Re: Are transsexuals obligated to tell partners? GWEN ARAUJO case

Laurey wrote:
> "vivo per lei" <KA1985@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1123280135.585006.205220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > You dropped it because you failed to prove it, plain and simple. I
> > asked you to show us a legal precedent in which a person was convicted
> > as a "rapist" for lying about their sex, race, age, national origin,
> > sexual orientation, marital status, virginity, or any other criteria
> > the accuser considered vital to know before consenting to sex.
> > Nevertheless, you evaded the question, obstensibly because you couldn't
> > back it up with actual convictons.
>
> Here is a conviction for sexual battery. Stephen Hill, a biological man,
> enticed teenaged boys into performing anal sex on him and allowing him to
> perform oral sex on them by telling them he was a woman. Gee, why does that
> sound so familiar?
>
> The boys eventually figured out that the person they thought was a woman was
> actually a biological man, and Hill faced, at one point, "eight charges of
> sexual battery and four charges of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor."1
> Hill got a "plea deal that saw prosecutors dismiss 12 counts of unlawful sex
> acts with a minor in exchange for Hill pleading guilty to four counts of
> sexual battery."2 "The teens, all related, and their families also have
> filed a federal civil suit against Hill, saying he 'engaged in acts of
> sexual depravity and committed numerous assaults upon' them."3
>
> Do you see? There were charges OTHER than "unlawful sex acts with a minor"
> so it would seem it is indeed ILLEGAL for biological men to obtain sexual
> consent through this sort of trickery.
>
> 1 http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/07/loc_hillhearing07.html
> 2 http://www.cincypost.com/2004/12/09/hill120904.html
> 3 http://www.cincypost.com/2004/07/07/hill070704.html

You are so arrogant that you refuse to admit to being wrong, the
typical sore loser!
To begin with, I asked you to provide PROVE that somebody was
sucessfully prosecuted as a "RAPIST" for lying about a personal trait a
partner considered vital to know before agreeing to sex. You failed
again! All you can come up is with 'sexual battery' charges that are
in no way similar the Araujo case. You bring an irrelevant case of
paedophilia in which the victims are considered to be too young to
consent regardless.
Researhing the story I found this quote: "Hill pleaded guilty earlier
this year to four counts of sexual battery FOR MOLESTING four boys."
http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/3985989/detail.html

Also, unlike in Gwen's case, there is no reason to believe that this
pedophiles had a female sexual identity. Picture of Stephen Hill -
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/08/hill_175.jpg

Gwen's lie about her biological sex was no diferent than a lie about
one's race, virginity, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. to a sex
partner who considered this information "vital."

> > For example, some men find sexually attractive a pregnant
> > woman, and they enjoy sex so long as they think they are having sex
> > with a pregnant woman and not a woman who just happen to have a large
> > stomach. Learning that the woman was not pregnant would ruin the
> > experience and make it less enjoyable.
>
> Yes, just like learning a woman was not biologically a woman would ruin the
> experience for many straight men! Yet you wrote, "if you noticed a man's
> behavior changed towards you upon learning about your transsexuality, make
> him aware of that and let him know how wrong it is."
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.srs/browse_frm/thread/129b829a025bd1c0/7caf058075a91609?lnk=st&q=&rnum=9&hl=en#7caf058075a91609

Your actions are so pathetic. How silly that you feel the need to go
through the messages I have posted in other forums in search of
something you think you could use against my statements. You took that
message completely out of context, and then tried to somehow link it to
another. Your desperation is showing through!

Once again I reaffirm those statement: if a man's behavior, or woman's
behavior for that matter, changes towards a person as a result of
learning of their transsexuality, then the transsexual should let them
know aware of how wrong that is. I was not talking about sexual
preferences, however, but relationships in general.



> > The
> > conclusion is that she was killed because she confronted the criminals
> > to their insecurity and homophobia.
>
> That may be your conclusion; my conclusion is that they killed her because
> she raped them. I do not believe they would have killed her had she not
> obtained their consent through trickery.


Well, your conclusion is based on bull***. Perhaps you should take a
reading comprehension course and then came back and re-read everything
that has been said, and then see if you can argue with some logic. I am
not gonna fall into your endless cycle of feigned ignorance and
stupidity. If you are going around in circles is because you refuse to
proccess the written information and want to stay indenial.

.

Loading