexual Offences Act, if (s)he lacks knowledge of certain essential pieces of information (which include knowledge of the accused’s sex/gender), such knowledge being considered necessary before consent can be valid.

This only constitutes my reflection on the law. Given that the case is ongoing, I must emphasise that I am making no reflection whatsoever on the law as should be applied (i only offer my analysis of what I think they might be able to argue), on what the facts of the case are/what the evidence says, or what the outcome (innocent/guilty) should be.

This woman is not a 'victim' and there was no offense committed. She chose to have sex with somebody, regardless of what clothes that person was wearing. This is a joke.

Reply 52

NolofinwÃ«

8

Original post by driftawaay

This woman is not a 'victim' and there was no offense committed. She chose to have sex with somebody, regardless of what clothes that person was wearing. This is a joke.

I never said victim, I only said alleged victim, because the case is still ongoing, so I don't want to express a conclusion.

Nor do I want to enter into a debate. I'm merely stating what I believe the law presently is, not necessarily what I believe it ought to be (on which, so far as possible, I express no opinion on). If you want to see an illustration to support my belief, the court of appeal decided R v McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 just over two years ago. It's the main authority for the legal proposition I stated

Posted from TSR Mobile