TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Woman who pretended to be man to trick friend into sex jailed for eight years | UK news | The Guardian

mankindglobalmedia

December 7, 2015
80 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/12/gayle-newland-sentenced-eight-years-prison-duping-friend-having-sex
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Woman who pretended to be man to trick friend into sex jailed for eight years | UK news | The Guardian
Author

mankindglobalmedia

Upvotes 80
Comments 39
Date December 7, 2015 8:11 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3vrntc/woman_who_pretended_to_be_man_to_trick_friend/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-who-pretended-to-be-man-to-trick-friend-into.965643
https://theredarchive.com/post/965643
Top posts by mankindglobalmedia

Teenage Boy and Girl Exchange Sexts: Boy Threatened With 10 Years In Jail, Girl Given 12 Months Probation

2138 upvotes
September 27, 2015
/r/MensRights

Teenager falsely accused of rape commits suicide

1894 upvotes
March 8, 2016
/r/MensRights

Talented A-level student hanged himself after he was falsely accused of rape

932 upvotes
October 9, 2015
/r/MensRights

Lady Gaga's sexist new video shows men as predators, quotes bullshit 1 in 5 stat.

259 upvotes
September 24, 2015
/r/MensRights

That 'Only 2 to 8 Percent of Rape Accusations Are False' Stat Is Extremely Misleading | National Review Online

246 upvotes
August 6, 2015
/r/MensRights

Man receives sex act while blacked out, gets accused of sexual assault | Washington Examiner

243 upvotes
January 12, 2016
/r/MensRights

Hillary used to support registering women for the draft, now she'€™s not sure | New York Post

228 upvotes
February 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

A century of feminism has failed us. Women have betrayed men's trust

193 upvotes
October 7, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Wargame4life 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

something is definitely suspect though in this case.

2 YEARS! 2 FUCKING YEARS, and you are telling me a woman had sex with a fake plastic penis for 2 years and was never discovered as a woman.

Bullshit, surely even things like temperature of the appendage would give her away etc.

I find it incredibly hard to believe someone could fake being a man and have sex with someone FOR 2 FUCKING YEARS.

i suspect a lesbian and her in-denial lover.

[–]ashlaaaaay 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

denial is a powerful thing.

Think about it this way though: the sentence would've been much worse had the accused been male.

[–]CapitalJusticeWarior 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"My boyfriend pretended to be a man while we had sex. SEND HIM TO JAIL!"

[–]RunawayGrain 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

'Kye' is the lesbian with the strap on:

She told the court that Kye took her on a car ride one day in which he asked her to wear sunglasses on top of her mask and scarf because "he did not want it to look weird or that she had been kidnapped".

She said the car parked up, she was led out and walked into a building, up some steps and then into a garden where they sunbathed together.

And the woman with the strap on stated the other chick knew about it the whole time, which sounds way more plausible.

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2015-09-09/blindfolded-woman-watched-tv-with-boyfriend-with-mask-on/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229443/Woman-claims-duped-sex-female-friend-pretending-man-knew-girl-insists-alleged-attacker.html

[–]Lurker_IV 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It happens. Here is one example. Its several levels of WTF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Boursicot

I've heard of a couple others over the years.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Wow. 8 years. What a farcical miscarriage of justice.

The idea that you can make consent constituent upon outside factors is ludicrous. Consent is something you give to have sex - sex as it is carried out, and sex in the way it is carried out. It can obviously be withdrawn at any time, and must be adhered to in short order - but you get sex, and your partner gets sex, and that's the end of it. That is all consent matters to.

Refusing to pay a prostitute after sex does not make your guilty of rape - it makes you guilty of violating an oral contract, in that you're failing to meet your end of a business transaction. You did not violate anybody's bodily integrity, because you had consent to everything that happened, as it took place.

This is true in all other areas of life. If you fail to pay for your rental car, that does not mean you suddenly stole it. If you fail to pay rent at a rented apartment, you did not suddenly break in. If you've been visiting your parents regularly over the past 20 years, and you reveal you are homosexual, which was against their wishes and you know they would not consider you their daughter after revealing it, that does not mean you suddenly trespassed many times during that period. If your employer finds out you lied on your CV, that doesn't mean you have to pay him back the money you've earned working for him.

I'm not suggesting this woman was not lied to, taken advantage of and manipulated - she may well have been - but that does not mean she did not fully consent to the sexual encounters she participated in. What lunacy. Surely this will eventually be overturned.

[–]Unconfidence 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not suggesting this woman was not lied to, taken advantage of and manipulated - she may well have been - but that does not mean she did not fully consent to the sexual encounters she participated in. What lunacy. Surely this will eventually be overturned.

I would actually argue that one's consent can be invalidated by enough pre-existing deception. For instance, if I consent to take ownership of a small boat, and I'm presented with a small oil tanker, my consent becomes invalid in that what I agreed to do was not what was presented.

In the case of sex, if I have sex with someone who claims to be Susan Brown, single, no kids, etc., and then they turn out to be Jackie Young, married, three kids, then I would say my consent has been invalidated, and that I did not in fact consent to have sex with Jackie Young.

The problem is that putting this into a legal context would mean accepting that both women and children can and do misrepresent themselves in an attempt to gain invalid consent for sex.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't mean this personally, but your point of view is one of lunacy.

You raise one problem yourself, with women and children - but the concept itself is an inherent contradiction.

For instance, I do not consent to be a rapist. That is, I only consent to have sex with people, who consent to have sex with me. The moment they no longer consent to have sex with me, I no longer consent to have sex with them. Seems simple enough - anybody reasonable would completely agree with this sentiment.

If I make this clear before any sexual encounter, then the whole concept of retro-actively withdrawn consent becomes null and void - should a person decide they did not consent after all, after the fact, because I mislead them in some way, then they mislead me by feigning consent when in fact their consent was predicated upon something that did not end up being true (even though they gave me every signal that they consented at the time, including grasping hands, moans of pleasure, screaming out 'yes yes, fuck me fuck me' and so forth).

Essentially, they misrepresented their consent to me, therefore they manipulated me into consenting, and so... We suddenly raped eachother.

Here's the thing - since most people would not consent to be a rapist, this should be the default assumption.

In your example with Jackie Young, she clearly presumed you consented to have sex with her, and that was part of why she consented to have sex with you. When it turns out that your embrace, your hip movements, your hand movements, your touch, your ever-louder moans and grunts of pleasure - when it turns out that these were not acts of consent at all, but instead acts of nonconsent because the meaning of these things was predicated upon something being true which was not - when it turns out these seeming acts of consent were not consent, then her acts also turn into non-consent, as her acts were predicated upon your consent.

It all becomes nonesense.

The only reason this is even a discussion is because of victim mentality - the idea that you are not having gleeful sex every bit as much as the person who is having gleeful sex with you. But the two people absolutely are entering into the event as equals - each one believes the other is consenting, because they say or show that they are consenting.

The bottom line is this - consent is for sex, and sex only, and is predicated upon whether or not you want to have sex, and sex only - if you cannot accept this even trade of consent, just don't have sex.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As an addendum: I'm not suggesting that this means that lies to people who enter into personal relationships with you could not be lawfully regulated. They could be - but I think that's a terrible idea for other reasons.

But if we're going to have a law like that, don't call it rape. It's not the same damn thing. Just isn't. The crime is much more aptly described as sexual seduction by deception.

[–]Unconfidence 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this. I think statutory should fall into this category, and that because we refuse to attempt to create a new classification of sex crimes, that some sex crimes are instead being misprosecuted, and others not prosecuted at all.

I think that we've come to believe (as a society) that all sexual congress in the absence of full consent is "rape", but that there's really a range of transgressions (and neutral acts too) which can result from sex without full consent. We need a more nuanced and individual assessment of the various crimes, because as it stands we just keep expanding the definition of rape to include more and more stuff.

should a person decide they did not consent after all, after the fact, because I mislead them in some way, then they mislead me by feigning consent when in fact their consent was predicated upon something that did not end up being true

So their consent was based on your lies, and that's somehow their fault? The thing is, if you lied in order to get their consent, then you victimized yourself, by creating a situation wherein any sex would necessarily be without proper consent. There's no feedback loop here because you don't get absolved of a crime simply by being a victim of a crime. Furthermore, deception and ignorance are two separate things; if she consents on the basis of ignorance, that's not her actively harming you, or undermining your sexual agency. Her deceiving you would be. And remember, just because you are deceived doesn't mean someone else deceived you, as it's quite possible and common to be a victim of self-deception.

The point is that when you make any kind of agreement, if you're knowingly misled as to the details of that agreement, you can't be said to have really agreed. This is pretty evident and understood in almost every walk of life and in every issue, except sex, where it's suddenly the victim's fault for being deceived (provided they're 18, before that it's magically the deceiver's fault).

I mean, by what I've gathered from what you said, if a man met a woman, and they had sex under the pretense that they were both consenting adults, but then she turns out to be sixteen, no violation of consent has happened. Another example, two people have sex, one lies to the other about being HIV positive. Violation of consent? I'd say so, in a way. It's not rape, but it's not okay either.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"So their consent was based on your lies, and that's somehow their fault?"

Well clearly their cries of 'yes yes' were deceptive. They didn't really mean them; what they really meant was 'yes, but only if you didn't lie about something in some other situation... keep going, but only if you didn't lie to me about how many kids you have'.

This distinction is, completely on it's own, a deception. It's not a self-deception or ignorance; you don't get to plead ignorance of the possibility that somebody may have lied to you. Further, it turns sex into this fucked up lie detector - you can lie to me all you want, but if we have sex later, then you can go to prison for those lies. Zuh?

When you think about it, it's pretty horrific - they want to have sex, they want to get down and dirty, explore their fantasies, get raunchy and rowdy - but they also want to be able to use this thing you're doing as a legal sword of damocles. No. That's bullshit; that's insane. The person they're with is consenting to sex - they're not consenting to the possibility that they may go to prison for 8 years if they lied.

"There's no feedback loop here because you don't get absolved of a crime simply by being a victim of a crime. "

I would argue that when it's the same crime, things are reciprocal in nature, and it therefore makes no sense to punish both parties.


I will say this. You're right that we make distinctions when it comes to ignorance and deception in most practices. Good faith and bad faith, as it were. Fair enough. They achieved your consent via lies by omission out of ignorance. You achieved theirs via outright lies with the intent to deceive. Ok. Say you change the law to reflect good faith and bad faith actors, that seems to be the first step.

This is where the 'sex lie detector' comes into play. It was perfectly ok that she lied until just a second ago, but now that she's got your dick in her mouth, you can get her put in prison if it turns out she lied.

At this point, with this system, you can no longer plead ignorance when you let her do that - you could be purposefully using your consent to test her for lies. If she doesn't realize that, then they've acted on false pretenses, and you've just acted in bad faith by pretending to give consent to have sex, when what you really were doing was using your genitals as a lie detector.

In other words, recognize good faith and bad faith actors, and you suddenly have subtle incentives to act in bad faith to test people out by having sex with them.

Again and again, the consent issue becomes a way in which to elevate the criminality of a relatively minor thing - lying - into this thing which you can go to prison for, for 8 years. It's patently absurd. Pretty soon, you could have business transactions and contracts between major corporations having to by having the executives have sex, just to make certain that the signatories would face prison sentences if they lied.


As to your examples. I don't think the examples you describe violate consent; the people in question clearly consented to what happened. I do, however, think the HIV positive person needs to be sentenced for attempted murder or similar - and I do think that if she was old enough to be sentenced for crimes, she is surely old enough to understand the predicament she puts herself in when she lies about her age. I would say that voids her extra ordinary protections as a child.

If she is below the age at which point society considers her eligible to receive criminal punishment, then that's because we recognize that she doesn't yet understand how her actions might impact others. That's a decent yardstick for when she might also not understand how her actions might impact herself (self-empathy seemingly always sets in before empathy with others in children), so I'd argue that below that age, she can't void her protections by lying, and therefore we've gotta punish her partner.

This also has another benefit - it makes little sense to say that a person can't tell what the sexual repercussions for lying about their age might be, but then to turn around and say that they surely can tell what the social repercussions for ie. harassment might be. Like...that's fucking dumb. Either they can tell right and wrong and how to look after others and themselves, or they can't.

Obviously if it can be proven that her partner knew of her age, consent laws would apply as normal.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, I did want to say one more thing.

I'm from Denmark, and to a very limited extent, our laws recognizes forms of subtle coercion as part of statutory rape laws, which is basically what you're talking about.

Here, it's known as the 'teacher paragraph', which holds that in relationships where there is a very significant power differential, it's possible to commit statutory rape even against adults.

In practice, the law hasn't been tested much, however - age of consent here is a fairly reasonable 15, and when one of our MP's (male, 35 at the time) had sex with a member of his partys youth party after he spoke before them (she'd also had alcohol, which is also legal in closed circles), he was not brought up on charges. This in spite of a staggering power differential, a girl who is barely legal, and the MP having a clear involvement in an organization the girl favored.

It's not that this MP enjoys undue protection either - he receives a very large number of personal votes, and has continued to do so, but he was almost kicked out of his party, and the party leadership absolutely did condemn him.

Deception and manipulation would clearly be factors in such a prosecution, but honestly...the fact is, the girl wanted his D, and he gave it to her. Many might find it repugnant or morally objectionable, but at the end of the day, these were consenting individuals. I always figured, if the damn law is ever going to apply, it should apply in this case so...meh. But we do have a law on the books that theoretically protects people from certain types of manipulations due to power differentials, of which lying and deceit is one.

[–]issan1mountain 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

not in Canada

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm speaking in the ethical sense, not the legal sense.

Rape is punishment for violating somebody's right to privacy and bodily integrity; you can't exploit these rights, to give you the ability to punish others harsher for strictly less terrible crimes.

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This happened in the U.K and Canada's definition of consent in the criminal code is quite reasonable.

[–]youhatetruth 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So the court has accepted that one woman was so monumentally stupid as to have sex with another woman wearing a strapon for years while consenting to it...so that means...this other woman is a rapist for...uh...pretending to be another gender...

This is ludicrous. This is so fucked up from every direction it is observed from as to be preposterous...something something crazy pills.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminists: ALWAYS BELIEVE THE WOMAN!

Judge: which one?

[–]youhatetruth 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"UUHH...you...well...they...she....it....YOU"RE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT!" GAVEL BANG

XD

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The victim, of course.

[–]rossraskolnikov 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Honestly, I dont get this. Lying is a criminal offence now? It sets a dangerous precedent. Surely you have to do due dilligence in such scenarios. Like buying a car "as is".

[–]franklindeer 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think what this woman did was pretty terrible but I think this is one of those cases where the bad guy should get away for the good of the system and precedent. How long before this case is cited while bringing a prosecution against someone who claimed to be an FBI agent or Astronaut or a woman when in fact the person was trans? There is no firm distinction between the kind of lying that happened in this case and the other examples I mentioned. Lying is unethical, but making it criminal, especially in this context is dubious.

If anything this should be a civil issue where monetary recompense is possible. It should definitely not be a criminal matter.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SlashSero 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How is this sexual assault if consent was there? You consent to an act with a person, if the person lies that doesn't change the person. It only changes how you perceive that person.

 

Where do we draw the line? I can rent a luxury car and tell I am rich to impress women and have sex with them. When they find out I am not rich at all do I deserve to go to jail for deception? Personally I think adultery is many times worse than a lie for intimacy, but too should not lead to prison sentences. Having to pay over a thousand a month and being allowed only visitation because your wife cheated on you and lied to you for years, now that is something that is not justice.

 

Somehow I also doubt this sentencing would have happened if a MtF transsexual had sex with a man claiming she was a biological woman, which is much the same type of deception as being employed here. If that man would have gone to court the man would have been harassed for being transmisogynist and would have been fired from his job, having his name slandered on various places. The judge would quickly dismiss the case and tell the man to get over it, as he should have done to begin with. Adults deal with things and get over it.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DevilishRogue 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a small part of consent that requires good faith. When you convince someone to consent it has to not be a fraud.

So you're saying this is rape?

[–]eletheros 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is clearly a case of regret-means-rape. The only unique aspect about it is that the victim (the falsely accused, Gayle Newland) is a woman.

[–]pnw_diver 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jailed for 8 years for this? Completely extreme, over the top.

[–]galtthedestroyer 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

For the millionth time, use archive.org rather than support the guardian!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What is up your butt about that?

[–]galtthedestroyer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vv3pk/industry_dear_gamergate_please_stop_stealing_our/

It's pointed out often in this sub that we shouldn't support organizations like The Guardian by visiting their pages.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't make heads or tails out of that garbage. And Idgaf, either.

[–]MalibuStayZ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Could be a story from The Onion.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a very interesting story, but I'm not sure how it's linked to men's rights.

[–]abccbaa 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps an illustration that even in situations where no man is involved, a woman can indeed rape, or can indeed change her mind and decide she has been raped.

[–]mtomny 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

She'll get along fine in prison.

[–]actingverystrangely 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If you are implying that prison rape is a punishment, I disagree. It is a crime.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think he's pointing out that women's prisons are pretty cushy and LACK rape.

[–]actingverystrangely 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you :-)

[–]DevilishRogue 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That isn't true.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter