Gay Panic Killer gets 4 years!

[RandFan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170954,00.html


Estanislao Martinez didn't deny that he repeatedly stabbed Joel Robles with a pair of scissors, but his lawyer told the judge he had a good excuse — he killed the victim in what he called a "gay panic."

Martinez and Robles had been out drinking and went back to Martinez' apartment for some privacy. But at the time, Martinez thought Robles was a woman. He soon found out Robles was a cross-dressing man.

"The decedent represented himself to be female. She/he said he was female to him," said Martinez' lawyer, Roberto Dulce. "There was some sexual activity that occurred. All under the impression that Mr. Martinez was engaging in sexual activity with a woman."

Martinez went into a rage after he realized Robles was a man, stabbed him repeatedly, then jumped out his window onto the street. People found him naked and covered in blood a short time later.

In court, Dulce, a public defender, argued that the attack was a case of "gay panic," not cold-blooded murder.

[Diamond]

Was the charge reduced to involuntary manslaughter, or something?

[Cleon]

It's things like this that almost make me think that hate-crime legislation isn't such a bad idea after all.

[corplinx]

How many years would a woman who murdered a crossdressing woman for the same reason get?

[Ian Osborne]

If he hadn't been murdered, the cross-dresser should have got several years for indecent assault.

[TragicMonkey]

If he hadn't been murdered, the cross-dresser should have got several years for indecent assault.

For consensual sex with no coercion? No assault, in fact?

[thaiboxerken]

Always do a package-check before having sexual intercourse.

[Jas]

Yeah, at what point did his 'discovery' take place?

[Ian Osborne]

For consensual sex with no coercion? No assault, in fact?

It was not consensual. The guy consented to a sex act with a woman, not a man. What the transvestite did was a breach of consent.

[TragicMonkey]

It was not consensual. The guy consented to a sex act with a woman, not a man. What the transvestite did was a breach of consent.

It was consensual. Person A agreed to have sex with Person B. That Person A was unaware of information that might have made him choose differently does not make it an assault, any more than finding out your sex partner is religious, voted for Bush, has a disease, or is actually your cousin would make the sex coerced. The transvestite withheld information, which is neither a crime nor justification for criminal charges of assault. And certainly not murder-worthy.

Person A agreed to the sex. Person A should have done his research and been more selective. At the very least, if Person A is so fussy in the matter of partners, he should have troubled to determine the gender of his partner before he agreed to have sex.

[Cleon]

It was consensual. Person A agreed to have sex with Person B. That Person A was unaware of information that might have made him choose differently does not make it an assault, any more than finding out your sex partner is religious, voted for Bush, has a disease, or is actually your cousin would make the sex coerced. The transvestite withheld information, which is neither a crime nor justification for criminal charges of assault. And certainly not murder-worthy.

I just had to highlight the relevant portion. I don't care if this schmuck discovered that his potential booty call had some extra equipment--that didn't give him the right to kill her in cold blood! Then he tries to weasel out of it using some BS "gay panic" defense?

F***that! F*** that and a bowl of Cheerios.

[Ian Osborne]

I agree the murder was a despicable act and in no way justified by the trannie's lying, but what went on was a clear breach of consent, both morally and (in the UK at least) legally. There was a case recently where a TV show had a pretty young girl cuddle and fondle a group of Royal Marines, then lift 'her' skirt to reveal meat and two veg. The TV company that produced the show was threatened with prosecution for indecent assault as the Marines had not consented to be fondled by a man, and the show was never aired.

I wonder if the people contesting the bloke should have 'found out first' would say the same if the ladyboy abused a lesbian in this way? Or would that create an insurmountable PC conflict between her rights not to enter into sex acts with a man, and his right to cross dress?

[Cleon]

I agree the murder was a despicable act and in no way justified by the trannie's lying, but what went on was a clear breach of consent, both morally and (in the UK at least) legally. There was a case recently where a TV show had a pretty young girl cuddle and fondle a group of Royal Marines, then lift 'her' skirt to reveal meat and two veg. The TV company that produced the show was threatened with prosecution for indecent assault as the Marines had not consented to be fondled by a man, and the show was never aired.

I wonder if the people contesting the bloke should have 'found out first' would say the same if the ladyboy abused a lesbian in this way? Or would that create an insurmountable PC conflict between her rights not to enter into sex acts with a man, and his right to cross dress?

I think I had better not respond to you, lest I lose my temper.

[Ian Osborne]

Please do respond - I'd be interested how you'd justify this individual's behaviour. If you think I'm in any way excusing the murder, you'd be blowing a gasket for nothing - I'm not. Also, don't assume I'm trying to restrict what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. My beef is with the way the ladyboy showed an alarming lack of respect for the wishes of the guy he abused. I'd love to know which part of this you find so offensive.

[Luke T.]

It was consensual. Person A agreed to have sex with Person B. That Person A was unaware of information that might have made him choose differently does not make it an assault, any more than finding out your sex partner is religious, voted for Bush, has a disease, or is actually your cousin would make the sex coerced. The transvestite withheld information, which is neither a crime nor justification for criminal charges of assault. And certainly not murder-worthy.

Person A agreed to the sex. Person A should have done his research and been more selective. At the very least, if Person A is so fussy in the matter of partners, he should have troubled to determine the gender of his partner before he agreed to have sex.

If a minor represents herself as an adult, and an adult has sex with that minor, the adult still goes to prison for statutory rape. Is that right?

You have to ask yourself why a transgender person would conceal the fact they are not a woman. The transgender person obviously had no regard for the heterosexual's sexual identity in this case and was seeking some sort of sick gratification for himself without regard to the wishes of his partner. That is not consensual sex.

[Ian Osborne]

You have to ask yourself why a transgender person would conceal the fact they are not a woman. The transgender person obviously had no regard for the heterosexual's sexual identity in this case and was seeking some sort of sick gratification for himself without regard to the wishes of his partner. That is not consensual sex.

Precisely. Well said.

[TragicMonkey]

If a minor represents herself as an adult, and an adult has sex with that minor, the adult still goes to prison for statutory rape. Is that right?

The laws about statutory rape are based on the premise that minors are incapable, by reason of their immaturity, of giving consent. There is a difference between consenting based on incorrect assumptions and not being able to consent at all. In such cases, yes, legally, the adult is guilty. However, both juries and judges are capable of determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether punishment is warranted.

You have to ask yourself why a transgender person would conceal the fact they are not a woman. The transgender person obviously had no regard for the heterosexual's sexual identity in this case and was seeking some sort of sick gratification for himself without regard to the wishes of his partner. That is not consensual sex.

Perhaps the transgender person didn't realize the other party didn't know. Perhaps the transgender person thought that the other party wanted a transgendered mating. Perhaps the transgendered person thought the other party was a transgender person himself? We'll never know, thanks to the murder. By deciding that it's "obviously" a moral failing on the part of the victim, you are buying into at least part of the murderer's "gay panic" defense.

My point is that a consensual sex act is still a consensual sex act, whether the parties were misinformed, changed their minds afterward, or have hangups and feelings about it. Just like finding out your partner is married; it might have made you decide not to have sex with them had you known, but it doesn't make it nonconsentual sex.

[thaiboxerken]

If one has "consential" sex with a jewish girl, but it turns out that she's really catholic, is it still consentual sex?

[Seismosaurus]

My point is that a consensual sex act is still a consensual sex act, whether the parties were misinformed, changed their minds afterward, or have hangups and feelings about it. Just like finding out your partner is married; it might have made you decide not to have sex with them had you known, but it doesn't make it nonconsentual sex.

Do we not emphasise the concept of informed consent for precisely this reason? If a doctor presents somebody with a choice and gets permission for an operation or medication that turns out to have horrible side effects, the doctor ihas acted unethically if he failed to inform the patient of that possibility. He cannot use the argument that the patient made the choice, because that choice is not valid if it is not informed.

Now I don't know the law in your part of the world, but I would say that is certainly the moral - and should be the legal - position in this case. The man/woman acted highly unethically.

I can understand why the guy reacted badly. I can even understand why he became violent.

[Cleon]

Please do respond - I'd be interested how you'd justify this individual's behaviour. If you think I'm in any way excusing the murder, you'd be blowing a gasket for nothing - I'm not. Also, don't assume I'm trying to restrict what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. My beef is with the way the ladyboy showed an alarming lack of respect for the wishes of the guy he abused. I'd love to know which part of this you find so offensive.

All of the above. The fact that you use terms like "trannie" and "ladybody" to describe the person who was brutally killed. The fact that you think that this somehow amounts to "rape," in some bizarre twist of logic.

But mainly--the fact that you can't or won't see past the transgender issue.

[TragicMonkey]

Do we not emphasise the concept of informed consent for precisely this reason? If a doctor presents somebody with a choice and gets permission for an operation or medication that turns out to have horrible side effects, the doctor ihas acted unethically if he failed to inform the patient of that possibility. He cannot use the argument that the patient made the choice, because that choice is not valid if it is not informed.

Now I don't know the law in your part of the world, but I would say that is certainly the moral - and should be the legal - position in this case. The man/woman acted highly unethically.

I can understand why the guy reacted badly. I can even understand why he became violent.

I don't think the practice of medicine and a sexual encounter are morally equivalent. In the case of the doctor, the balance of knowledge and power is skewed to one party. The other party is at the mercy of the other. Such is not the case in a sexual encounter, even if one party is a terrifying mighty transvestite.

[Ian Osborne]

All of the above. The fact that you use terms like "trannie" and "ladybody" to describe the person who was brutally killed. The fact that you think that this somehow amounts to "rape," in some bizarre twist of logic.

Once again, the murder was a vile, disgusting act that's without excuse. And I called it indecent assault, not rape - there was no force or coertion involved after all.

I didn't intend the terms 'trannie' and 'ladyboy' to be perjorative, and if that's how they came across, I apologise. I used the term 'trannie' because it's unclear whether s/he's transexual (wants to be a woman) or a transvestite (just likes cross-dressing).

For the record, I have absolutely no problems with CD/TV/TS people. I believe everybody should be free to express and pursue his or her sexuality in any way they choose (we're talking about consenting adults here, of course). Which is why I'm so down on this individual taking away someone's rights to do so.

But mainly--the fact that you can't or won't see past the transgender issue.

But it's the transgender issue we're discussing here. Once again (and I hope for the last time), I DO NOT EXCUSE THE MURDER!

And no one's answered my question yet - if a man cross-dressed so he could pull a lesbian would you be equally ready to jump to his defense?

[TragicMonkey]

And no one's answered my question yet - if a man cross-dressed so he could pull a lesbian would you be equally ready to jump to his defense?

I'm not sure what the expression "pull a lesbian" means; sounds like a punchline to a joke.

But yes, I would defend such a person against accusations of "indecent assault". Consent is consent. The lesbian was free to change her mind at any point, which she would presumably, in your example, do at the moment she discovered her partner to be the wrong gender. However, the fact that she changed her mind about continuing the encounter doesn't instantly make the previous portion of the encounter anything different than it was. Consentual activity which she was presumably enjoying up until the critical point.

[Luke T.]

If one has "consential" sex with a jewish girl, but it turns out that she's really catholic, is it still consentual sex?

If it is part of a person's sexual identity that they can only have sex with Jewish people, than no, it is not consensual if the Catholic represents herself as Jewish.

If you feed an orthodox Jew something with pork in it and tell him it is "kosher", and he enjoys it, his enjoyment does not automatically imply consent.

If a transgender male represents himself as a woman (which we can only stipulate since we only have the killer's word for it), he is violating the consent of the heterosexual whether or not the hetero enjoyed the experience.

[Ian Osborne]

But yes, I would defend such a person against accusations of "indecent assault".

How would you feel about his morals?

[TragicMonkey]

How would you feel about his morals?

I would find deception in the matter unethical, but hardly criminal. I would put it on par with concealing one's marital status during a sexual encounter.

[TragicMonkey]

If you feed an orthodox Jew something with pork in it and tell him it is "kosher", and he enjoys it, his enjoyment does not automatically imply consent.

And if he picks up the steamed gyoza himself, of his own free will, without checking to see what it contained, or asking the waitress, and bit into it, and ate it, and enjoyed it, and then found out it had pork in it? Would he then be justified in freaking out? Or should he instead accept that what's done is done, and learned a lesson about being more careful in the future?

[Luke T.]

And if he picks up the steamed gyoza himself, of his own free will, without checking to see what it contained, or asking the waitress, and bit into it, and ate it, and enjoyed it, and then found out it had pork in it? Would he then be justified in freaking out? Or should he instead accept that what's done is done, and learned a lesson about being more careful in the future?

I think there is culpability on the part of both parties. If the transgender represented himself as a female, he is violating consent. Just as if a waitress represented food as kosher knowing it wasn't.

The panic killer is culpable for being careless and engaging in sex with a complete stranger in such a freewheeling manner. Play with fire, etc., etc..

ETA: IF the transgender was representing himself as a female, he was playing with fire, too. And he got seriously burned.

[thaiboxerken]

Isn't it part of being transgender to represent yourself as being of the opposite sex? In otherwords, you seem to be implying that the trangender person is guilty of being.. transgender.

[Cleon]

This is utterly, completely, and totally ridiculous.

If concealing something in order to get laid was a crime, every man in the world would be in prison. Most women, too.

[thaiboxerken]

If you tell a woman that you have a 8" penis, you have sex with her and she enjoys it.. then later she finds out that it's only a 6" penis, is that wrong?

[Ian Osborne]

If concealing something in order to get laid was a crime, every man in the world would be in prison. Most women, too.

But there are degrees. Concealing your marital status or exaggerating your annual income are not as pertinent to the act itself as the gender of the people involved. The married man who tells his mistress he is single is a heel, but she's still consented to sleep with him, a man.

[thaiboxerken]

But there are degrees. Concealing your marital status or exaggerating your annual income are not as pertinent to the act itself as the gender of the people involved

Why is that?

[Cleon]

But there are degrees. Concealing your marital status or exaggerating your annual income are not as pertinent to the act itself as the gender of the people involved. The married man who tells his mistress he is single is a heel, but she's still consented to sleep with him, a man.

She consented to sleep with a single man, not a married man; he is therefore misrepresenting his identity, and if your logic holds true, he is therefore guilty of indecent assault.

[TragicMonkey]

But there are degrees. Concealing your marital status or exaggerating your annual income are not as pertinent to the act itself as the gender of the people involved. The married man who tells his mistress he is single is a heel, but she's still consented to sleep with him, a man.

I guess it boils down to individual quirks.

I would be more upset to learn I had had sex with a married person than with a person of the wrong gender.

[Spidey13]

I guess it boils down to individual quirks.

I would be more upset to learn I had had sex with a married person than with a person of the wrong gender.

OK, I'll delurk and put my two cents in. I agree that it comes down to what is important to the individual person. Personally, I would be more upset about the gender being wrong as opposed to the marital status. A person's sexuality is a part of their core being. It's one of the strongest components in what makes them who they are. And if someone were to toy with that, I can understand them being upset. Should they kill someone over it? Hell, no.

And I do feel the guy got off extremely light and should have received a longer sentence.

[Cleon]

A person's sexuality is a part of their core being. It's one of the strongest components in what makes them who they are.

Well, to a male-to-female transsexual, their "core being," as you put it, is female. Which is why they're transsexual.

[Spidey13]

Well, to a male-to-female transsexual, their "core being," as you put it, is female. Which is why they're transsexual.

No argument here. But the killer's sexuality is presumably that of a heterosexual male, and if he felt the transsexual had in some way toyed with that I could see that he would be offended.

Then again, this all boils down to taking the word of a convicted killer. I haven't read up a lot on this case, but I'm assuming there were no witnesses to what went on. There's always the possibility that the guy knew the girl was transsexual and decided to get a little curious. Maybe they had already done something and he freaked out, didn't want anyone to find out about it, and killed her. In which case, this would be a totally different discussion.

[peptoabysmal]

Gay panic? And then he kills the victim with a pair of scissors? Hmmmmm...
Something about this story is triggering my spider sense. How easy is it around your house to find a pair of scissors when you need one?

I'm thinking that maybe these two actually had a relationship and some sort of fight that led to the unbridled rage. The "gay panic" could just be BS dreamed up by the killer to get a lesser sentence.

[Cleopatra]

The interesting aspect of this story is that if things are that way indeed and if this guy managed to keep his temper and sued the transexual instead of killing him I really doubt that he would win the case, because he hadn't violate any law (I cannot be 100% sure for USA of course).Although I understand how Luke and Ian feel and I agree there is no doubt that the sexual act was completed with the consent of both. They were both adults so, Luke's argument about the minor doesn't stand although it was a clever one.

So, the one commits a very serious crime and he uses as an excuse exactly one that wouldn't provide him with a case if he chose the legal way and he achieves a ridiculously low penalty for murder.

Interesting.

[LW]

Gay panic? And then he kills the victim with a pair of scissors? Hmmmmm...
Something about this story is triggering my spider sense. How easy is it around your house to find a pair of scissors when you need one?

In the case of my house, very easy (because I got tired of looking for them and bought enough to have a couple pairs in every room).

But I don't think that is important consideration. A very likely explanation is that the guy grabbed the first thing that could be used as a weapon that he could find. If it wasn't scissors, it could have been a lampstand. Or anything else within the reach of the hand.

[LW]

Person A agreed to the sex. Person A should have done his research and been more selective. At the very least, if Person A is so fussy in the matter of partners, he should have troubled to determine the gender of his partner before he agreed to have sex.

I agree with the above. And I 100% agree that Person A shouldn't have reacted the way he did and that, since he did, he belongs in jail.

But I also would like to add that Person B was stupid when he didn't go through the trouble to determine whether Person A was likely to become violent when finding out the real gender of his partner.

[Darat]

...snip...

And no one's answered my question yet - if a man cross-dressed so he could pull a lesbian would you be equally ready to jump to his defense?

I can't see why not it's the same issue. If at any point during a sexual act consent is withdrawn by the one of the parties but the other continues it stops being sex and becomes an assault. At the moment a penis came into the equation in your scenario the other party could just say "no thanks" and the sex ends.

There isn’t any indication in what I've read about the incident that the victim attempted to use force once consent was withdrawn, therefore there was no assault.

I can’t get my head around why there is an idea of some kind of deceit on the side of the victim or that any kind of assault (apart from the murder) took place that doesn’t boil down to an argument of "men should look like men and women should look like women".

When picking someone up or being picked up I’ve never had to indulge in 20 questions and have certainly never felt the need to say “if you have in any way misrepresented anything about yourself then I may use that as a defence in a court of law if I murder you”.

There is also something else I find repugnant in this case - that a lawyer would even attempt to use “gay panic” as a defence.

(Caveat: As usual in discussion like this I am just going off the information I have, new facts may change my opinion.)

[Ian Osborne]

But I also would like to add that Person B was stupid when he didn't go through the trouble to determine whether Person A was likely to become violent when finding out the real gender of his partner.

Whether he would become violent or not, what that guy did was a clear breach of consent, and a despicable act. Comparing something as fundemental as disguising your gender before indulging in sex acts with someone you've hoodwinked with lying about your marital status is ridiculous.

[Cleopatra]

Whether he would become violent or not, what that guy did was a clear breach of consent, and a despicable act. Comparing something as fundemental as disguising your gender before indulging in sex acts with someone you've hoodwinked with lying about your marital status is ridiculous.

Ian you cannot breach consent. You can only withdraw consent during a sexual act.

[Mid]

I agree the murder was a despicable act and in no way justified by the trannie's lying, but what went on was a clear breach of consent, both morally and (in the UK at least) legally. There was a case recently where a TV show had a pretty young girl cuddle and fondle a group of Royal Marines, then lift 'her' skirt to reveal meat and two veg. The TV company that produced the show was threatened with prosecution for indecent assault as the Marines had not consented to be fondled by a man, and the show was never aired.
...snip...

The Show you are refering to was There's something about Miriam, which was sued by the male contestants and Sky settled:

http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=2296 (http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=2296)

however the show was shown on Sky 1 and it's not clear, to me anyway, whether the settlement was for assault or to just clear everything up so they could show the program.

As to this case if what the murderer said is true I could understand why he would be upset, however this doesn't justify any violent assault never mind murder. As for the actions of the woman in this case, there could be a case to be made that she acted somewhat unethically if she lied to the man, but all she was guilty of was using bad judgment.

[Darat]

...snip...

But I also would like to add that Person B was stupid when he didn't go through the trouble to determine whether Person A was likely to become violent when finding out the real gender of his partner.

In this case it's hard to know if this was even the case since the victim was killed. Perhaps the man had known the sex of the victim prior to the act and then changed his mind. Or it could have been the murderer who was the stupid one e.g. the victim had made it clear to any reasonably intelligent person.

[Darat]

In the case of my house, very easy (because I got tired of looking for them and bought enough to have a couple pairs in every room).

But I don't think that is important consideration. A very likely explanation is that the guy grabbed the first thing that could be used as a weapon that he could find. If it wasn't scissors, it could have been a lampstand. Or anything else within the reach of the hand.

It is an important consideration given the defence used, it would make a big difference if he say jumped up from the bed and went and looked for something to stab the victim with. Again from the report it's hard to come to a sound conclusion.

[Darat]

Whether he would become violent or not, what that guy did was a clear breach of consent, and a despicable act. Comparing something as fundemental as disguising your gender before indulging in sex acts with someone you've hoodwinked with lying about your marital status is ridiculous.

Ian - again your argument seems to boils down to "men should dress like men and women like women".

[Kerberos]

In this case it's hard to know if this was even the case since the victim was killed. Perhaps the man had known the sex of the victim prior to the act and then changed his mind.
Everythings possible of course, but I'd say the killers story is far more likely. Rage over discovering that the girl you've been feeling up isn't a girl is a plausible motive. If he simply changed his mind I don't see any reason he'd kill the other guy. It's not that I couldn't imagine any possible motive, but I can't think of one that's as plausible as the one the murderer himself claims.

[Ian Osborne]

Ian - again your argument seems to boils down to "men should dress like men and women like women".

For the umpteenth time, I have no problem with transexuals, transvestites, transgenders or transcontinental railroads. I have a problem with abusive sex acts, which is what we're talking about here.

If two people got it together with one of them making a genuine mistake, that's embarrassing, but not abusive. The TG in this case had the opportunity to discreetly let on about what he was long before they went home 'for privacy', but instead he chose to carry out a sex act on a man who genuinely believed he was a woman.

I wouldn't dream of saying, 'men should look like men and women should look like women'. Everybody has the right to look and dress however they like, as long as they respect the rights of others. The trannie here showed no such respect.

And yes, if a cross-dresser who pulled a lesbian who thought he was a woman, it would be exactly the same issue. That's my point! :D It would, however, confuse the hell out of anyone who endorse what the transvestite did because choosing to restrict yourself to being 100% heterosexual just isn't PC ;)

[Darat]

For the umpteenth time, I have no problem with transexuals, transvestites, transgenders or transcontinental railroads.


Sorry if you got the impression I was implying you do, it was your argument I was meaning to address.



I have a problem with abusive sex acts, which is what we're talking about here.


But your argument hasn't established that there was any abusive sex act.



If two people got it together with one of them making a genuine mistake, that's embarrassing, but not abusive.


Which is what happened in this case, one of them thought the other had female genitalia, he then found out the victim didn't. There is no abusive by either side up until that point.


The TG in this case had the opportunity to discreetly let on about what he was long before they went home 'for privacy', but instead he chose to carry out a sex act on a man who genuinely believed he was a woman.


(We don't know this for a fact.)

Perhaps you have a point in a common sense way because society has conditioned many of us to react badly in regards to matters of sex but you don't give a reason why not doing so changes an act from being consentual to being an assault.


I wouldn't dream of saying, 'men should look like men and women should look like women'. Everybody has the right to look and dress however they like, as long as they respect the rights of others. The trannie here showed no such respect.


Hold on a moment- how can how I choose to dress affect the rights of others? Why does anyone else have a right to know my sex? You have recast the argument but ended up back with the same one and that is you believe that men and women have some obligation to identify themselves as a man or a woman and not to do so is wrong.


And yes, if a cross-dresser who pulled a lesbian who thought he was a woman, it would be exactly the same issue. That's my point! :D It would, however, confuse the hell out of anyone who endorse what the transvestite did because choosing to restrict yourself to being 100% heterosexual just isn't PC ;)

No it wouldn't - I would condemn it exactly as I condemn this case. The victim in this case did nothing abusive the only one who did anything abusive was the murderer.

[Ian Osborne]

But your argument hasn't established that there was any abusive sex act...one of them thought the other had female genitalia, he then found out the victim didn't. There is no abusive by either side up until that point.

The abuse comes from the fact that, as far as we can ascertain, the cross-dresser concealed his true gender and indulged in a sex act with someone who had every reason to believe he was a woman. True, more facts may come to light that throw a whole new perspective on the situation, but from what we know, all the evidence points to the actions being deliberate. As the other guy never consented to sex with a man, for my money, that's abuse.

Perhaps you have a point in a common sense way because society has conditioned many of us to react badly in regards to matters of sex but you don't give a reason why not doing so changes an act from being consentual to being an assault.

The consent was for sex with a woman. He didn't consent to a sex act with another man.

Hold on a moment- how can how I choose to dress affect the rights of others? Why does anyone else have a right to know my sex? You have recast the argument but ended up back with the same one and that is you believe that men and women have some obligation to identify themselves as a man or a woman and not to do so is wrong.

But what happened (or strongly appears to have happened) is that someone deliberately misidentified himself as a woman. I really can't fathom why anyone would fail to consider this abusive. Once again, if the guy chose to have sex with a TV/TG, that's great - I hope they enjoy themselves. But by misidentifying himself in this way, the TV/TG took away the other guy's right to choose. And it wasn't his to take.

No it wouldn't - I would condemn it exactly as I condemn this case. The victim in this case did nothing abusive the only one who did anything abusive was the murderer.

Taking away someone's right to pursue his sexuality isn't abusive? Not respecting his right to decline sex with another man isn't abusive?

I get the impression that people who claim this do so out of the wish to be tolerant of other people's sexual identities. Ironically, they're thus endorsing someone who was anything but tolerant...

[Ian Osborne]

Double post

[Kerberos]

Which is what happened in this case, one of them thought the other had female genitalia, he then found out the victim didn't. There is no abusive by either side up until that point.



(We don't know this for a fact.)

Perhaps you have a point in a common sense way because society has conditioned many of us to react badly in regards to matters of sex but you don't give a reason why not doing so changes an act from being consentual to being an assault.[B]
I don't know whether I'd use the words abuse or assault (which to me implies violence), but consent given under false assumptions is meaningless. Unless special circumstance applied (like they were in a cross-dressing bar), then it was not an innocent mistake, but deliberate deceit.



Hold on a moment- how can how I choose to dress affect the rights of others? Why does anyone else have a right to know my sex? You have recast the argument but ended up back with the same one and that is you believe that men and women have some obligation to identify themselves as a man or a woman and not to do so is wrong.
Because how you dress sends a false signal about who you are, which is only OK up to the point where you make an agreement (about sex in this case) where the information in question is of crucial importance. It would fx be quite OK for me to conceal that I had a sexually transferred disease up until the point where this information becomes crucial, like when I'm about to have sex, at which point I lose the right to conceal this fact. Now you will likely argue that this would inflict physical harm, and I'll agree that concealing that you have AIDS is far more serious than concealing you gender, but inflicting emotional distress on people can be very serious too. I'm not sure I think it should be illegal, but it's certainly immoral.

[Darat]

The abuse comes from the fact that, as far as we can ascertain, the cross-dresser concealed his true gender and indulged in a sex act with someone who had every reason to believe he was a woman. True, more facts may come to light that throw a whole new perspective on the situation, but from what we know, all the evidence points to the actions being deliberate. As the other guy never consented to sex with a man, for my money, that's abuse.



And again your argument boils down to men and women have to look like whatever it is that a man or woman is meant to look like and that other people have some right to know what sex someone else is.

I would say that if you (general you) have a particular sexual preference i.e only want sex with someone with genuine female genitalia then it is in fact your responsibility to check for that. For instance if I was bottle blonde and the person I've just picked up only wants to have sex with genuine blondes how am I meant to know this unless they ask or check first of all?

If you have a preference it is up to you to check it out.



The consent was for sex with a woman. He didn't consent to a sex act with another man.


The consent was for sex with a person.


But what happened (or strongly appears to have happened) is that someone deliberately misidentified himself as a woman. I really can't fathom why anyone would fail to consider this abusive. Once again, if the guy chose to have sex with a TV/TG, that's great - I hope they enjoy themselves. But by misidentifying himself in this way, the TV/TG took away the other guy's right to choose. And it wasn't his to take.


Again this is saying that for some reason in a sexual encounter the other person has a right to know someone's gender. I would again state that if you are someone who has such a strong preference (and I am one of them by the way) for a certain gender in your sexual partner it is up to you to make sure that is clear.

If I picked someone up and they turned out to be not what they said they were, I would be annoyed and I would instantly withdraw my consent however I would not consider they had abused or assaulted me in any way. That is like saying (for example) you are attracted to big breasted women, you meat a buxom lady, ask "are those real" she says "yes", yet halfway through a sex act you find out they aren't real and then claiming that the sex act is then abusive.


Taking away someone's right to pursue his sexuality isn't abusive? Not respecting his right to decline sex with another man isn't abusive?


That was not taken away. Unless again you wish to argue that a man must act and look like a man otherwise he is being deceptive.


I get the impression that people who claim this do so out of the wish to be tolerant of other people's sexual identities. Ironically, they're thus endorsing someone who was anything but tolerant...

You have no evidence that this victim was anything but tolerant of another person's preferences. No where in the report can I see where the murderer said "I had stated that I only have sex with people who have genuine female genitalia". Again if it was such a big issue for him to only have sex with a person with genuine female genitalia then it was his responsibility to make sure that he made that clear. If he had and the other person then deceived him there is then a case to be made but we go back to Cleopatra’s first post about it not being very likely a court would uphold that case.

[Darat]

I don't know whether I'd use the words abuse or assault (which to me implies violence), but consent given under false assumptions is meaningless. Unless special circumstance applied (like they were in a cross-dressing bar), then it was not an innocent mistake, but deliberate deceit.


What is the deceit? There is only deceit if you start with the premise men must look like men and women like woman.



Because how you dress sends a false signal about who you are, which is only OK up to the point where you make an agreement (about sex in this case) where the information in question is of crucial importance. It would fx be quite OK for me to conceal that I had a sexually transferred disease up until the point where this information becomes crucial, like when I'm about to have sex, at which point I lose the right to conceal this fact. Now you will likely argue that this would inflict physical harm, and I'll agree that concealing that you have AIDS is far more serious than concealing you gender, but inflicting emotional distress on people can be very serious too. I'm not sure I think it should be illegal, but it's certainly immoral.


I don’t think the STD example is analogous, that to me is covered under doing actual physical harm or knowing you might do harm to someone else that is then assault just like if someone stabbed someone.

I would go back to my point that if it is a strong preference you have for something it is up to you to "negotiate" for it not for the other person to anticipate it.

[stamenflicker]

There is also something else I find repugnant in this case - that a lawyer would even attempt to use “gay panic” as a defence.

Darat makes a good point here, probably the most important point. As we have all seen, law is just as much about setting precedents for future cases as it is about dispensing justice in the current one. To term and rule on the phrase "gay panic" bring it legitimacy to the next instance of "gay panic" murder.

As to the rest of the posts, the guy obviously was consenting to heterosexual activity, he was misled. I would guess that he could likely win a civil case, though not a criminal one, against the person had he held his rage. Even though it doesn't seem like a real "crime," I would think the guy could win on a suit for "damages."

Flick

[Luke T.]

The consent was for sex with a person.

Bullsh!t. I hate pull a shanek, but that is a flat out lie and you know it.

When you have sex, are you giving consent to have sex with a person? Does their gender not matter whether you consent to have sex with them?

It was for sex with an adult woman.

Heterosexuality or homosexuality is part of who a person is. I can't believe there are people here who are so freewheeling in their attitudes about someone violating that. It's a disgusting attitude. If a man represented himself as a lesbian and performed oral sex on a real lesbian, even if she had the most powerful orgasm of her life, you can bet your ass N.O.W. would be all over his ass for sexual assault.

Let's go back to my kosher example. A Jewish person is not giving consent to a waitress to purchase and eat a sandwich. He is giving consent to eat a kosher sandwich. If the waitress tells a Jewish person the sandwich is kosher when it is not, I'd say the Jewish person has every right to sue the pants off the waitress, regardless of whether or not he enjoyed the sandwich. The argument that "he agreed to eat a sandwich" is total B.S. The argument that "he should have researched the kosherness of the sandwich more carefully" is equal b.s.

[Luke T.]

Just like finding out your partner is married; it might have made you decide not to have sex with them had you known, but it doesn't make it nonconsentual sex.

Um, hello? A married man who has sex with someone not his wife can be severely punished in court. And the person he slept with can see to it.

[stamenflicker]

What is the deceit? There is only deceit if you start with the premise men must look like men and women like woman.

You have to start with the premise that heterosexual activity in humans does not involve two men. There is no other starting point. The deceit is clear on the transvestite's part: heterosexual activity should not exclude two men, therefore I will disguise myself as a woman.

Flick

[Kerberos]

[What is the deceit? There is only deceit if you start with the premise men must look like men and women like woman.
No it's deceit if you start with the premise that men do look like men and that women do look like women, and that a man who dresses in a dress and pads his breast is perfectly aware that this will make him look like a woman.


I don’t think the STD example is analogous, that to me is covered under doing actual physical harm or knowing you might do harm to someone else that is then assault just like if someone stabbed someone.
An argument that I specifically anticipated and countered.

I would go back to my point that if it is a strong preference you have for something it is up to you to "negotiate" for it not for the other person to anticipate it.
Which is pure sophistry, and an argument which I frankly doubt you'd apply in other cases. If a man takes a bar of lead, coats it with gold it and then sell it to some poor smug who thinks it's gold would you deny he was guilty of fraud just because the other guy never specifically asked whether it was gold all the way through.

[Kerberos]

Um, hello? A married man who has sex with someone not his wife can be severely punished in court. And the person he slept with can see to it.
Infidelity is actually illegal in the US?

[Luke T.]

Infidelity is actually illegal in the US?

In some states. And in the U.S. military.

And it is grounds for divorce everywhere in the U.S. And the adulterer gets taken to the cleaners. Lose the house, the kids, the dog.

Adultery is not a nonconsensual sex act, but it does have serious legal consequences.

[Darat]

Bullsh!t. I hate pull a shanek, but that is a flat out lie and you know it.
[/b]

No I don't and it is not a lie. As far as I am aware in the USA and the EU consent to sex is between two people regardless of their genders. The days when gender was part of giving consent are long gone i.e. anti-homosexual laws, anti-rape laws and so on.


When you have sex, are you giving consent to have sex with a person? Does their gender not matter whether you consent to have sex with them?


When I give my consent I give it to a person. The sex of a person is for some irrational reason important to me so I make sure I have sex with the right sex. If I then found out the person was of the opposite sex I would instantly withdraw my consent.


It was for sex with an adult woman.


Well that is what the murderer claims after the fact, unfortunately we will only ever know his side and from the article we don't know this to be a fact however even if this is the case why is the deceit anymore then someone trying to pass themselves off as a natural blonde when they aren't?


Heterosexuality or homosexuality is part of who a person is. I can't believe there are people here who are so freewheeling in their attitudes about someone violating that.


As I said in my own case consent would immortally be withdraw however I would not claim I had been sexual abused or sexually assaulted and I haven’t seen anyone yet establish an argument that supports why such deception is such an assault.

Do I think it is right for someone else to deceive someone else in such a manner? Well actually I don’t but that's not an argument for why sexual abuse or sexual assault took place.


It's a disgusting attitude. If a man represented himself as a lesbian and performed oral sex on a real lesbian, even if she had the most powerful orgasm of her life, you can bet your ass N.O.W. would be all over his ass for sexual assault.


Sexual assault defined as how?

(Out of curiosity and it is an aside so feel free to ignore it but why didn’t you use the example of a woman representing herself as a man and performing oral sex on a gay man? Or doesn’t that seem quite as bad to you? The reason for asking is that I wondering how much (and I don't mean it in a psycho-babble way) of the heat in this discussion is because of the particular mix of genders involved i.e. that this case is about a man having sex with another man?)


Let's go back to my kosher example. A Jewish person is not giving consent to a waitress to purchase and eat a sandwich. He is giving consent to eat a kosher sandwich. If the waitress tells a Jewish person the sandwich is kosher when it is not, I'd say the Jewish person has every right to sue the pants off the waitress, regardless of whether or not he enjoyed the sandwich. The argument that "he agreed to eat a sandwich" is total B.S. The argument that "he should have researched the kosherness of the sandwich more carefully" is equal b.s.

If I have such a strong preference for something it is my responsibility to do the research. However if I am deliberately deceived in the course of such research I have every right to seek some redress however I do not believe the deceit was an assault.

Your argument is still apparently that because the murderer couldn’t tell what set of genitalia the victim had from public appearance that an assault took place, which is then saying that people must conform to some (unspecified) standard of appearance. (Also if that is your argument then it means it is a sexual assault if anyone misrepresents themselves in any way prior to sex, so a man lying about the size of his penis or a woman about the size of her breasts is then guilty of the same sexual assault.)

[Darat]

No it's deceit if you start with the premise that men do look like men and that women do look like women, and that a man who dresses in a dress and pads his breast is perfectly aware that this will make him look like a woman.

...snip...


I disagree a man dressing in "women’s" clothes is still dressing as himself. You are still arguing that if men don’t look like "men" then there is some form of deceit involved.



Which is pure sophistry, and an argument which I frankly doubt you'd apply in other cases. If a man takes a bar of lead, coats it with gold it and then sell it to some poor smug who thinks it's gold would you deny he was guilty of fraud just because the other guy never specifically asked whether it was gold all the way through.
?

That is not what I argued, I said:

I would go back to my point that if it is a strong preference you have for something it is up to you to "negotiate" for it not for the other person to anticipate it.

[Luke T.]

When I give my consent I give it to a person. The sex of a person is for some irrational reason important to me so I make sure I have sex with the right sex. If I then found out the person was of the opposite sex I would instantly withdraw my consent.

So you are not consenting to have sex with a person. Your consent only extends as far as women.

[Ian Osborne]

Yeah, you can just imagine the emotional distress caused by someone finding their partner had smaller boobs, a smaller dick or a regular relationship with peroxide, can't you? [Where's the bloody rolleyes gone?]

If you're arguing that when embarking on a sexual encounter, you give consent to a person, you must mean a specific person, not just anyone. And if that person has misrepresented his gender to the point where the subject of his attentions genuinely believes he's a woman, surely that consent is meaningless as Kerberos pointed out earlier.

As for this...

why didn’t you use the example of a woman representing herself as a man and performing oral sex on a gay man? Or doesn’t that seem quite as bad to you? The reason for asking is that I wondering how much (and I don't mean it in a psycho-babble way) of the heat in this discussion is because of the particular mix of genders involved i.e. that this case is about a man having sex with another man?

Well, phooey! It's not about the mix of genders, it's about the deliberate misrepresentation of one's gender in an intimate situation, where it might cause embarrassment or humiliation to the other party. Whether it would be as embarrassing and humiliating for a woman to impersonate a man and have sex with a gay man is a matter for the gay man.

[Ian Osborne]

I disagree a man dressing in "women’s" clothes is still dressing as himself. You are still arguing that if men don’t look like "men" then there is some form of deceit involved.

This doesn't answer his point. Whether he's dressing as himself or not, he's still dressing in a way that is designed to make others think he's a woman. Which is fine until he decides to get intimate with someone who has not given consent to go with a bloke.

Incidentally, the matter would've been settled a lot sooner if the TV had disrobed before performing a sex act. After all, what had he got to hide? Unless, of course, he was deliberately deceiving his partner...

[Luke T.]

Sexual assault defined as how?

Sexual assault: any type of sexual activity that you do not agree to, including: inappropriate touching, vaginal, anal, or oral penetration, sexual intercourse that you say no to, rape, attempted rape, child molestation. Sexual assault can be verbal, visual, or anything that forces a person to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention.

http://www.smartersex.org/resources/glossary.asp



(Out of curiosity and it is an aside so feel free to ignore it but why didn’t you use the example of a woman representing herself as a man and performing oral sex on a gay man? Or doesn’t that seem quite as bad to you? The reason for asking is that I wondering how much (and I don't mean it in a psycho-babble way) of the heat in this discussion is because of the particular mix of genders involved i.e. that this case is about a man having sex with another man?)

Didn't Brandon Teena represent herself as a male with a female without the female being aware of Teena's true gender? And didn't Teena have sex through the use of a dildo with that female? To me, that is sexual assault as well.

And yes, a woman who passes herself as a male and performs oral sex on a gay male who thinks she is a gay male is also committing sexual assault as far as I'm concerned.

[Darat]

So you are not consenting to have sex with a person. Your consent only extends as far as women.

(You may think I'm trying to be obtuse but I'm not, you are if you like reaching one the principles I hold dear.)

I'll probably not articulate this well but I'll give it a go. Imagine if I had a non-negotiable preference for blondes, would you say I am not giving my consent to a person because I will only give my consent to blondes? Being blonde is not who a person is, it is just part of what they are, being a man or a woman is not who a person is, it is just part of what they are.

[Luke T.]

(You may think I'm trying to be obtuse but I'm not, you are if you like reaching one the principles I hold dear.)

I'll probably not articulate this well but I'll give it a go. Imagine if I had a non-negotiable preference for blondes, would you say I am not giving my consent to a person because I will only give my consent to blondes? Being blonde is not who a person is, it is just part of what they are, being a man or a woman is not who a person is, it is just part of what they are.

A violation of the whole or of the part is still a violation. Hey, a rapist only damages the vagina, not the whole body, and maybe not even does any physical damage at all. It is still an act of violence (violation) and not an act of sex.

When you have sex with a heterosexual woman, you know it is implied she is not just consenting to have sex with a person, she is consenting to have sex with a man. You know damn well she wouldn't consent to have sex with a woman whether she states it or not. If someone acts to circumvent that implied consent, they are perpetrating unwanted sexual contact. And that is assault.

A preference for blondes is not implied. Nor is a religious preference. These must be stated explicitly.

[Ian Osborne]

Imagine if I had a non-negotiable preference for blondes, would you say I am not giving my consent to a person because I will only give my consent to blondes? Being blonde is not who a person is, it is just part of what they are, being a man or a woman is not who a person is, it is just part of what they are.

Imagine my turds were made of diamonds. My backside would soon make me a millionaire...

Forgive my being obtuse, but your analogy is ridiculous as people just don't behave like that. A preference for a certain hair colour which precludes artificial colourings is hardly likely to be so ingrained into a person's psyche that finding a suitor uses hair dye causes humiliation and embarrassment.

Besides, the peroxide blonde couldn't be expected to be aware of this person's preferences unless she was told. A man who dresses as a woman and picks up another man should realise there's an excellent chance of him objecting to the situation when the facts are known.

[Earthborn]

Is there a list somewhere with the properties one should tell a potential sex partner to make sure one is not performing 'sexual assault' ? Or maybe a list of properties one may have that would be so distressing to someone preferring the opposite?

[Darat]

Yeah, you can just imagine the emotional distress caused by someone finding their partner had smaller boobs, a smaller dick or a regular relationship with peroxide, can't you? [Where's the bloody rolleyes gone?]



For some people it could cause emotional distress. Again I do not expect people to conform to certain standards. Let me turn this around, can you not appreciate that some people in this sort of situation would not suffer any emotional distress? A lack of desire but not actual emotional distress?

(And I have when I was very much younger found myself in somewhat similar circumstances and I actually found it funny!)


If you're arguing that when embarking on a sexual encounter, you give consent to a person, you must mean a specific person, not just anyone. And if that person has misrepresented his gender to the point where the subject of his attentions genuinely believes he's a woman, surely that consent is meaningless as Kerberos pointed out earlier.


What are the list of deceptions that render the consent null and void or is it just gender?


As for this...

Well, phooey! It's not about the mix of genders, it's about the deliberate misrepresentation of one's gender in an intimate situation, where it might cause embarrassment or humiliation to the other party. Whether it would be as embarrassing and humiliating for a woman to impersonate a man and have sex with a gay man is a matter for the gay man.

Given the apparent heatedness of some of the exchanges I suspect there are emotional undercurrents in a lot of our minds that are influencing us. For instance given that the sort of confusion that is alleged to have happened between the victim and the murderer is not a "distressing" matter (and as I say I know I would find it funny) to me then perhaps that is influencing how I am viewing the possibility that it could have been sexual assault.

We can when we are talking about something as hard to pin down as human behaviour often learn a lot from how we behave talking about the subject as well as our arguments about the subject.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Darat's take on consent is probably closest to actual jurisprudence. Take for example the judgement delivered by Lord Justice Edmund Davies in 1972 in an unusual case of mistaken identity:


This is about as extraordinary a case as my bretheren and I have ever heard. Stephen Collins was convicted on 29 October 1971 of burglary with intent to commit rape and he was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment (...)
Let me relate the facts (...) At about two o' clock in the early morning of Saturday, 24 July 1971, a young lady of eighteen went to bed at her mother's home in Colchester. She had spent the evening with her boyfriend. She had taken a certain amount of drink. (...) At about 3:30 a.m. she awoke and she then saw in the moonlight a vague form crouched in the open window. She was unable to remember, and this is important,whether the form was outside the window sill or on that part of the sill which was inside the room. The young lady then realised several things: first of all that the form in the window was that of a male; secondly that he was a naked male; and thirdly that he was a naked male with an erect penis. She also saw in the moonlight that his hair was blond. She thereupon lept to the conclusion that her boyfriend, with whom for some time she had been on terms of regular and frequent sexual intimacy, was paying her an ardent nocturnal visit. She promptly sat up in bed, and the man descended from the window sill and joined her in bed and they had full sexual intercourse. But there was something about him which made her think that things were not as they usually were between her and her boyfriend. (...) So she turned on the bedside light, and saw that her companion was not her boyfriend and slapped the face of the intruder, who was none other than the appellant. (...)
Unless the jury were entirely satisfied that the appellant made an effective and susbstantive entry in the bedroom without the complainant doing or saying anything to cause him to believe that she was consenting to his entering it, he ought not to be convicted on the offense charged.

[Darat]

This doesn't answer his point. Whether he's dressing as himself or not, he's still dressing in a way that is designed to make others think he's a woman.


You are again saying there is some standard of dress a man most conform to otherwise he is practicing deception. I disagree.



Which is fine until he decides to get intimate with someone who has not given consent to go with a bloke.


Again I disagree, it is only deception if either one of them lies about their genitalia to the other. And unless you are saying that men must dress as men and women as women just wearing the "others" clothing does not constitute a lie.


Incidentally, the matter would've been settled a lot sooner if the TV had disrobed before performing a sex act. After all, what had he got to hide? Unless, of course, he was deliberately deceiving his partner...

The article in the OP does not give that sort of detail - have you got a link to a more detailed article?

[Darat]

http://www.smartersex.org/resources/glossary.asp

...snip...

Not very clear to me, because from that definition if the word "force" is to read as intentional "deception" then anything someone misrepresents could make the act a "sexual assault" so my example of non-natural blonde passing themselves as a natural blonde could then be interpreted as sexual assault.

To mean that is extending "sexual assualt" beyond any useful purpose.

[Ian Osborne]

You are again saying there is some standard of dress a man most conform to otherwise he is practicing deception. I disagree.

Interesting Freudian slip there - I'm sure you meant 'must' not 'most', but there is clearly a standard of dress 'most' men and women conform to. If you were to count the next 1,000 people you pass in the street and judge whether they were male or female, how many do you think you'd get wrong? Not many, I'll wager.

I agree there should be no demand for people to dress according to society's norms, but that isn't the same as denying those norms are there. If convincing cross-dressers were two-a-penny, it would indeed be a good idea to make sure the person you're getting intimate with is the correct gender for you, but in the real world (ie. the one we actually live in), this is not the case.

Again I disagree, it is only deception if either one of them lies about their genitalia to the other. And unless you are saying that men must dress as men and women as women just wearing the "others" clothing does not constitute a lie.

So saying 'I am a woman' is deception, but pulling the wool over someone's eyes without actually stating so explcitly is not? Never get a job at Trading Standards...

The article in the OP does not give that sort of detail - have you got a link to a more detailed article?

No, I'm just theorising, but the article says explicitly (no pun intended) that a sex act took place first, and only later did the person in question find out his woman was a man. I think it's fair to assume the clothes came off somewhere between the two...

[Cleopatra]

I wonder if any of our lawyer friends read this thread. In the States,would he have any chance if he sued the transexual for his behavior? I discussed the case with some colleagues in Athens and just out of curiosity we discussed on what legal grounds one could base his lawsuit. We didn't come out with anything apart from fraud but even with that we all agreed that the case wouldn't make it to court.

Interestingly we all agreed though that in a greek court the argument that his defense brought to justify the murder would absolutely work.

In the first case none would believe that he didn't know that he had sex with a man and everybody would think that if he didn't know then he was an idiot and deserved it. In the second case, of murder we are certain that the jury would be outraged by the behavior of the trasvestite and he wouldn't get a serious penalty.

Very interesting case although very tragic for the victim.

[LW]

You are again saying there is some standard of dress a man most conform to otherwise he is practicing deception. I disagree.

Do you not see any difference between dressing as a woman and going to a place where people commonly do that and dressing as a woman and going to a place where people don't generally do that with the intention of picking up unsuspecting heterosexual men?

(And no, I don't have any way of knowing which one applies to this case.)

[Ian Osborne]

In the first case none would believe that he didn't know that he had sex with a man and everybody would think that if he didn't know then he was an idiot and deserved it.

The article refers to some sexual activity rather than full intercourse. Presumably, the transvestite masturbated or performed oral sex on him, acts which wouldn't make it obvious that he was a man.

[Kerberos]

I disagree a man dressing in "women’s" clothes is still dressing as himself. You are still arguing that if men don’t look like "men" then there is some form of deceit involved.
Which they are
Dictionary.com (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1209036&posted=1#post1209036):
Deceiving:
"To cause to believe what is not true; mislead."
"To give a false impression"

A man who dresses as a woman, padds his breast etc. is decieving people unless he informs them he's a man, it follows from the dictionary definiton of the word. There's IMO nothing immoral about this deceit as long as no agrement that's based on his gender is reached, just like there's nothing immoral about painting lead with gold paint as long as you don't try to sell it.

?

That is not what I argued, I said:

I would go back to my point that if it is a strong preference you have for something it is up to you to "negotiate" for it not for the other person to anticipate it.
I know what you wrote and it is what you said, the buyer (murderer) has a strong preference for gold (women) over lead (men), but he failed to negotiate for it because he assumed it was so based on the superficial appearance of the lead (man). If you meant something different you'll have to clarify.

[TragicMonkey]

I think the problem here is that some people mythologize sex and sexuality and make it into a Very Big Deal Indeed.

Think back to the orthodox Jew being fed pork without his knowledge. He would feel like he'd been hurt, if he found out about it...but was he? Was there actual harm to him? Nope. No more than anyone else eating pork. The proof is that if he didn't know it was pork, he'd have suffered zero ill consequences from it. The reason he'd be upset is because he's built up an elaborate mythology around the eating of pork, a mythology replete with gods and commandments and history and tradition and such. He's got a lot of feelings about the matter. But while those feelings may reflect his views, they do not reflect reality. Having one egg roll with pork in it isn't going to hurt him no matter what magical thinking he has about it.

Same with sex. More than one poster has expressed that sexuality is "fundamental" or "part of one's core being"....lots of sacredness and magic and mystery, oh my! Face facts: sex is chemicals in the brain and friction. F***ing the wrong gender isn't going to hurt you. It might hurt your feelings, if you've got a lot of mythology built up around your sexuality. And that's bully for you, that you find something magical about sex. But that hardly entitles you to expect reality, the law, and other people to reflect your fancy mythos.

Sex is natural. And you know what that means? That it's just a thing, with no more significance than humans want to instill in it. Thinking otherwise is irrational at best, and psychologically suspect at worse. Why make sexuality such a Big Deal? People f*** the gender you don't prefer all the time, without ill effects. So what if you make a mistake and screw the wrong kind? It won't hurt you. Unless you consider a blow to your pedestal-occupying mythologized view of sexuality harm.

[Luke T.]

I think the problem here is that some people mythologize sex and sexuality and make it into a Very Big Deal Indeed.

Think back to the orthodox Jew being fed pork without his knowledge. He would feel like he'd been hurt, if he found out about it...but was he? Was there actual harm to him? Nope. No more than anyone else eating pork. The proof is that if he didn't know it was pork, he'd have suffered zero ill consequences from it. The reason he'd be upset is because he's built up an elaborate mythology around the eating of pork, a mythology replete with gods and commandments and history and tradition and such. He's got a lot of feelings about the matter. But while those feelings may reflect his views, they do not reflect reality. Having one egg roll with pork in it isn't going to hurt him no matter what magical thinking he has about it.

Same with sex. More than one poster has expressed that sexuality is "fundamental" or "part of one's core being"....lots of sacredness and magic and mystery, oh my! Face facts: sex is chemicals in the brain and friction. F***ing the wrong gender isn't going to hurt you. It might hurt your feelings, if you've got a lot of mythology built up around your sexuality. And that's bully for you, that you find something magical about sex. But that hardly entitles you to expect reality, the law, and other people to reflect your fancy mythos.

Sex is natural. And you know what that means? That it's just a thing, with no more significance than humans want to instill in it. Thinking otherwise is irrational at best, and psychologically suspect at worse. Why make sexuality such a Big Deal? People f*** the gender you don't prefer all the time, without ill effects. So what if you make a mistake and screw the wrong kind? It won't hurt you. Unless you consider a blow to your pedestal-occupying mythologized view of sexuality harm.

Basically, "Get over it. Psychological harm doesn't exist and is not an offense."

:rolleyes:

[Ian Osborne]

If that's the case, would you argue a woman who was raped while too drunk to resist and who remembers nothing about it in the morning was therefore not abused? Sex is only chemicals and friction after all, and if she doesn't feel that way, why should she expect reality, the law, and other people to reflect our fancy mythos?

[TragicMonkey]

If that's the case, would you argue a woman who was raped while too drunk to resist and who remembers nothing about it in the morning was therefore not abused? Sex is only chemicals and friction after all, and if she doesn't feel that way, why should she expect reality, the law, and other people to reflect our fancy mythos?

Of course not. Nonconsentual sex is still wrong, and dragging it into a thread about consentual sex is just wasting time. Although it does suggest an avenue of thought that would probably be considered "personalizing the issue" were I to pursue it.

[TragicMonkey]

Basically, "Get over it. Psychological harm doesn't exist and is not an offense."

:rolleyes:

There's psychological harm and there's psychological harm. Would you equate the psychological harm of being stalked with the psychological harm of hearing your upstairs neighbors having sex? I'm sure you can find cases of each where the "victim" sued for damages on the grounds of "psychological harm".

[Kerberos]

There's psychological harm and there's psychological harm. Would you equate the psychological harm of being stalked with the psychological harm of hearing your upstairs neighbors having sex? I'm sure you can find cases of each where the "victim" sued for damages on the grounds of "psychological harm".
So in other words, it's not that psychological harm isn't harm, but rather that you as the supreme authority on all things get to decide exactly which forms of psychologial harm are legitimate and which aren't?

[TragicMonkey]

So in other words, it's not that psychological harm isn't harm, but rather that you as the supreme authority on all things get to decide exactly which forms of psychologial harm are legitimate and which aren't?

Oh! Sorry! It should instead be that everyone arguing the opposite of me is the supreme authority on all things and get to decide exactly which forms of psychological harm are legitimate and which aren't. Is that better?

eta: All I was suggesting is that there is a scale of "psychological harm", and that hurt feelings or damaged egos aren't on the high end of that scale. Is that so controversial?

A more likely objection would be to my categorizing gender-mistake as mere damaged ego rather than suggesting that all psychological harm is equal in degree.

[Kerberos]

Oh! Sorry! It should instead be that everyone arguing the opposite of me is the supreme authority on all things and get to decide exactly which forms of psychological harm are legitimate and which aren't. Is that better?
Not really, particuarly since I have neither said nor insinuated that anywhere at all. Nice try though.

[Ian Osborne]

Of course not. Nonconsentual sex is still wrong, and dragging it into a thread about consentual sex is just wasting time. Although it does suggest an avenue of thought that would probably be considered "personalizing the issue" were I to pursue it.

Whether the sex was consensual is precisely the issue we're discussing here, and my 'dragging' drink rape into the thread was as a counter to your arguments, not an anticipation of your views.

[TragicMonkey]

Not really, particuarly since I have neither said nor insinuated that anywhere at all. Nice try though.

Read the eta above.

Nobody has to say "In my opinion" or "in my understanding" in their writing because it is self-evidently their opinion and understanding, otherwise they wouldn't be writing it. To expect otherwise is to tacitly assume that somebody out there really is the ultimate authority on all things. Which makes pointing out that my opinion is my opinion somewhat pointless.

[TragicMonkey]

Whether the sex was consensual is precisely the issue we're discussing here, and my 'dragging' drink rape into the thread was as a counter to your arguments, not an anticipation of your views.

Did Person A agree to have sex with Person B? Yes.
Did Person A know everything about Person B that might have influenced that decision? No.
Does lack of knowledge, even to the extent that such lack makes one decide the other way, mean that consent was not had?

You appear to think "Yes". I say "No". Think of a business deal. I sell you a house. You find out later that the area is in the flight path of a Navy base. Does that mean you didn't consentually purchase the house? You might, based on the laws in your area, have grounds for a lawsuit based on "bad faith" dealings. But nobody's going to say it was nonconsentual.

Deception and coercion are two very different things.

[Spidey13]

Tragicmonkey's starting to win me over somewhat on this. I just remembered an episode of "Average Joe" that I saw. (My then-wife was watching it. I was only half-watching. Seriously.) It was the episode where they bring in the good looking guys to compete with the Joes. One of the jocks got in the face of one of the Joes. They basically ended up in an up-close staring contest until the the Joe kissed the jock on the lips. The jock shoved him away, went into a rage, and basically said that if the cameras weren't on them he would have kicked the Joe's ass.

Now, I have no desire to have any of this type of intimate contact with another man. However, if it did happen, I would like to think I would take TragicMonkeys view of the situation; just something that happened and no permanent harm done. There are many people out there with irrational phobias of same-sex contact who have no practical reason for it. However, the transexual should probably consider this before engaging in sexual contact with a person who, for all she knows, is only attracted to women. What the killer did was wrong, but the transexual should be careful of the possibility that an encounter like this may go wrong. It's kind of a like a woman walking alone at night through a bad neighborhood. The people there have no right to mug/rape/kill her, but the best way for her to avoid this is to not go into that neighborhood alone at night.

[Anti_Hypeman]

For the record Im not gay

[Cleopatra]

...On the other hand I wish to play devil's advocate( as If I ever do such things in this forum...).

I find astonishing the rationalization that comes mainly from Tragic Monkey. You cannot suggest that what happened was ok and the anger of the murderer ( if the account of the events is right) is not justified.

If things happened according the story then we have something wrong but in such a twisted and sophisticated sense that the law hasn't been able to describe yet.

I have to say thought that I am saddened when I see members of communities that fight for their right of freedom of expression to violate in such a blunt way the freedom of expression of another individual. Because, if the story is true, this is what the victim did. He didn't aknowledge the murderer the right to choose the way of his sexual expression. I think that this is very serious.

[TragicMonkey]

However, the transexual should probably consider this before engaging in sexual contact with a person who, for all she knows, is only attracted to women. What the killer did was wrong, but the transexual should be careful of the possibility that an encounter like this may go wrong. It's kind of a like a woman walking alone at night through a bad neighborhood. The people there have no right to mug/rape/kill her, but the best way for her to avoid this is to not go into that neighborhood alone at night.

Which makes me suspect the murderer's story. A transsexual would know the risks of such a reaction. A previous poster suggested that perhaps there was no deception at all, that the murderer knew beforehand, messed around, then got freaked out or something. I mean, after the high-profile cases like Brandon Teena's, already mentioned in this thread, what transsexual would be so careless?

[Spidey13]

Which makes me suspect the murderer's story. A transsexual would know the risks of such a reaction. A previous poster suggested that perhaps there was no deception at all, that the murderer knew beforehand, messed around, then got freaked out or something. I mean, after the high-profile cases like Brandon Teena's, already mentioned in this thread, what transsexual would be so careless?

I think I was the one who posted that scenario. And, yes, most of this argument is based on believing the murderer's version of the events.

[TragicMonkey]

...On the other hand I wish to play devil's advocate( as If I ever do such things in this forum...).

I find astonishing the rationalization that comes mainly from Tragic Monkey. You cannot suggest that what happened was ok and the anger of the murderer ( if the account of the events is right) is not justified.

I didn't say it was okay. It was deceptive and therefore unethical. But it wasn't bad to the point of justifying violence, or the degree of upset suggested by some. Anger at being deceived, sure. Rage because of some sort of psychological damage to one's perceptions of sexuality and their "core being"? No.


I have to say thought that I am saddened when I see members of communities that fight for their right of freedom of expression to violate in such a blunt way the freedom of expression of another individual. Because, if the story is true, this is what the victim did. He didn't aknowledge the murderer the right to choose the way of his sexual expression. I think that this is very serious.

I really don't see how this becomes a freedom of expression business. It's more like purchasing goods through deceptive advertising. If I buy the peanut butter that claims to be the creamiest, but is in fact not creamy at all, it's not a case of the peanut butter manufacturer's denying my freedom to choose the way of my peanut butter tastes.

[Kerberos]

Read the eta above.

Ahh, OK.

eta: All I was suggesting is that there is a scale of "psychological harm", and that hurt feelings or damaged egos aren't on the high end of that scale. Is that so controversial?

A more likely objection would be to my categorizing gender-mistake as mere damaged ego rather than suggesting that all psychological harm is equal in degree.
I don't think anybody would argue against the notion that there is a scale on psychological harm just like there is a scale on physical harm. My objection to your argument however would not so much be to say that categorizing gender mistakes as more than just hurt ego/feelings, but rather to say that the concept of "just hurt ego/feelings" is inherently meaningless.
Unlike physical harm emotional harm is inherently and almost 100% subjective. I really don't think that it's meaningful to try to make up a universal list of what forms of psychological harm are the most serious. If somebody suffers a nervous breakdown, it doesn't really do them any good that you or I don't think it was any big deal. My point is that it is a fact that a lot of people would find it extremely disturbing to have had say a blowjob from another guy, and because a transvestite should be aware of this fact it's reasonable to expect them to inform their partners. I'm not sure it should be illegal because legislating on psychological harm is a bottomless can of worms (though so is not legislating on it), but I maintain that it is immoral. In cases where you did not and could not be axpected to know that an action would cause psychological harm (like the guy with the strong and exclusive preference for natural blondes) then withholding the information is nor IMO immoral.

[TragicMonkey]

The crowning irony, of course, is that the "gay panic" defense still got him a prison sentence, where he will have plenty of time to experience actual coerced gay sex. I wonder if he will appreciate the difference, and come to conclude that in comparison, a bj by a guy in a dress was not a big deal after all.

[Spidey13]

The crowning irony, of course, is that the "gay panic" defense still got him a prison sentence, where he will have plenty of time to experience actual coerced gay sex. I wonder if he will appreciate the difference, and come to conclude that in comparison, a bj by a guy in a dress was not a big deal after all.

Amen to that.

[luchog]

She consented to sleep with a single man, not a married man; he is therefore misrepresenting his identity, and if your logic holds true, he is therefore guilty of indecent assault.
Exactly. The difference between this and the TG/TV/TS issue is merely one of personal preference. They are in all other ways fundamentally the same - misrepresentation.

Ultimately, unless there is actual physical harm done by the misrepresentation (eg. disease); then there can be no violation of consent. Any time you have sex with someone you do not know well, you run the risk of misrepresentations of numerous sorts. That's just the nature of the game. Caveat Emptor. So to speak.

I'm willing to bet the "gay panic" defense is a cover for the fact that the guy actually solicited the victim. That his biggest issue was that he paid for sex with a woman and got someone who was physically male. Probably some backwoods yabbo who got drunk and tried to pick up a hooker in the wrong part of town.

[Cleopatra]

The crowning irony, of course, is that the "gay panic" defense still got him a prison sentence, where he will have plenty of time to experience actual coerced gay sex. I wonder if he will appreciate the difference, and come to conclude that in comparison, a bj by a guy in a dress was not a big deal after all.

Come-on I don't think that you should say such things when a dead person is involved and another one is in jail.

[Cleopatra]

I didn't say it was okay. It was deceptive and therefore unethical. But it wasn't bad to the point of justifying violence, or the degree of upset suggested by some. Anger at being deceived, sure. Rage because of some sort of psychological damage to one's perceptions of sexuality and their "core being"? No.

There is no doubt that murder is not justified under any circumstances.

I really don't see how this becomes a freedom of expression business. It's more like purchasing goods through deceptive advertising. If I buy the peanut butter that claims to be the creamiest, but is in fact not creamy at all, it's not a case of the peanut butter manufacturer's denying my freedom to choose the way of my peanut butter tastes.

Your examples support my argument. What is freedom of expression? It's your right to express yourself but the more important is your right to choose. Once you are denied the right to choose ( the way false ads deny you this right) and your freedom of expressing your choice is violated.

[TragicMonkey]

Come-on I don't think that you should say such things when a dead person is involved and another one is in jail.

Why not? The murderer confessed to the murder, so it's not like I'm mocking the innocently imprisoned. As for the victim, I don't see what I said as particularly disrespectful. I'm not mocking his death, but the murderer's attempt to excuse the crime.

[Cleopatra]

Why not? The murderer confessed to the murder, so it's not like I'm mocking the innocently imprisoned. As for the victim, I don't see what I said as particularly disrespectful. I'm not mocking his death, but the murderer's attempt to excuse the crime.Actually you are mocking him for expressing his disgust ( in a wrong way that's why he got punished)towards a specific sexual expression. You criticize his tastes in sex.

Let's not turn this into a drama, I am just commenting between the lines of your post and for the joy of the debate.

[TragicMonkey]

There is no doubt that murder is not justified under any circumstances.

Really? I can think of circumstances that would justify it, at least to me.

Your examples support my argument. What is freedom of expression? It's your right to express yourself but the more important is your right to choose. Once you are denied the right to choose ( the way false ads deny you this right) and your freedom of expressing your choice is violated.

Having the right to choose is not the same thing as being granted complete knowledge of everything pertaining to the choices available. You may vote for any candidate on the ballot, but you may not visit their homes and snoop through their garbage, attics, and bank statements looking for more information about them. It may well turn out that the candidate you vote for has three dead bodies in his trash, an attic full of furry porn, and a money-laundering scheme involving the Cayman Islands. When those things come out after the election, though, you're not allowed to take back your vote and give it to his defeated opponent.

[TragicMonkey]

Actually you are mocking him for expressing his disgust ( in a wrong way that's why he got punished)towards a specific sexual expression. You criticize his tastes in sex.

Let's not turn this into a drama, I am just commenting between the lines of your post and for the joy of the debate.

Ah, but people's tastes, especially in matters of sex, are ripe for mockery. Tastes are always targets of criticism, perhaps because individual taste is generally irrational.

A tolerant society means that everyone is free to have their own peculiar tastes, not that their tastes are shielded from criticism or even ridicule.

[Kerberos]

Having the right to choose is not the same thing as being granted complete knowledge of everything pertaining to the choices available. You may vote for any candidate on the ballot, but you may not visit their homes and snoop through their garbage, attics, and bank statements looking for more information about them. It may well turn out that the candidate you vote for has three dead bodies in his trash, an attic full of furry porn, and a money-laundering scheme involving the Cayman Islands. When those things come out after the election, though, you're not allowed to take back your vote and give it to his defeated opponent.
No, but if I buy gilded lead that the seller delibertaly leads me to assume is gold then, even it's never explicitly stated, I do have the right to take back the purchase, and sue his sorry as for fraud as well. Agreements under false assumption that the "seller" knows perfectly well are relevant are not valid.

[Anti_Hypeman]

If you buy fake drugs from a cop you still go to jail

Sorry I didnt want to be the only one in this thread without a uselss analogy

[Cleopatra]

Really? I can think of circumstances that would justify it, at least to me. When I am thinking various cases I agree with you but in the society that I have chose to live murder is not acceptable.Don't bring me the example of self-defense ( although I doubt that you would bring something that easy to address), killing somebody in self-defense is not called murder.
Having the right to choose is not the same thing as being granted complete knowledge of everything pertaining to the choices available. You may vote for any candidate on the ballot, but you may not visit their homes and snoop through their garbage, attics, and bank statements looking for more information about them. It may well turn out that the candidate you vote for has three dead bodies in his trash, an attic full of furry porn, and a money-laundering scheme involving the Cayman Islands. When those things come out after the election, though, you're not allowed to take back your vote and give it to his defeated opponent.
I don't disagree with you but I am susprized that you describe the benefits of democracy as flaws. Of course you cannot search the attic of a candidate but if it turns out that he is a murderer he loses the elected position, he goes to jail and the body elects somebody else in his place.

Well, when it come sto sex I think that the gender of the individuals that are involved is an essential... knowledge.

[Cleopatra]

Ah, but people's tastes, especially in matters of sex, are ripe for mockery. Tastes are always targets of criticism, perhaps because individual taste is generally irrational.

A tolerant society means that everyone is free to have their own peculiar tastes, not that their tastes are shielded from criticism or even ridicule.

I agree with you although one should say that only the tastes of public figures should be subjected to public criticism since they have chosen to live in public. I don't know why my passionate affair with Steely Dan --for example--should be subjected to criticism since I don't date " him" in public but even if you believe that you should criticize me for that well, there must be a point where the speechless audience expects the fullstop to be put and the criticism shouldn't affect my taste and my choice. :)

[username]

I would not view the sex as consentual sex in the sense of informed consent. Decieving as to one's gender is a pretty big deal for a lot of people. That's reality.

I can completely understand the murderer's 'freaking out' over it.

Murder though is taking it too far, I don't consider it justifiable, but a moderate ass whooping I could see.

4 years seems too light a sentence relative to the time assigned for other crimes, but what can ya do?

The above are pure opinions, as I see it. Perhaps the lesson in this is that trannies/cross dressers should not try tricking heteros into having sex with them.

[TragicMonkey]

When I am thinking various cases I agree with you but in the society that I have chose to live murder is not acceptable.Don't bring me the example of self-defense ( although I doubt that you would bring something that easy to address), killing somebody in self-defense is not called murder.

I was actually thinking of blackmailers. No point in paying up, since they'll never stop bleeding you. Might as well get rid of the problem, since presumably whatever they've got on you is serious enough to justify another crime. Otherwise you could just tell them to publish and be damned.


Well, when it comes to sex I think that the gender of the individuals that are involved is an essential... knowledge.

Yeah, but I think that's up to the individual. I wouldn't knowingly mess around with the wrong gender, unless maybe I had too much to drink or was really bored or something, but it wouldn't freak me out that much if I made a mistake and found out midway through or afterward. Sex, and the psychological baggage attached, is going to vary from person to person.

[TragicMonkey]

I agree with you although one should say that only the tastes of public figures should be subjected to public criticism since they have chosen to live in public. I don't know why my passionate affair with Steely Dan --for example--should be subjected to criticism since I don't date " him" in public but even if you believe that you should criticize me for that well, there must be a point where the speechless audience expects the fullstop to be put and the criticism shouldn't affect my taste and my choice. :)

Well, the mature individual recognizes that his or her own tastes are also liable to criticism, so it's best to cut some slack. I may laugh at my friend for his ridiculous fondness for blonds, while he in turn may laugh at my fondness for guys with sticky-out-ears, that I'm not admitting to having. Just a hypothetical. But neither of us regards the other with disgust for his tastes, although we find them surprising and peculiar.

[Cleopatra]

I was actually thinking of blackmailers. No point in paying up, since they'll never stop bleeding you. Might as well get rid of the problem, since presumably whatever they've got on you is serious enough to justify another crime. Otherwise you could just tell them to publish and be damned. Well, since you brought up the issue my... recipe is never to succumb to a blackmail, especially if what you have done will only cause you public embarassment. General public is a strange beast. It enjoys devouring individuals but it seems that it enjoys the ritual, a ritual that blackmailers seem to destroy.That's why they are sympathetic to the victims of blackmail. Don't ask me for evidence for this, it's my experience and gut feelings that talk now.If somebody is blackmailed for a violation of the legislation, then he belongs to the courts anyway.

Yeah, but I think that's up to the individual. I wouldn't knowingly mess around with the wrong gender, unless maybe I had too much to drink or was really bored or something, but it wouldn't freak me out that much if I made a mistake and found out midway through or afterward. Sex, and the psychological baggage attached, is going to vary from person to person.

Ahhhh now we come to the point. The fact that it wouldn't freak YOU out doesn't mean that we have criticize that man for freaking out. He was there and he freaked out. We weren't there , he was there.

[TragicMonkey]

Ahhhh now we come to the point. The fact that it wouldn't freak YOU out doesn't mean that we have criticize that man for freaking out. He was there and he freaked out. We weren't there , he was there.

Ah, but his freakout was the result of his individual and irrational personal taste. We can always criticize when people allow their irrational feelings to override their reason and act in an uncivilized manner.

[Luke T.]

Ah, but his freakout was the result of his individual and irrational personal taste. We can always criticize when people allow their irrational feelings to override their reason and act in an uncivilized manner.

If a belief in a God who doesn't want you to eat pork is irrational, that still does not excuse someone exploiting that belief and perpetrating a fraud against them. We really don't want skeptics saying it is okay or no big deal to defraud people with silly beliefs. Because that is exactly what the John Edwards and Sylvia Brownes do.

If someone "freaks out" because they had sex with someone of their own gender by being deceived, we really don't want to say that they shouldn't be that way about it. I would think a homosexual would be very sensitive to the kind of thinking that says, "You shouldn't be that way."

[TragicMonkey]

If a belief in a God who doesn't want you to eat pork is irrational, that still does not excuse someone exploiting that belief and perpetrating a fraud against them.

But neither does it mean there should be special penalties against people who put pork in their egg rolls without admitting it. Eating pork is eating pork is eating pork; it doesn't hurt one party more than another just because someone has feelings about it.

If someone "freaks out" because they had sex with someone of their own gender by being deceived, we really don't want to say that they shouldn't be that way about it. I would think a homosexual would be very sensitive to the kind of thinking that says, "You shouldn't be that way."

I'm not saying that. I'm saying they can feel however they please about the matter, but that those feelings do not merit special attention and weight under the law. Be however you want, but do not expect everyone else to buy into the grand specialness of your individual feelings.

[Luke T.]

But neither does it mean there should be special penalties against people who put pork in their egg rolls without admitting it. Eating pork is eating pork is eating pork; it doesn't hurt one party more than another just because someone has feelings about it.

I guess we'll just have to disagree, because even though I love pork myself, I think it is just plain evil to trick someone into eating it against their beliefs, regardless of how I feel about those beliefs.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying they can feel however they please about the matter, but that those feelings do not merit special attention and weight under the law. Be however you want, but do not expect everyone else to buy into the grand specialness of your individual feelings.

If a person can lose their job for saying the F-word in mixed company under the aegis of "sexual harrassment" (which I think is ridiculous), or using the N-word under the aegis of "racism" (which I don't think is so ridiculous), punishing someone for deceiving someone else into having sex they otherwise would not consent to seems very right and very proper to me.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Maybe I missed it, but are we sure this is a case of deception?

I mean, I was very surprised by the Crying Game, but the transvestites I’ve known (or know I’ve known) are obvious enough for them to reasonably assume others know the situation. When you’re dealing with a guy wearing beer goggles, I can see how poor assumptions on both sides can be made, sans deceit.

Come to think of it, in the case of a Crying Game scenario, the transvestite appears female (at least to me), and she should assume strangers see her as female, yet her assumptions about how she meet her man caused her to error without deception.

[Luke T.]

This is off topic, I know, but I just now noticed at the bottom of these topics is a list of "Similar Threads" to whatever topic you are in.

For this gay topic, it lists:

"I served 20 years military service on Mars!" started by xouper in October 2003. :eek:

and

Bananas: No Sex In Years, Extinction Imminent started by zakur in September 2003.




BWA-HA-HA-HA!

[thaiboxerken]

If a belief in a God who doesn't want you to eat pork is irrational, that still does not excuse someone exploiting that belief and perpetrating a fraud against them. We really don't want skeptics saying it is okay or no big deal to defraud people with silly beliefs.

I don't agree. If it freaks them out, then it's their problem for having such idiotic beliefs.

[Ian Osborne]

I don't agree. If it freaks them out, then it's their problem for having such idiotic beliefs.

Doesn't make it your place to deliberately and maliciously freak them out, though. That's just bullying...

[Luke T.]

I don't agree. If it freaks them out, then it's their problem for having such idiotic beliefs.

So you have no problem with John Edward making millions telling people he can talk to the dead?

[luchog]

This doesn't answer his point. Whether he's dressing as himself or not, he's still dressing in a way that is designed to make others think he's a woman. Which is fine until he decides to get intimate with someone who has not given consent to go with a bloke.

Incidentally, the matter would've been settled a lot sooner if the TV had disrobed before performing a sex act. After all, what had he got to hide? Unless, of course, he was deliberately deceiving his partner...
Your homophobia is showing. You have taken the highly arguable stance that there was a deliberate deception, yet have nowhere submitted any evidence to support that aside from your own prejudices. How do you know that the TV didn't point out his status at some point? How do you know that the murderer wasn't simply too drunk to notice? I've seen more than my share of drunken idiots hitting on pretty much anything that looks even vaguely female, even when a sober person could quite clearly tell that they're male.

I mean, let's face it, movies and a few professional drag queens/shemales aside; there aren't that many TV/TG/TSs who really look like anything other than a guy in drag.

[luchog]

For the record Im not gay
And for one more record, he loves the c**k.

[Luke T.]

Your homophobia is showing. You have taken the highly arguable stance that there was a deliberate deception, yet have nowhere submitted any evidence to support that aside from your own prejudices.

Um, no. This whole discussion has been based on the article in the OP:

"The decedent represented himself to be female. She/he said he was female to him," said Martinez' lawyer, Roberto Dulce.

How do you know that the TV didn't point out his status at some point?

We don't know for sure. But this has been more of an interesting ethics discussion based on a stipulation that a TV represents himself as a woman to a hetero male and whether that is sexual assault or what. Not necessarily based on actual events which cannot possibly be known to us from the OP. It is more or less a hypothetical we have all agreed upon on which to base this discussion.

And now we just need someone to say they were misled about the nature of the conversation and do not consent to this.

[Ian Osborne]

Your homophobia is showing.

Thanks for voicing what others have merely skirted around, but your assertion is incorrect. Provided they hurt no one else, I believe everyone - and that's EVERYONE - should have the right to pursue his or her sexual identity without restriction imposed by state or society. That includes heterosexuals who don't want to be sexually involved with cross-dressers. While those who stand up for heterosexual rights are almost invariably homophobic (people who go out of their way to defend something that's not under threat have usually got an agenda), in this particular case the argument is valid. Once again, the only person showing disrespect for another adult's sexual identity here is the TV.

As I asked before, how would you feel if the cross-dresser had performed a sex act on a lesbian who didn't know he was male? For my money the situation is exactly the same, but it does allow one to condemn the cross-dresser's reprehensible behaviour without being accused of homophobia. :D

You have taken the highly arguable stance that there was a deliberate deception, yet have nowhere submitted any evidence to support that aside from your own prejudices. How do you know that the TV didn't point out his status at some point? How do you know that the murderer wasn't simply too drunk to notice? I've seen more than my share of drunken idiots hitting on pretty much anything that looks even vaguely female, even when a sober person could quite clearly tell that they're male.

Luke dealt with this one. I'd just like to add that new facts would change everything regarding this case in particular, but nothing regarding the validity of what's been argued based on the assumption that there was deliberate deception. My stance isn't based on prejudice, but on the known facts as outlined in the article referenced in the original post.

I mean, let's face it, movies and a few professional drag queens/shemales aside; there aren't that many TV/TG/TSs who really look like anything other than a guy in drag.

All the more reason why a convincing TV shouldn't perform sex acts on people who might not know the score.

[username]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying they can feel however they please about the matter, but that those feelings do not merit special attention and weight under the law. Be however you want, but do not expect everyone else to buy into the grand specialness of your individual feelings.

Actually I have been thinking about this for a day now and I think I understand why I disagree with your comment. We live in a society that has norms and while those norms are subject to change over time, there will always be cultural norms in any society. Our laws tend to reflect those norms.

A TG person who willfully misrepresents their gender in order to get laid is commiting a larger infraction of our social norms than the guy who says he in single in order to get laid.

There may not be any objective reason why this should be so, but it is so.

[TragicMonkey]

Actually I have been thinking about this for a day now and I think I understand why I disagree with your comment. We live in a society that has norms and while those norms are subject to change over time, there will always be cultural norms in any society. Our laws tend to reflect those norms.

A TG person who willfully misrepresents their gender in order to get laid is commiting a larger infraction of our social norms than the guy who says he in single in order to get laid.

There may not be any objective reason why this should be so, but it is so.

There's an old Hausa saying: "Custom is the tethering peg of fools."

[peptoabysmal]

In the case of my house, very easy (because I got tired of looking for them and bought enough to have a couple pairs in every room).

But I don't think that is important consideration. A very likely explanation is that the guy grabbed the first thing that could be used as a weapon that he could find. If it wasn't scissors, it could have been a lampstand. Or anything else within the reach of the hand.

So he grabbed the nearest thing, which happened to be scissors (or whatever), and stabbed the victim 20 times?

Under police questioning Estanislao Martinez said that he had killed a person he thought was female but discovered during sex was biologically male.

Martinez said he panicked and picked up the knife, stabbing Robles multiple times, before he jumped out of a window.


4 Year Prison Term For Transgender Murder (http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/08/082505tgMurder.htm)

I still have the feeling that something in this story doesn't jive.

Juxtaposition it against this story:
Korey Jacobs, pictured, will not face the death penalty in Virginia for killing Terrence Britt earlier this year. Britt, 48, a gay man who had lost a leg to diabetes a few years back, had lived with Jacobs romantically for a decade. Jacobs, 33, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, robbery and unarmed burglary. On April 1 , Jacobs went to Britt’s downtown Suffolk apartment to confront him. It was rumored Britt had told a woman Jacobs was trying to have a relationship with that Jacobs was bisexual. Britt didn't let him in, Jacobs kicked down the door and stabbed Britt several times with a knife he’d grabbed from the dining room table, then beat Britt with a large wooden stick.
http://www.queerday.com/crime/

[shecky]

Isn't deception par for the course in the pursuit of getting nasty with strangers?

[TragicMonkey]

Isn't deception par for the course in the pursuit of getting nasty with strangers?

Not necessarily. In fact, if you intend to remain strangers, you can be less deceptive than you'd be when trying to form a relationship. Don't have to struggle to hide your flaws so much, sort of thing.

[thaiboxerken]

So, are we still arguing that a person who gets a BJ from a person that they really don't know well is a victim if that other person isn't of the correct sex of their preference?

[Ian Osborne]

So, are we still arguing that a person who gets a BJ from a person that they really don't know well is a victim if that other person isn't of the correct sex of their preference?

If that person represented his or herself as a member of the opposite sex, yes.

[Leif Roar]

Was the charge reduced to involuntary manslaughter, or something?

He was charged, and pleaded guilty to, voluntary manslaughter. I believe this is a fairly rare charge, between involuntary manslaughter and second degree murder in severity.

According to this page (http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/violent_crimes/voluntary_manslaughter.htm), voluntary manslaughter is when someone kills another person after "adequate provocation," "sufficient to incite an ordinary person to sudden and intense passion such that s/he loses self control."

The school-book example of voluntary manslaughter is killing a man after finding him in bed with your wife.

[luchog]

As I asked before, how would you feel if the cross-dresser had performed a sex act on a lesbian who didn't know he was male? For my money the situation is exactly the same, but it does allow one to condemn the cross-dresser's reprehensible behaviour without being accused of homophobia. :D


Alleged behaviour.


Luke dealt with this one. I'd just like to add that new facts would change everything regarding this case in particular, but nothing regarding the validity of what's been argued based on the assumption that there was deliberate deception. My stance isn't based on prejudice, but on the known facts as outlined in the article referenced in the original post.

For "known facts" read "assertions made by a confessed murderer clearly attempting to obviate accusations of premeditation".

That's right, based on the assumption that there was deliberate deception. There very likely could have been deliberate deception on the part of the TV; but there is an equal likelihood of deception on the part of the murderer.

You'll pardon me if I'm skeptical of the murderer's claims.

Judging by the local culture and history, and statistics related to murder of GLBT people -- and in particular, their usual treatment in any predominantly Hispanic communities -- I think it just as likely, if not moreso, that Martinez lured Roble out for the express purpose of killing him. Possibly planned in advance, if this was someone previously known to Martinez; or decided on the spur of the moment, in the bar, once Martinez noticed Robles. Particularly if he was approached by Robles at any point during the night.

Or, simplest explanation of all, Robles did, in fact, make clear to Martinez that he was a TV; and Martinez was simply too $hitfaced-drunk to understand.

The fact that you will accept, at face value, the word of a confessed murderer seeking to avoid a premeditation charge appears, to me, to point to a latent homophobia.

All the more reason why a convincing TV shouldn't perform sex acts on people who might not know the score.
No one has asserted otherwise. The issue is whether that was, in fact, the case. That is far from proven.

[Ian Osborne]

I didn't accept the murderer's word, I accepted the court's verdict. While by no means infallible, the courts have access to much more information than we do; they're not going solely on the story referenced in the OP.

And once again, even if the facts of this specific case were turned upside down halfway into the first page, the topic would've turned into a hypothetical which assumed deliberate deception on the TV's part and continued in exactly the same way as it has now.

[ceo_esq]

Isn't deception par for the course in the pursuit of getting nasty with strangers?It can be, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If you mislead a stranger into believing that you're single for the purpose of having sex with her, that's one thing. If you somehow trick her into mistaking you for her husband and then have sex with her, that's a crime. The case we're considering falls somewhere between the two.

[thaiboxerken]

If that person represented his or herself as a member of the opposite sex, yes.

What if they represented themselves as hispanic, but was really asian?