My view on woman who used sex toy to repeatedly assault woman
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-8-years.html

Sex is all about consent. And the victim did not consent to another woman using a sex toy to repeatedly assault her.

She thought it was a man.

FACT.

Now we come to the people who are saying eight years is too long for the culprit.

WRONG.


Her 'supporters' list a lot of serious crimes where sex attackers have received lenient sentences:

Only 4 years for the rape of a child.

Only 18 months for rape of a woman.

Etc, etc..

The supporters use this to 'strengthen' their views that this woman's sentence is 'too severe'.

WRONG!!

The other sex attackers should have received much higher jail terms and we all know that.

Also, we all know she won't do eight years, it'll be four. And another thing.

If it had been a man who had posed as a lesbian and used his manhood to
have sex instead of a sex toy, you would be saying eight years wasn't enough,
yet the cases are just the same.

WAKE UP and smell the coffee.

Assault is assault, and the punishment should always meet that. Can't believe people would support the other woman.

Do people actually support her?

Personally I do not but I do find the whole case so bizarre, like how on earth she managed to dupe this girl so many times?

Does it matter whether it was a penis or a phallus?
Rape is rape and therefore the sentences should be more aligned in my opinion.

Eight years, she'll probably be out in 4. I think she was lucky. And quoting the sentences of other sex offenders doesn't make any kind of difference unless there was a direct precedent set which affects this particular case. Rape is rape.

This is what I'd don't understand? Surely a women can feel the difference? Didn't they have sex like 10 times? I don't believe the women is that stupid to not now.

And people saying its rape well its actually not as the women agreed to sex all the women is guilty of is lying, tricking and misleading the women and I don't agree she should get more then a real rapist would get because she didn't force the women to have sex.

Maybe I am missing something. The sexual acts were consensual so it couldn't be described as rape by my understanding of the definition. I also find it hard to believe that the woman was that gullible that she didn't know she was in the company of a woman or that she was having sex with a woman.

I'm not supporting the accused/convicted, the case just doesn't make a lot of sense to me on the basis on which it has been reported.

agreed

Yeah agree with bitontheslide tbh Again not for a second siding with the convicted woman, it just seems amazingly odd that this woman met up with and slept with this woman 10 times and remained blind folded the entire time? weird weird weird

Yeah I'm kind of with you on this. How can it be comparable to a man violently attacking a woman on the street for example if the actual sex acts themselves were consented to (albeit with a fake penis instead of a real penis).
And this doesn't mean we're supporting her! I just think it's a fair point.

And another thing actually, I disagree with the "rape is rape" sentiment. Surely there are varying degrees to all crimes (which is the reason why some people are arguing that the sentence here is disproportionate). That's not to say it wasn't a crime or that she hasn't done anything wrong or been shockingly deceptive, rather that surely someone being attacked and raped at knife point in a dark alley fearing for their life is different to someone using a dildo instead of a penis?!
And not to sound facetious or anything but are women who have silicone in their breasts or wear push up bra's, being criminally deceptive towards men who want to bed them because of their breasts? I don't think so.

I would say rape with a penis was worse as there would be the risk of STI or pregnancy too.