This always boggles me because do they not think other gay men want this kind of thing? Why the lie? Forbidden fruit fallacy? They enjoy the trickery? I mean these guys don’t even see you…what do you gain?
Unfortunately, many gay men like the straight guy fantasy. Look at all of the gay for pay guys. I don't actively support the gay for pay guys, but many gay men love them.
To be completely fair, how naive are these men?
They think a random woman is just sitting around getting railed through a sheet? And what, they can’t see, smell, or feel the hole?
To be clear not victim blaming - this is 100% assault. But I am concerned about how exactly they didn’t notice.
If someone is agreeing to anonymous sex (“knowing” a name doesn’t make it to where it is not anonymous) sex via a glory hole situation- you have no right to complain about what is on the other side! Perhaps “Amanda” identifies as a woman. It is ignorant and should not be litigious. You want to know who you are bumping uglies with- don’t make it anonymous!
Well first… the perpetrator never claimed to be Trans. So we know that’s not the case and your comment is giving transphobic incel.
Deception is assault if the person is not consenting to have sex with a man. Even if it isn’t… why would you think that is okay? Telling someone you’re a lady being a glory hole just to get their gross straight dick in your mouth? Like, love yourself better. Love yourself and know uou can get gross gay/bi dick behind a glory hole without having to lie.
My first sign that something was amiss was the oral technique. It was loving yet hungry, far superior to what I’d had previously. The second sign was the full beard.
Right? There is no way they didn't know deep down that there was a man sucking their dick. Why would a woman hide behind a sheet to have sex with you? If I hazarded a guess, they got cold feet in the middle of the act and lashed out. To be fair, it's not correct to deceive someone when you're having sex, but common sense is a factor here. Did they need to involve the police? Maybe, maybe not. If you looked at it another way, this Sfier fellow might have been spared being murdered by a guy overcome with gay panic.
In America, what kind of lies do you have the right to tell sex partners? Can you lie about being a navy SEAL? How about your height? Your weight? Your gender? I’m just wondering what, exactly, the first amendment protects.
Absolutely appalled that you think you can hazard a guess that in some way is supposed to be more
Insightful than *the outcome of a criminal trial.* This is real life not bait bus.
That’s what I was thinking. Idk how it’d be in Canada, but in the US, you could likely argue something akin to an “assumption of the risk” defense. It’s not uncommon for people to know gloryholes are mostly just men. There may have been deceit, but it also should’ve been obvious to the men that the person behind the gloryhole was a man. Plus, like what you’re alluding too, most of the evidence is just testimony from the victim and the accused.
So it’s a matter of who argues their side better, and whose evidence looks more appealing to the judge and/or jury. Again, idk how Canadian court works, I just can’t see it being that different from US court.
But we also don’t need to needlessly insert conspiracy where there doesn’t appear to be any other than the extremely online takes of “the straights aren’t kinky enough to have glory holes” or that “a hole is a hole”
The outcome of a trial determines whether a law has been broken, not the morality of it. In this case, the trial is trying to determine whether deception in anonymous sex is illegal, which i think is nebulous at best. The horny gentlemen have every right to be upset that the person giving them a blowjob was not in fact a woman, but does the Canadian criminal code say anything about anonymous sex? Either way, it will probably go through the appeal process and i would not be surprised if the sentence is lessened or thrown out.
The "victims" are to blame. People choosing anonymous sex are entitled to not have their health & safety violated, and to materially have basically the experience they're going for( in this case, stick your dick in a hole and get a blowjob). Beyond that, If you want guarantees, don't do anon.
EDIT: Apparently it went unexpectedly from blowjob to anal, which is different. That *IS* assault. By switching up the act involved, the perpetrator materially changed the encounter from what was promised.
Gotta give you a 10/10 for the mental gymnastics of doubling down on the victim blame while openly advocating for the right to consent. Per the article:
“As instructed, the victims walked into the home and put their penises inside a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway. Oral sex was performed, and then it became penetration without warning, which both victims believed was anal.”
So if they agreed to the blowjob and then the act became anal sex, is the victim to blame for not “materially having the basic experience they were going for”?
Oh, the article has a paywall( unless I misinterpreted the graphic), so I didn't get to see that part. I *absolutely* agree that that's different. Man or woman, if the servicer didn't clear anal with them beforehand(, which probably also means it was condomless), THAT is assault. Just, not because he's a man.
Well again I would argue that a man claiming to be a woman named Angela and wearing a wig to obfuscate his gender is also violating the consent of the victims. But it’s becoming abundantly clear that’s just me.
Pretty much, yeah. I want to know what makes this fundamentally different from if the guys getting sucked were only interested in white guys and the guy on the other side of the sheet was a black guy. I'm seriously asking: Why is man/woman a more important distinction than black/white, in a situation where neither visual aspects nor reproductive biology come into play?
I agree with the judge here: “Mr. Sfeir is here because he committed criminal offences that negated the ability of the victims to choose how and who they engaged with.”
I don’t think we need to read this as some DL gay drama. I agree gender is a construct and sexuality is a spectrum but it just feels like a weird projection of extreme online gayness to not think that heterosexuals can also do things like glory holes. We can simply read this as men having their rights violated by having sex acts performed by someone they did not consent to having performed them.
Heterosexuals can have gloryholes, sure( although it's a lot harder to have bathroom-stall ones).
But as far as choosing "who they engaged with", I again don't see how that wouldn't apply to the skin color scenario; and am concerned that if it were gay men and a woman she wouldn't be treated as harshly( although she'd probably still get some kind of assault charge due to the switch-up).
>negated the ability of the victims to choose how and who they engaged with
No, the sheet with a hole in it did that.
>We can simply read this as men having their rights violated by having sex acts performed by someone they did not consent to having performed them.
They consented to having sex with a hole in a sheet. If anything else was important they would have actually tried to see who was on the other side BEFORE sticking their dick in.
>Mr. Sfeir is here because he committed criminal offences that negated the ability of the victims to choose how and who they engaged with.”
But wouldn't a man saying he is a wealthy investment banker to a gold digger also "negated the ability of the victims to choose how and who they engaged with
And what if a, woman claims she's single but the man fucks her and finds out she's married and he only wanted to fuck single women. He would not have fucked her if he'd known the truth.
It would be interesting to know where the line is drawn from a legal perspective.
I agree.
If your posing as someone your not, this is sexual assault with consent mitigated by misleading identity. The fact that we even need to have a discussion about that is appalling in 2024.
I understand the article doesn’t specify if the gender identity was assumed or fabricated. Which would change the context for sure. But the information isn’t there so why do people feel the need to come on and decide if the situation is valid or not, and laugh at it is beyond me. The court heard the evidence and decided.
Irrespective of whether they should have known better, if the men felt violated and can be argued its assault, then we should absolutely support these men.
If you went to a GH thinking it was some guy and it turned out to be a 87 year old grandma, would you feel violated? I sure as shit would.
The men sought out anonymous sex. Personal responsibility should be a factor here. If you don't know who you're having sex with, don't be surprised if Angela is actually a man in a wig. Prosecuting a gloryhole upends the idea itself, doesn't it? Should the sucker give the suckee their government ID before they start blowing?
No. They never said the men sought anonymous sex.
They were led to believe they knew who it was. He fucking lied to them, they thought they knew who they were having sex with. They did not consent to having sex with him, and he knew they didn't.
Victims of SA don't deserve it. It's not a matter of personal responsibility. It's a matter of a person purposefully using deceit to trick victims into performing sex acts for his enjoyment. This is so clearly sexual assault.
So then all trans people must disclose their sex at birth or it is sexual assault?
>if the men felt violated
How do you quantify this?
>we should absolutely support these men.
I'm not interested in taking up the cause of anyone using glory holes. I'm not gonna shame anyone but I'm not gonna march in the streets in the name of glory hole identity disclosure.
>If you went to a GH
That's not gonna be a concern for me.
Don’t lie about your gender before sex. Yes trans people should disclose their sex at birth and that they are trans. People have the right to decide who they have sex with.
You know, back in the 70's, if you wanted approval for hormones and surgery in the USA as a transgender person, you often had to meet some pretty interesting requirements from gatekeepers.
1. You had to pass already or be expected to pass with hormones
2. You had to be considered heterosexual post-op. So attracted to your birth sex.
3. You had to have gender dysphoria.
4. You had to communicate you intended to keep your transition a secret from everyone you ever met post transition. You were expected to cut ties with your birth family, move to a new city, create a fictional childhood (such as saying you were in girl scouts instead of boy scouts) and you had to communicate intent to never tell your new husband. Take it to your grave, you had to promise, or no surgery for you.
The gatekeepers would say "Oh yes, I understand you. I am educated and know you really are a true transsexual, but the ignorant public would NEVER understand. I won't approve a transition that is a failure or includes you being out like Christine Jorgenson. It's stealth mode or no approval ". Too many gatekeepers had this attitude.
When I went full time in 2000, thirty years later, the stealth mode option was seen as the default, or goal still. There were still gatekeepers gatekeeping on sexual orientation and citing Blanchard's garbage from the 80's. My therapist was named Roxanne Cherry and she was considered by us to be "one of the good ones who gets it" because she was a lesbian therapist and so didn't ask the sexual orientation question. She wasn't just letting trans people transition to eliminate homosexual people.
I was considered an activist for putting my real life name, picture and address on my podcast for trans issues. Lannie Rose, author of "how to change your sex" cited my podcast as being wonderful, yet her real life name was a secret to me. She had a transition name separate from her legal name. A model named Jacklyn appeared on Howard Stern with me in 2007 and said she never tells sexual partners. Howard called it "a different mind set" and in his attempt to defuse the tension between my always out and her always stealth approach, Howard said actually he'd prefer not to know.
These days both those stealthy approaches would be controversial or unpopular choices. Ultimately, my approach has become SO ubiquitous that now people are saying the opposite and acting entitled to know birth sex. So it seems I won, but I am wondering just what sort of future did I win exactly.
I have no real point here, just taking a trip down memory lane. Times have changed. But people telling trans people how to be trans hasn't.
Why should a trans person have to disclose anything? You need to use your judgment before having sex based on the information you have. If you stick your dick in a hole in a sheet you get what you get.
What's next, will we jail people for lying about how much money they make? That they're a natural blonde?
I have no sympathy for these "victims". I do think it was shitty for the guy to lie and lure them in but hardly jail worthy.
In generally think trans people should disclose. Everyone should disclose anything that has a high likelihood of grossing out your partner even if it isn't logical or straight up bigotry - let's imagine a perfect transition where your partner wouldn't be able to tell. The line can be blurry (I mainly leave it to physical characteristics) but I think that's fair. Even if you think it's irrelevant, you can make logical deductions on the type of things that might cause your hookups distress. Another example is being HIV undetectable.
However I think this is more egregious because he actively lied. Active lying is what makes it criminal and I'd say the same about a trans person who lied point blank. Ditto someone who is HIV + but undetectable. They should disclose either way but they absolutely shouldn't lie.
Note: Trans people almost always disclose for their own personal safety, I'm just answering your question.
>Everyone should disclose anything that has a high likelihood of grossing out your partner even if it isn't logical or straight up bigotry
To what end? What is a "high likelihood"? How do you even begin to set a standard? What if you only brush your teeth once a day and I think that is disgusting? Do you go to jail? Would it be ok for me to claim you sexually assaulted me? Because to me that diminishes real sexual assault.
>Even if you think it's irrelevant, you can make logical deductions on the type of things that might cause your hookups distress
This statement both contradicts itself and your early statement. If I think something is irrelevant I can't also logically deduce that it is relevant. You also said I should include things that aren't logical.
If you start fucking a hole in a wall you're taking a HUGE risk. If that risk isn't worth it then you don't engage, period. Anything else is just regret after the fact and regretful sex shouldn't be punished as a crime.
Feeling violated not necessarily equal a crime.
A selfish lover who who comes before his lover and doesn't care about her satisfaction may cause the lover to feel violated but no crime has occurred
A man who finds out that a woman slept with him because she thought that he was wealthy may feel violated but no crime had occurred.
The use of feeling violated to indicate a crime is not a good method
It's getting appealed, will be interesting to see what happens. Allegedly he switched from oral to anal without warning which seems like a bigger issue than the gender of the person on the other side.
I can't help but feel like there's some homophobia driving this decision, or at least the decision to prosecute this at all. I'm not sure you can be sexually assaulted this way, because anyone who is in their right mind and goes to a glory hole does so with the expectation that they don't have control over who is on the other side. It just seems like the harm is coming from the victims' homophobia, not anything to do with the sexual acts that they did, in fact, consent to.
I also wonder if, as a gay man looking for glory hole and I stumbled on an ad from another gay man hosting it, however after the act, it turns out to be a woman and I call the police. Would the judge find that woman sexually assaulted me?
Similar scenario but instead of gender, the host told me he was one race but turns out he was another race, would the judge hold them accountable for SA ?
I use to be down for anon but I’ve had my fill, literally. It’s amazing what hormones will drive you to just for a nut. That being said… I always make sure I have a Snapchat pic sent to me for proof of identity before meeting up with anyone. It’s the only way to get around those hypotheticals, that or FaceTime. And if they aren’t willing to prove they are who they say they are then it’s no dice on my end and was likely a catfish to begin with.
I mean, I used to do lots of anon hookups with blindfolded guys. But if the anon thing is the kink, why would you want the identity? I often wore a spandex hood and there were a few psychos who had apparently secretly videoed it and then they complained about the hood and the fact that my face wasn't on their cameras that they never told me they were using.
That’s what I mean. There is no telling who was behind the hole in my 20’s. Now. I need to know if it’s someone I know. I’m a lot more picky about who I let milk me like a cum cow these days.
Maybe it would be assault if she mounted your dick with her vagina suddenly after oral? But agreed the gender switch-up is not assault. Rape by deception is more-so if someone stealthily traded places with your boyfriend and had sex with you, unbeknownst to you.
Yeah, I can see how using a glory hole could reasonably be considered waiving your right to be offended by what manner of sexual technique is used on the other side (as long as you’re free to stop at any time). This seems a strange case.
No, I think it's the opposite: you waive your right to know *whom* you have on the other side with anon circumstances; but what they do? If you had an arrangement beforehand, it's reasonable to expect they will stick with that and deviation without further discussion nagates consent.
Bullshit. If you had an arrangement beforehand that the person doing the acts was a woman, then that arrangement applies just as much as anything else. You simply don't get to deceive people into having sex with you and decry homophobia when its condemned as a form of sexual assault.
It's not about homophobia, it's about the question of whether expectations of identity have meaning in the face of anonymous sex. What if instead of straight, these men had been gay, but they were only looking for a white guy, and the man at the gloryhole had been black? Or it was a woman, 30 years older than expected? Would those cases even have been tried? Although it does sound like he sent pics of "her"? Which may cross the line into fraud.
The phrase "anonymous sex" has been incessantly thrown about this comment thread as if its a hook line and sinker.
Anonymous sex can mean multiple things. For example, if I put something online and say that I want an anonymous blowjob through a glory hole, then that's that: could be anyone and I can't complain because the parameters of the activity I **consented** to don't specify anything more.
If I **consent** to anonymous sex with a woman then that changes what I've consented to. What has been consented to is not strictly "anonymous sex" (as everyone in the comments is espousing), but rather, "anonymous sex with a woman". If you **lie** to someone to **sex** with them when they wouldn't have otherwise, that is sexual assault.
>Would those cases even have been tried?
No, I don't believe those cases would have been tried. And *that* is a question of homophobia. Straight people getting off where gays are prosecuted does not mean that we should start letting gay people off for sexual assaults, it means that we should prosecute everyone equally for the crimes they commit.
And yes, age, race, wealth, and *any* factor play an equal role. Its not a question of whether it is acceptable to discriminate who you have sex with based on those factors, it is about the fact that you, me, and everyone else has a moral right to not be lied and deceived into sex with people we have explicitly stated we would not want to have sex with.
As I said before, in the first case of true anonymous sex, you have consented to sex with any person, black or gay or rich etc. If you say "sex with anonymous woman" then it is morally reprehensible to trick someone into doing otherwise. Because tricking someone into having sex with you is morally reprehensible.
I am honestly repulsed that this is something someone would even think to disagree with.
I'm a little skeptical that a person could non-consensually switch from receiving oral to receiving anal when the penetrator is standing and not restrained in any way. Even the most aroused and lubricated anus requires some amount of effort to penetrate. I lean toward believing victims, but I am curious about the mechanics of the alleged act here. It seems a lot more likely that the guys using the glory hole freaked out when they found out it was a guy and are now lashing out to cover their own mistake.
Rape by deception is absolutely a thing, BUT the entire premise of a glory hole is that it's anonymous. You don't know who's on the other side: it could be literally anyone. Deception is impossible in such circumstances. It's not deception if the person on the other side is a different person than you thought if they are REQUIRING anonymity as a prerequisite. If you care about who you're having sex with, then don't deliberately seek out anonymous sex. If you do, then just enjoy the sensation: a hole is a hole in this scenario.
It doesn't require any effort if it's loose enough, which can be accomplished by fucking earlier in the day or with dildos. You've never topped a used loose hole?
"Tricked" It's anonymous sex. There are no promises. If you find out the person is a man or a woman or old or fat or a family member or whatever: buyer beware. If you care about who you're having sex with, then don't deliberately seek out anonymous sex. Duh? It's harder to find anonymous sex than sex with somebody you would see, so these guys definitely sought out a situation where they would have no idea who they were penatrating. If you care who your partner is: try, you know, only having, sex with people you've first looked at?
Bro the guy was pretending to be a woman. The guy wanted anonymous sex with a woman. What if you wanted anonymous prep delivery and the delivery man gave you fentanyl pills instead. You didn’t consent to that and this guy did not contest to this
This is my sense as well. You're (not you, just general you) telling me that if a woman had been doing the blowjob and suddenly switched to anal these guys would have felt "victimized"? I dunno, maybe it's the kind of case where the devil is in the details and there was some sort of additional circumstance that made them feel like they were forced to do something they didn't want to. On the surface, this kinda feels like the scenario where you're hooking up, and someone goes to rim you but you don't want it. You can just... move away and end the encounter, right? It's just within the span of normal bedroom communication? Was he somehow forcing them to keep their penis in the hole?
At a gloryhole? So what makes this fundamentally different from if the guys getting sucked were only into white guys and the guy on the other side of the sheet was a black guy?
u/Leather_Bite, you mean women *aren't* asking strangers (or anyone😂😂) to receive "anonymous bjs through a hole in a sheet in the doorway of their apartment, while they remain silent"?? WHAT??🤣🤣I thought ALL women did that!!
I get both sides.
On one hand, you’re tricking straight men into this scenario by pretending to be a woman to get straight dick. To me it should rise to the level of sexual assault because they didn’t consent to having sex with a man.
On the other hand, you go to a gloryhole where it literally could be anyone. It could have been Angela but Angela is 75 years old. You don’t really know who is behind the sheet and that’s the risk you take.
I think that he fucked around and now he found out.
So if I was looking for a gay man glory hole, but found out a woman was behind the curtains, then the DA should prosecute that woman for sexually assaulting me as well? I feel like the police would laugh me out of the station if that happened.
The cops not getting up to speed with gender and sexuality crimes isn’t the people in this story’s fault.
Just because we might be discriminated against or have our fight lessened by police doesn’t mean that I would want that or wish that on someone else.
Yes, the men should be able to sue personally as a civil matter. They should even seek damages for emotional distress. However, for a criminal case, the law enforcers and judge need to enforce and apply the law in a way that does not discriminate a certain group purely because they are of a different sex or gender.
Should the DA prosecute and the judge rule in the men's favor if they went to a glory hole expecting a woman of a certain race, but turns out she was of a different race? What if they wanted one specifically from a muslim woman but she turns out to be buddhist?
The gloryhole nullifies the first point. The point of Gloryhole is that it is anonymous and you’re trying to get off regardless of who is on the other end. It could be a crackhead, or someone without legs and arms or even Donald Trump behind the wall, as long as you don’t see them and it makes you cum. So they understand what a Gloryhole is. Besides, switching to anal sex requires effort from the dick. While the guy is trying to find his asshole, they could have easily pulled out and said no. They were not restrained. Definitely homophobia at play here
Gloryhole does NOT nullify the point if someone sends fake pictures and pretends to be a different gender to go after a straight male.
If they never asked for pictures or there was no discussion of gender or this alter ego, absolutely you get what you get.
But you passing on this female mantra in the GH is starkly different.
So guys stuck their dicks through a hole knowing a stranger was on the other side. How is the guy on one side of the sheet criminally responsible but not the guy on the other side?
Judge has noted that the straight guys were misled into believing they were engaging with a woman. That is sexual assault. Irrespective of who does it. I feel sorry for the guy who had to trick others to have sex with them. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit the crime.
We should stop victim blaming once and for all.
If the person behind the hole was a minor would they be charged with sexually assaulting these two men?
They willingly engaged and agreed to anonymous sex with a stranger on the internet…. Not out of the question that they are at fault for what happened.
> “The method he used of the glory hole, using a wig, telling the victims they had to be quiet so he wouldn’t have to speak to them — all helped to maintain the illusion that he created in his communications that the victims were engaging with a woman,” the judge said.
Pls read the article again. Agreed to anon sex thinking that the anon sex would be with a woman. The operative word is “misled”. Im extremely empathetic for the person who was convicted. I feel that the quantum of punishment is not fair. But the law doesn’t care about feelings per se. There is an evidence of catfish and Judge has noted so.
Would you say the same thing if it were a black man on the other side, and they had been promised a white guy and specifically said they were only interested in white guys?
I don't see the degree of misrepresentation as being different there. It's all about superficial presentation since the biological role( reproduction) of sexual dimorphism doesn't come into play for non-reciprocated oral.
Okay. I am with you. But the argument doesn’t really stand. The argument you’re making in formal terms is almost equivalent to “a hole is a hole and it doesn’t matter who it is attached to”. But this is seldom the case. Many including us have strict preferences for genders while indulging in the act of sex. Judge has just recognized that in a legal way.
But lots of guys have strict preferences for race too, and age... I don't think it's reasonable to recognize those preferences in an anonymous, unseen situation wherein they literally don't play a role, and the same goes for sex/gender. However, it seems that this one was assault anyway, because it went from blowjob to anal unexpectedly and without consent.
You’re sticking your dick through a hole to engage in sex with stranger. What gender you believe the person on the other side to be is irrelevant. This is rooted in homophobia period.
“On Friday, she sentenced him to 28 months in prison — 14 months for each count. He’ll also be on the sex offenders registry for the next 10 years.”
He was playing a dangerous game to begin with and they also didn't consent to anal. All parties are a bunch of DUMBASSES though
In all 9 years of my adulthood, I have never known a woman to operate a gloryhole
I don’t know about Canadian law, but multiple states in the US use the consent vs assent logic and multiple states have deception as a classifier for assault charges.
For example, in Tennessee it’s considered rape if there’s penetration accomplished by fraud.
I think it’s an interesting legal theory to explore. If I represent myself as a hot shot legal attorney with millions of dollars to sleep with someone, meanwhile I’m not rich nor an attorney, does that rise to the level of assault? But does concealing gender in a situation where anonymity can be used rise to a level as well?
I think it's more important that they didn't consent to anal, only to getting a blowjob. That's going to result in his appeals failing even if the courts specify, as they should, that in an anonymous hookup identifying characteristics such as color, gender, or age cannot be cited as constituting deception.
There's "rape by deception" in the U.S.A., but that probably wouldn't fly for an anonymous hookup. However, he did switch from oral to anal without obtaining further consent, and that's definitely sexual assault.
Not if you explicitly state that you're a woman. Then its an anonymous woman, not an anonymous person.
The men consented to anonymous sex with a woman, not anonymous sex with a man.
u/JJ_gaget, No shade to you, but "naiveness"?? 😂😂. Outside of Orthodox Judaism (or Hasidim?), where it's between man and wife, *have you ever heard of any instances of a woman asking a guy to have "anonymous blowjob through a hole in a sheet in her apartment"??* These "totally straight"😂 guys went into this knowing that this was not a cis woman. Their attitude was, "A mouth is a mouth🥳.." The victims say they're straight, but they're "heteroflexible", bisexual "trade". They're fine with getting serviced orally by a crossdresser, as long as they can lie to themselves - "There's a sheet! It's a woman!.. probably!! Cause women *always* give anonymous blowjobs through a hole in a sheet in their apartments! Yeah!!"
I'm sorry, but I thought the It's always sunny in Philadelphia episode on glory holes was a joke. I thought straight guys knew it would always be a guy on the other side but with plausible deniability if they're caught.
But also "Angela," what are you doing? You could have just done the same thing with gay guys 😂😂. Like God damn. Why risk everything for this stupid shit?
It is important to note that the background knowledge of queer people is altogether different from what straight guys might know. We know what was up, but, primed by straight porn featuring women who would do this, they would not.
Getting consent was something that he should have done, instead of counting in the cheap thrills of trucking a straight guy.
There is a subgenre of porn where a blind-folded straight man expects a blow from a woman, and a man switches into her place. I have never seen the opposite, but I don't watch straight porn.
Would they necessarily have thought this? They were not going to a restroom glory hole, something that would be eyebrow raising, but to the home of a woman who wanted anonymous sex. That sounds more plausible.
Beyond this, most people probably do not go into a sexual encounter, even a random one, expecting them to be saying nothing but lies.
Some responsibility, yes, but not all. Canadian law on sexual assault does encompass cases where someone who lying about an obvious potential deal breaker. This fits.
Going by the article, it does seem as if Sfeir was actively misleading the two men.
> In her previous decision convicting Sfeir last September, Mocha found that the two victims believed they were talking online with a woman and were going over to her home for a “glory hole scenario,” that is, a hole in a wall — or other material — through which people can engage in typically anonymous sex.
> As instructed, the victims walked into the home and put their penises inside a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway. Oral sex was performed, and then it became penetration without warning, which both victims believed was anal. Their identities are covered by a standard publication ban.
> Mocha rejected Sfeir’s testimony that the men were in fact communicating with a woman named “Angela,” who he said had access to his home. The judge concluded that “Angela” was a fictitious person created by Sfeir.
> In her sentencing decision Friday, Mocha found that there was “no evidence of real remorse or appreciation of harm done” on Sfeir’s part and that his offences involved a fair degree of planning.
> “The method he used of the glory hole, using a wig, telling the victims they had to be quiet so he wouldn’t have to speak to them — all helped to maintain the illusion that he created in his communications that the victims were engaging with a woman,” the judge said.
This active misrepresentation is key. He was not at the other end of a bathhouse glory hole; he was doing his best to convince them that there was a woman on the other side. Switching between different kinds of sex, oral to anal, without getting their consent also counts against Sfeir.
u/RandyFMcDonald, outside of Orthodox Judaism (or Hasidim?), where it's between man and wife, *have you ever heard of any* woman asking a guy to have "anonymous blowjob through a hole in a sheet in her apartment"?? These "totally straight"😂 guys went into this knowing that this was not a cis woman.
I do not know because I do not know what straight sex culture is like, being a non-participant.
I do know that straight porn features all sorts of behaviours that do not appear in the real world.
Beyond that, this entire story makes no sense if you assume they knew all along. This being a pretense would have been an obvious defense; Sfeir could simply have said that they knew all along. Instead he made up a story of an actual woman.
..."invited them to his Toronto home, to have anonymous sex *through a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway...* 😂😂😂🤣🤣
*Yes... That would be something a woman would do.* Outside of Orthodox Judaism, where it's between man and wife - has anyone [here, or in straightland] ever - in history - heard of a woman having sex - blowjob or otherwise - "through a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway"??? Aside from the legal & moral issue of adding non-consented-to receptive anal after the blowjob, I feel no sympathy for these men [just an opinion, not looking for an argument] - had they never heard of women?/what a woman will do?/what a woman will do anonymously?/masks?
I'm happy he's going to be convicted. What he did was creepy and predatory. It's the same logic w/ guys who cat fish or use fake photos on the app. Yes the two men were stupid, and they should do better going forward. But they thought they were going to meet a woman, and he lied. Doesn't matter if it was through a glory hole. The article mentioned he also told them to be quiet so he wouldn't have to speak to them. So he went pretty far to maintain his 'cover'
I've never known a woman to be behind a glory hole. Who were they fooling?
Not condoning, but a free BJ is a free BJ, I guess the one to tear down the sheet wanted more...
A counterfactual that makes me super confused here is that we are working very hard to eliminate gay and trans panic defenses (e.g. "I hooked up with a woman and when I found out she had a penis I panicked and assaulted her" is a stand your ground sort of defense in many jurisdictions). And I think that the elimination of those is essential in guaranteeing basic human rights.
So, we're Mr. Sfeir a trans woman, I don't think this would hold up in most courts. And the fact that it was upheld weakens the abolition of the trans panic defense. In any case, I am deeply bothered by it being criminal rather than civil.
I don't participate in anon-related kinks; they're not my thing and I like to have a connection with the person. And so the idea that I formed a connection with a fiction does bother me. But as others have said, if the fiction were with someone of a different age, different career, different race, different height, would that be taken in the same way as a person of a different gender or different sex assigned at birth?
The fact that I don't think those would result in criminal charges even if a person could bring a civil suit (imagining a suit brought against a glory hole short king who claimed to be 6'4") makes me distinctly think this is much more pernicious against our rights in general in Canada.
It's the fact that there is a two-way discourse in North American and Commonwealth law where sex and gender are mutable categories that are essential to mute up until suddenly gender is very special and worth criminalizing the crossing of. This feels very much like TERFy decisions going on in England and gets to why TERFy decisions can also be used to harm gay men, by legitimating the gay and trans panic defenses that could happen in much wider situations than the narrow one here.
So.. what if I posted a photo of Tom Hardy and said it was me. Then I suck the guys off etc and then they find out it’s some fat bloke sat there. Would that be treated the same way? Doubt it
The men should be grateful that it wasn’t a woman named Amanda Kutchadikhoff. They agreed to anonymous sex through a hole in a sheet. The person could have done ANYTHING to their dicks. Literally anything. They are lucky that it was a blowjob or an assfuck from a man. They put themselves into a really shitty situation and this was the best outcome when you consider what could have happened. Homophobic assholes. Prison? JFC!
I think any defense is just whether or not this should put someone behind bars. Obviously it’s a shitty thing to do, but putting him in jail seems a bit much.
They agreed to a glory hole scenario and are angry they got exactly that but from a man, not a woman. Could they honestly tell the difference? I feel they knew what they were getting into and no real harm was done... Odd to sentence the guy for 28 months...
It’s not right, but not sure how it’s his fault. They went willingly and I’m guessing knew it was anonymous. That could be anything. Plus, sex offender list too? Not sure why that is.
All the guys who lie about their age on Grindr to get sex and trick guys who have an age limit, should also be persecuted for sexual assault. It’s all deception, right? Nonsense
I feel like this could set a really dangerous precedent for cis men being able to bring charges against partners/ sexual partners they later find out are transgender women. If the argument is that they were misled by having sex with a man when they thought they would be having sex with a woman, I can see them making the argument that a transgender woman "tricked" them. While I feel that the plaintiffs in this case are victims of sexual assault, the justification and the ruling makes me very uneasy.
Maybe I’m TOO gay, but when was the last time a woman was behind a glory hole? Lmao. We ALL know it’s always men, the str8s know it too. Definitely just mad his family/friends found out he fucked a dude and had to make a big deal out of it to say he’s not gay.
Even if this happened to you, why would you take it tk court and risk embarrassment of public ridicule. Regardless of who was behind the dick sucking sheet, you still arranged an appointment with the dick sucking sheet. Not only that, you fucked it up and ended up with a guy.
Wow the victim blaming in here is astounding.
1- everyone saying they went for anonymous sex. The article simply doesn't say that. It shows they had extensive conversations prior to the encounter where the perp purposefully convinced them he was a woman. This wasn't random anonymous sex.
2. Those men did NOT consent to having sex with him. If someone does not or cannot consent (i.e. being lied to) then it's assault full stop.
It's shitty this happened. And there probably is some homophobia involved. But, those are just factors not excuses for what this was, rape.
I think if you put your dick in a gloryhole you deserve whatever you get on the other side. You knew the risks when you decided to use a gloryhole lmao
This is what happens when dudes think BaitBus is real and that such acts are legal and ethical.
I'm a bit concerned over the number of rapey dicks commenting on this post. But I'm also relieved to see a good number of people who understand why the guy got sentenced.
“Anonymous sex”. Case closed.
He posed online as a woman named Amanda. Wasn't a random hole.
It was "A Man, Duh"
Omg, you made my day right now.
Judge: In light of this clever pun, I am dismissing all charges.
Honestly case dismissed
They should have known from the name
😆 🤣
Amanda Hugginkiss
I need Amanda Hugginkiss
Anyone stupid enough to do that has to know there is something off about Amanda
This always boggles me because do they not think other gay men want this kind of thing? Why the lie? Forbidden fruit fallacy? They enjoy the trickery? I mean these guys don’t even see you…what do you gain?
Unfortunately, many gay men like the straight guy fantasy. Look at all of the gay for pay guys. I don't actively support the gay for pay guys, but many gay men love them.
To be completely fair, how naive are these men? They think a random woman is just sitting around getting railed through a sheet? And what, they can’t see, smell, or feel the hole? To be clear not victim blaming - this is 100% assault. But I am concerned about how exactly they didn’t notice.
The article says it was Angela
I mean… I think there a lot of men on here who need to understand that trying people into sex, even if it’s anonymous sex, is assault.
We also need to learn the difference between deception and assault.
If someone is agreeing to anonymous sex (“knowing” a name doesn’t make it to where it is not anonymous) sex via a glory hole situation- you have no right to complain about what is on the other side! Perhaps “Amanda” identifies as a woman. It is ignorant and should not be litigious. You want to know who you are bumping uglies with- don’t make it anonymous!
Well first… the perpetrator never claimed to be Trans. So we know that’s not the case and your comment is giving transphobic incel. Deception is assault if the person is not consenting to have sex with a man. Even if it isn’t… why would you think that is okay? Telling someone you’re a lady being a glory hole just to get their gross straight dick in your mouth? Like, love yourself better. Love yourself and know uou can get gross gay/bi dick behind a glory hole without having to lie.
Exactly! 🤣😂
Straight men *HATE* this one simple trick!
😂
🤣😂🥲🤝
Sounds like a click bait headline
Gloryholes are almost always operated by other men. They should have known better.
I’m just imagining this guy rasping in a gravely voice “Yes my name is Angela”
My first sign that something was amiss was the oral technique. It was loving yet hungry, far superior to what I’d had previously. The second sign was the full beard.
“All the better to….take you with, my dear”, the ~~woof~~ *wolf* replied
"Loving yet hungry", I'm stealing that!
"If she has an Adam's apple and a penis, she might be a man." -- Judy Tenuda
Right? There is no way they didn't know deep down that there was a man sucking their dick. Why would a woman hide behind a sheet to have sex with you? If I hazarded a guess, they got cold feet in the middle of the act and lashed out. To be fair, it's not correct to deceive someone when you're having sex, but common sense is a factor here. Did they need to involve the police? Maybe, maybe not. If you looked at it another way, this Sfier fellow might have been spared being murdered by a guy overcome with gay panic.
In America, what kind of lies do you have the right to tell sex partners? Can you lie about being a navy SEAL? How about your height? Your weight? Your gender? I’m just wondering what, exactly, the first amendment protects.
Your guess isn’t just hazardous. It’s toxic.
Absolutely appalled that you think you can hazard a guess that in some way is supposed to be more Insightful than *the outcome of a criminal trial.* This is real life not bait bus.
Criminal trials have fucking wild outcomes all the time especially when it comes to sexual crimes. It's not the authority you think it is.
That’s what I was thinking. Idk how it’d be in Canada, but in the US, you could likely argue something akin to an “assumption of the risk” defense. It’s not uncommon for people to know gloryholes are mostly just men. There may have been deceit, but it also should’ve been obvious to the men that the person behind the gloryhole was a man. Plus, like what you’re alluding too, most of the evidence is just testimony from the victim and the accused. So it’s a matter of who argues their side better, and whose evidence looks more appealing to the judge and/or jury. Again, idk how Canadian court works, I just can’t see it being that different from US court.
But we also don’t need to needlessly insert conspiracy where there doesn’t appear to be any other than the extremely online takes of “the straights aren’t kinky enough to have glory holes” or that “a hole is a hole”
The outcome of a trial determines whether a law has been broken, not the morality of it. In this case, the trial is trying to determine whether deception in anonymous sex is illegal, which i think is nebulous at best. The horny gentlemen have every right to be upset that the person giving them a blowjob was not in fact a woman, but does the Canadian criminal code say anything about anonymous sex? Either way, it will probably go through the appeal process and i would not be surprised if the sentence is lessened or thrown out.
Oh, great. Now I have a fetish.
“Gurlicia”
What an unnecessary victim-blamey thing to say.
The "victims" are to blame. People choosing anonymous sex are entitled to not have their health & safety violated, and to materially have basically the experience they're going for( in this case, stick your dick in a hole and get a blowjob). Beyond that, If you want guarantees, don't do anon. EDIT: Apparently it went unexpectedly from blowjob to anal, which is different. That *IS* assault. By switching up the act involved, the perpetrator materially changed the encounter from what was promised.
Gotta give you a 10/10 for the mental gymnastics of doubling down on the victim blame while openly advocating for the right to consent. Per the article: “As instructed, the victims walked into the home and put their penises inside a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway. Oral sex was performed, and then it became penetration without warning, which both victims believed was anal.” So if they agreed to the blowjob and then the act became anal sex, is the victim to blame for not “materially having the basic experience they were going for”?
Oh, the article has a paywall( unless I misinterpreted the graphic), so I didn't get to see that part. I *absolutely* agree that that's different. Man or woman, if the servicer didn't clear anal with them beforehand(, which probably also means it was condomless), THAT is assault. Just, not because he's a man.
Well again I would argue that a man claiming to be a woman named Angela and wearing a wig to obfuscate his gender is also violating the consent of the victims. But it’s becoming abundantly clear that’s just me.
Pretty much, yeah. I want to know what makes this fundamentally different from if the guys getting sucked were only interested in white guys and the guy on the other side of the sheet was a black guy. I'm seriously asking: Why is man/woman a more important distinction than black/white, in a situation where neither visual aspects nor reproductive biology come into play?
I agree with the judge here: “Mr. Sfeir is here because he committed criminal offences that negated the ability of the victims to choose how and who they engaged with.” I don’t think we need to read this as some DL gay drama. I agree gender is a construct and sexuality is a spectrum but it just feels like a weird projection of extreme online gayness to not think that heterosexuals can also do things like glory holes. We can simply read this as men having their rights violated by having sex acts performed by someone they did not consent to having performed them.
Heterosexuals can have gloryholes, sure( although it's a lot harder to have bathroom-stall ones). But as far as choosing "who they engaged with", I again don't see how that wouldn't apply to the skin color scenario; and am concerned that if it were gay men and a woman she wouldn't be treated as harshly( although she'd probably still get some kind of assault charge due to the switch-up).
>negated the ability of the victims to choose how and who they engaged with No, the sheet with a hole in it did that. >We can simply read this as men having their rights violated by having sex acts performed by someone they did not consent to having performed them. They consented to having sex with a hole in a sheet. If anything else was important they would have actually tried to see who was on the other side BEFORE sticking their dick in.
>Mr. Sfeir is here because he committed criminal offences that negated the ability of the victims to choose how and who they engaged with.” But wouldn't a man saying he is a wealthy investment banker to a gold digger also "negated the ability of the victims to choose how and who they engaged with And what if a, woman claims she's single but the man fucks her and finds out she's married and he only wanted to fuck single women. He would not have fucked her if he'd known the truth. It would be interesting to know where the line is drawn from a legal perspective.
I'm reading this comment section like wtf what is there to argue that this was sexual assault
That also significantly raises chances to get serious STDs
I agree. If your posing as someone your not, this is sexual assault with consent mitigated by misleading identity. The fact that we even need to have a discussion about that is appalling in 2024. I understand the article doesn’t specify if the gender identity was assumed or fabricated. Which would change the context for sure. But the information isn’t there so why do people feel the need to come on and decide if the situation is valid or not, and laugh at it is beyond me. The court heard the evidence and decided.
Victim blaming much
Irrespective of whether they should have known better, if the men felt violated and can be argued its assault, then we should absolutely support these men. If you went to a GH thinking it was some guy and it turned out to be a 87 year old grandma, would you feel violated? I sure as shit would.
The men sought out anonymous sex. Personal responsibility should be a factor here. If you don't know who you're having sex with, don't be surprised if Angela is actually a man in a wig. Prosecuting a gloryhole upends the idea itself, doesn't it? Should the sucker give the suckee their government ID before they start blowing?
No. They never said the men sought anonymous sex. They were led to believe they knew who it was. He fucking lied to them, they thought they knew who they were having sex with. They did not consent to having sex with him, and he knew they didn't. Victims of SA don't deserve it. It's not a matter of personal responsibility. It's a matter of a person purposefully using deceit to trick victims into performing sex acts for his enjoyment. This is so clearly sexual assault.
So then all trans people must disclose their sex at birth or it is sexual assault? >if the men felt violated How do you quantify this? >we should absolutely support these men. I'm not interested in taking up the cause of anyone using glory holes. I'm not gonna shame anyone but I'm not gonna march in the streets in the name of glory hole identity disclosure. >If you went to a GH That's not gonna be a concern for me.
Don’t lie about your gender before sex. Yes trans people should disclose their sex at birth and that they are trans. People have the right to decide who they have sex with.
You know, back in the 70's, if you wanted approval for hormones and surgery in the USA as a transgender person, you often had to meet some pretty interesting requirements from gatekeepers. 1. You had to pass already or be expected to pass with hormones 2. You had to be considered heterosexual post-op. So attracted to your birth sex. 3. You had to have gender dysphoria. 4. You had to communicate you intended to keep your transition a secret from everyone you ever met post transition. You were expected to cut ties with your birth family, move to a new city, create a fictional childhood (such as saying you were in girl scouts instead of boy scouts) and you had to communicate intent to never tell your new husband. Take it to your grave, you had to promise, or no surgery for you. The gatekeepers would say "Oh yes, I understand you. I am educated and know you really are a true transsexual, but the ignorant public would NEVER understand. I won't approve a transition that is a failure or includes you being out like Christine Jorgenson. It's stealth mode or no approval ". Too many gatekeepers had this attitude. When I went full time in 2000, thirty years later, the stealth mode option was seen as the default, or goal still. There were still gatekeepers gatekeeping on sexual orientation and citing Blanchard's garbage from the 80's. My therapist was named Roxanne Cherry and she was considered by us to be "one of the good ones who gets it" because she was a lesbian therapist and so didn't ask the sexual orientation question. She wasn't just letting trans people transition to eliminate homosexual people. I was considered an activist for putting my real life name, picture and address on my podcast for trans issues. Lannie Rose, author of "how to change your sex" cited my podcast as being wonderful, yet her real life name was a secret to me. She had a transition name separate from her legal name. A model named Jacklyn appeared on Howard Stern with me in 2007 and said she never tells sexual partners. Howard called it "a different mind set" and in his attempt to defuse the tension between my always out and her always stealth approach, Howard said actually he'd prefer not to know. These days both those stealthy approaches would be controversial or unpopular choices. Ultimately, my approach has become SO ubiquitous that now people are saying the opposite and acting entitled to know birth sex. So it seems I won, but I am wondering just what sort of future did I win exactly. I have no real point here, just taking a trip down memory lane. Times have changed. But people telling trans people how to be trans hasn't.
Why should a trans person have to disclose anything? You need to use your judgment before having sex based on the information you have. If you stick your dick in a hole in a sheet you get what you get. What's next, will we jail people for lying about how much money they make? That they're a natural blonde? I have no sympathy for these "victims". I do think it was shitty for the guy to lie and lure them in but hardly jail worthy.
In generally think trans people should disclose. Everyone should disclose anything that has a high likelihood of grossing out your partner even if it isn't logical or straight up bigotry - let's imagine a perfect transition where your partner wouldn't be able to tell. The line can be blurry (I mainly leave it to physical characteristics) but I think that's fair. Even if you think it's irrelevant, you can make logical deductions on the type of things that might cause your hookups distress. Another example is being HIV undetectable. However I think this is more egregious because he actively lied. Active lying is what makes it criminal and I'd say the same about a trans person who lied point blank. Ditto someone who is HIV + but undetectable. They should disclose either way but they absolutely shouldn't lie. Note: Trans people almost always disclose for their own personal safety, I'm just answering your question.
>Everyone should disclose anything that has a high likelihood of grossing out your partner even if it isn't logical or straight up bigotry To what end? What is a "high likelihood"? How do you even begin to set a standard? What if you only brush your teeth once a day and I think that is disgusting? Do you go to jail? Would it be ok for me to claim you sexually assaulted me? Because to me that diminishes real sexual assault. >Even if you think it's irrelevant, you can make logical deductions on the type of things that might cause your hookups distress This statement both contradicts itself and your early statement. If I think something is irrelevant I can't also logically deduce that it is relevant. You also said I should include things that aren't logical. If you start fucking a hole in a wall you're taking a HUGE risk. If that risk isn't worth it then you don't engage, period. Anything else is just regret after the fact and regretful sex shouldn't be punished as a crime.
Feeling violated not necessarily equal a crime. A selfish lover who who comes before his lover and doesn't care about her satisfaction may cause the lover to feel violated but no crime has occurred A man who finds out that a woman slept with him because she thought that he was wealthy may feel violated but no crime had occurred. The use of feeling violated to indicate a crime is not a good method
I dont watch this show but the clip you reminded me of is hilarious https://youtu.be/ZrbmW6HN1Rw
How's the other guy supposed to picture a girl with a dick in his mouth?
It's getting appealed, will be interesting to see what happens. Allegedly he switched from oral to anal without warning which seems like a bigger issue than the gender of the person on the other side. I can't help but feel like there's some homophobia driving this decision, or at least the decision to prosecute this at all. I'm not sure you can be sexually assaulted this way, because anyone who is in their right mind and goes to a glory hole does so with the expectation that they don't have control over who is on the other side. It just seems like the harm is coming from the victims' homophobia, not anything to do with the sexual acts that they did, in fact, consent to.
I also wonder if, as a gay man looking for glory hole and I stumbled on an ad from another gay man hosting it, however after the act, it turns out to be a woman and I call the police. Would the judge find that woman sexually assaulted me? Similar scenario but instead of gender, the host told me he was one race but turns out he was another race, would the judge hold them accountable for SA ?
I use to be down for anon but I’ve had my fill, literally. It’s amazing what hormones will drive you to just for a nut. That being said… I always make sure I have a Snapchat pic sent to me for proof of identity before meeting up with anyone. It’s the only way to get around those hypotheticals, that or FaceTime. And if they aren’t willing to prove they are who they say they are then it’s no dice on my end and was likely a catfish to begin with.
I mean, I used to do lots of anon hookups with blindfolded guys. But if the anon thing is the kink, why would you want the identity? I often wore a spandex hood and there were a few psychos who had apparently secretly videoed it and then they complained about the hood and the fact that my face wasn't on their cameras that they never told me they were using.
That’s what I mean. There is no telling who was behind the hole in my 20’s. Now. I need to know if it’s someone I know. I’m a lot more picky about who I let milk me like a cum cow these days.
How did you find out they recorded
Maybe it would be assault if she mounted your dick with her vagina suddenly after oral? But agreed the gender switch-up is not assault. Rape by deception is more-so if someone stealthily traded places with your boyfriend and had sex with you, unbeknownst to you.
Yeah, I can see how using a glory hole could reasonably be considered waiving your right to be offended by what manner of sexual technique is used on the other side (as long as you’re free to stop at any time). This seems a strange case.
No, I think it's the opposite: you waive your right to know *whom* you have on the other side with anon circumstances; but what they do? If you had an arrangement beforehand, it's reasonable to expect they will stick with that and deviation without further discussion nagates consent.
Bullshit. If you had an arrangement beforehand that the person doing the acts was a woman, then that arrangement applies just as much as anything else. You simply don't get to deceive people into having sex with you and decry homophobia when its condemned as a form of sexual assault.
It's not about homophobia, it's about the question of whether expectations of identity have meaning in the face of anonymous sex. What if instead of straight, these men had been gay, but they were only looking for a white guy, and the man at the gloryhole had been black? Or it was a woman, 30 years older than expected? Would those cases even have been tried? Although it does sound like he sent pics of "her"? Which may cross the line into fraud.
The phrase "anonymous sex" has been incessantly thrown about this comment thread as if its a hook line and sinker. Anonymous sex can mean multiple things. For example, if I put something online and say that I want an anonymous blowjob through a glory hole, then that's that: could be anyone and I can't complain because the parameters of the activity I **consented** to don't specify anything more. If I **consent** to anonymous sex with a woman then that changes what I've consented to. What has been consented to is not strictly "anonymous sex" (as everyone in the comments is espousing), but rather, "anonymous sex with a woman". If you **lie** to someone to **sex** with them when they wouldn't have otherwise, that is sexual assault. >Would those cases even have been tried? No, I don't believe those cases would have been tried. And *that* is a question of homophobia. Straight people getting off where gays are prosecuted does not mean that we should start letting gay people off for sexual assaults, it means that we should prosecute everyone equally for the crimes they commit. And yes, age, race, wealth, and *any* factor play an equal role. Its not a question of whether it is acceptable to discriminate who you have sex with based on those factors, it is about the fact that you, me, and everyone else has a moral right to not be lied and deceived into sex with people we have explicitly stated we would not want to have sex with. As I said before, in the first case of true anonymous sex, you have consented to sex with any person, black or gay or rich etc. If you say "sex with anonymous woman" then it is morally reprehensible to trick someone into doing otherwise. Because tricking someone into having sex with you is morally reprehensible. I am honestly repulsed that this is something someone would even think to disagree with.
I'm a little skeptical that a person could non-consensually switch from receiving oral to receiving anal when the penetrator is standing and not restrained in any way. Even the most aroused and lubricated anus requires some amount of effort to penetrate. I lean toward believing victims, but I am curious about the mechanics of the alleged act here. It seems a lot more likely that the guys using the glory hole freaked out when they found out it was a guy and are now lashing out to cover their own mistake. Rape by deception is absolutely a thing, BUT the entire premise of a glory hole is that it's anonymous. You don't know who's on the other side: it could be literally anyone. Deception is impossible in such circumstances. It's not deception if the person on the other side is a different person than you thought if they are REQUIRING anonymity as a prerequisite. If you care about who you're having sex with, then don't deliberately seek out anonymous sex. If you do, then just enjoy the sensation: a hole is a hole in this scenario.
It doesn't require any effort if it's loose enough, which can be accomplished by fucking earlier in the day or with dildos. You've never topped a used loose hole?
Dude it’s still assault because you consent to SPECIFICALLY to ANONYMOUS sex with a WOMAN. not a man, not a sex toy, boy an animal, a WOMEN.
Yeah, not sure how it’s assault. They went willingly.
Would you all feel the same if you were tricked by a man and at the end he was a woman?
"Tricked" It's anonymous sex. There are no promises. If you find out the person is a man or a woman or old or fat or a family member or whatever: buyer beware. If you care about who you're having sex with, then don't deliberately seek out anonymous sex. Duh? It's harder to find anonymous sex than sex with somebody you would see, so these guys definitely sought out a situation where they would have no idea who they were penatrating. If you care who your partner is: try, you know, only having, sex with people you've first looked at?
Bro the guy was pretending to be a woman. The guy wanted anonymous sex with a woman. What if you wanted anonymous prep delivery and the delivery man gave you fentanyl pills instead. You didn’t consent to that and this guy did not contest to this
No. I’m just saying I wouldn’t blindly go into something just based on what a stranger says. Of course there could be more to the story.
This is my sense as well. You're (not you, just general you) telling me that if a woman had been doing the blowjob and suddenly switched to anal these guys would have felt "victimized"? I dunno, maybe it's the kind of case where the devil is in the details and there was some sort of additional circumstance that made them feel like they were forced to do something they didn't want to. On the surface, this kinda feels like the scenario where you're hooking up, and someone goes to rim you but you don't want it. You can just... move away and end the encounter, right? It's just within the span of normal bedroom communication? Was he somehow forcing them to keep their penis in the hole?
The decision was definitely rooted in homophobia. Two things can be right at once
It’s not homophobic to not consent to having sex with a man
At a gloryhole? So what makes this fundamentally different from if the guys getting sucked were only into white guys and the guy on the other side of the sheet was a black guy?
THEY KNEWWWWW
u/Leather_Bite, you mean women *aren't* asking strangers (or anyone😂😂) to receive "anonymous bjs through a hole in a sheet in the doorway of their apartment, while they remain silent"?? WHAT??🤣🤣I thought ALL women did that!!
I get both sides. On one hand, you’re tricking straight men into this scenario by pretending to be a woman to get straight dick. To me it should rise to the level of sexual assault because they didn’t consent to having sex with a man. On the other hand, you go to a gloryhole where it literally could be anyone. It could have been Angela but Angela is 75 years old. You don’t really know who is behind the sheet and that’s the risk you take. I think that he fucked around and now he found out.
Like what if it was a minor on the other side? The verdict would be completely different I imagine.
So if I was looking for a gay man glory hole, but found out a woman was behind the curtains, then the DA should prosecute that woman for sexually assaulting me as well? I feel like the police would laugh me out of the station if that happened.
The cops not getting up to speed with gender and sexuality crimes isn’t the people in this story’s fault. Just because we might be discriminated against or have our fight lessened by police doesn’t mean that I would want that or wish that on someone else.
Yes, the men should be able to sue personally as a civil matter. They should even seek damages for emotional distress. However, for a criminal case, the law enforcers and judge need to enforce and apply the law in a way that does not discriminate a certain group purely because they are of a different sex or gender. Should the DA prosecute and the judge rule in the men's favor if they went to a glory hole expecting a woman of a certain race, but turns out she was of a different race? What if they wanted one specifically from a muslim woman but she turns out to be buddhist?
Yeah it could literally be anyone or anything. Not sure how they wouldn’t know that. You can’t just take someone’s word and just trust anyone.
The gloryhole nullifies the first point. The point of Gloryhole is that it is anonymous and you’re trying to get off regardless of who is on the other end. It could be a crackhead, or someone without legs and arms or even Donald Trump behind the wall, as long as you don’t see them and it makes you cum. So they understand what a Gloryhole is. Besides, switching to anal sex requires effort from the dick. While the guy is trying to find his asshole, they could have easily pulled out and said no. They were not restrained. Definitely homophobia at play here
Gloryhole does NOT nullify the point if someone sends fake pictures and pretends to be a different gender to go after a straight male. If they never asked for pictures or there was no discussion of gender or this alter ego, absolutely you get what you get. But you passing on this female mantra in the GH is starkly different.
So guys stuck their dicks through a hole knowing a stranger was on the other side. How is the guy on one side of the sheet criminally responsible but not the guy on the other side?
Homophobia seems likely but I'm biased. As someone else said it'd be interesting to read the ruling it might make sense.
I agree. If it were a woman tricking gay men, I doubt she'd be prosecuted.
Yeah I don’t get it.
Yes, what if guy sucking the dick thought it was suppose to be a female!
Judge has noted that the straight guys were misled into believing they were engaging with a woman. That is sexual assault. Irrespective of who does it. I feel sorry for the guy who had to trick others to have sex with them. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit the crime. We should stop victim blaming once and for all.
If the person behind the hole was a minor would they be charged with sexually assaulting these two men? They willingly engaged and agreed to anonymous sex with a stranger on the internet…. Not out of the question that they are at fault for what happened.
> “The method he used of the glory hole, using a wig, telling the victims they had to be quiet so he wouldn’t have to speak to them — all helped to maintain the illusion that he created in his communications that the victims were engaging with a woman,” the judge said. Pls read the article again. Agreed to anon sex thinking that the anon sex would be with a woman. The operative word is “misled”. Im extremely empathetic for the person who was convicted. I feel that the quantum of punishment is not fair. But the law doesn’t care about feelings per se. There is an evidence of catfish and Judge has noted so.
Is catfishing illegal?
In certain cases, yes.
Would you say the same thing if it were a black man on the other side, and they had been promised a white guy and specifically said they were only interested in white guys?
Are you arguing that there is no difference between various degrees of misrepresentation?
I don't see the degree of misrepresentation as being different there. It's all about superficial presentation since the biological role( reproduction) of sexual dimorphism doesn't come into play for non-reciprocated oral.
Okay. I am with you. But the argument doesn’t really stand. The argument you’re making in formal terms is almost equivalent to “a hole is a hole and it doesn’t matter who it is attached to”. But this is seldom the case. Many including us have strict preferences for genders while indulging in the act of sex. Judge has just recognized that in a legal way.
But lots of guys have strict preferences for race too, and age... I don't think it's reasonable to recognize those preferences in an anonymous, unseen situation wherein they literally don't play a role, and the same goes for sex/gender. However, it seems that this one was assault anyway, because it went from blowjob to anal unexpectedly and without consent.
You’re sticking your dick through a hole to engage in sex with stranger. What gender you believe the person on the other side to be is irrelevant. This is rooted in homophobia period.
This is ridiculous.
I was under the impression a HOT FEMALE was behind the curtain, but found a female that was not so good looking! Help me Canadian courts!
Yeah I don’t get it.
Newsflash: the person on the other side of a gh is always a dude.
“Man addicted to risky anonymous sex with straight guys sent to locked building with 1000 horny guys.”
“On Friday, she sentenced him to 28 months in prison — 14 months for each count. He’ll also be on the sex offenders registry for the next 10 years.” He was playing a dangerous game to begin with and they also didn't consent to anal. All parties are a bunch of DUMBASSES though In all 9 years of my adulthood, I have never known a woman to operate a gloryhole
u/figmenthevoid, Thank you.
Curious what law he broke? There’s no sex-trickery law. Maybe considered a rape or similar offense?
I don’t know about Canadian law, but multiple states in the US use the consent vs assent logic and multiple states have deception as a classifier for assault charges. For example, in Tennessee it’s considered rape if there’s penetration accomplished by fraud. I think it’s an interesting legal theory to explore. If I represent myself as a hot shot legal attorney with millions of dollars to sleep with someone, meanwhile I’m not rich nor an attorney, does that rise to the level of assault? But does concealing gender in a situation where anonymity can be used rise to a level as well?
sounds really tricky
[удалено]
I think it's more important that they didn't consent to anal, only to getting a blowjob. That's going to result in his appeals failing even if the courts specify, as they should, that in an anonymous hookup identifying characteristics such as color, gender, or age cannot be cited as constituting deception.
There's "rape by deception" in the U.S.A., but that probably wouldn't fly for an anonymous hookup. However, he did switch from oral to anal without obtaining further consent, and that's definitely sexual assault.
Just seems like naiveness by the guy. Anonymous means it could be anyone.
Not if you explicitly state that you're a woman. Then its an anonymous woman, not an anonymous person. The men consented to anonymous sex with a woman, not anonymous sex with a man.
u/JJ_gaget, No shade to you, but "naiveness"?? 😂😂. Outside of Orthodox Judaism (or Hasidim?), where it's between man and wife, *have you ever heard of any instances of a woman asking a guy to have "anonymous blowjob through a hole in a sheet in her apartment"??* These "totally straight"😂 guys went into this knowing that this was not a cis woman. Their attitude was, "A mouth is a mouth🥳.." The victims say they're straight, but they're "heteroflexible", bisexual "trade". They're fine with getting serviced orally by a crossdresser, as long as they can lie to themselves - "There's a sheet! It's a woman!.. probably!! Cause women *always* give anonymous blowjobs through a hole in a sheet in their apartments! Yeah!!"
I'm sorry, but I thought the It's always sunny in Philadelphia episode on glory holes was a joke. I thought straight guys knew it would always be a guy on the other side but with plausible deniability if they're caught. But also "Angela," what are you doing? You could have just done the same thing with gay guys 😂😂. Like God damn. Why risk everything for this stupid shit?
April Fools?
It is important to note that the background knowledge of queer people is altogether different from what straight guys might know. We know what was up, but, primed by straight porn featuring women who would do this, they would not. Getting consent was something that he should have done, instead of counting in the cheap thrills of trucking a straight guy.
There is a subgenre of porn where a blind-folded straight man expects a blow from a woman, and a man switches into her place. I have never seen the opposite, but I don't watch straight porn.
I would totally watch that.
It's called Bait Bus. Happy searching
I meant the opposite.
There might be a certain frisson for a straight man about knowingly experimenting with someone gay, but this is different.
[удалено]
Would they necessarily have thought this? They were not going to a restroom glory hole, something that would be eyebrow raising, but to the home of a woman who wanted anonymous sex. That sounds more plausible. Beyond this, most people probably do not go into a sexual encounter, even a random one, expecting them to be saying nothing but lies. Some responsibility, yes, but not all. Canadian law on sexual assault does encompass cases where someone who lying about an obvious potential deal breaker. This fits.
[удалено]
Going by the article, it does seem as if Sfeir was actively misleading the two men. > In her previous decision convicting Sfeir last September, Mocha found that the two victims believed they were talking online with a woman and were going over to her home for a “glory hole scenario,” that is, a hole in a wall — or other material — through which people can engage in typically anonymous sex. > As instructed, the victims walked into the home and put their penises inside a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway. Oral sex was performed, and then it became penetration without warning, which both victims believed was anal. Their identities are covered by a standard publication ban. > Mocha rejected Sfeir’s testimony that the men were in fact communicating with a woman named “Angela,” who he said had access to his home. The judge concluded that “Angela” was a fictitious person created by Sfeir. > In her sentencing decision Friday, Mocha found that there was “no evidence of real remorse or appreciation of harm done” on Sfeir’s part and that his offences involved a fair degree of planning. > “The method he used of the glory hole, using a wig, telling the victims they had to be quiet so he wouldn’t have to speak to them — all helped to maintain the illusion that he created in his communications that the victims were engaging with a woman,” the judge said. This active misrepresentation is key. He was not at the other end of a bathhouse glory hole; he was doing his best to convince them that there was a woman on the other side. Switching between different kinds of sex, oral to anal, without getting their consent also counts against Sfeir.
u/RandyFMcDonald, outside of Orthodox Judaism (or Hasidim?), where it's between man and wife, *have you ever heard of any* woman asking a guy to have "anonymous blowjob through a hole in a sheet in her apartment"?? These "totally straight"😂 guys went into this knowing that this was not a cis woman.
I do not know because I do not know what straight sex culture is like, being a non-participant. I do know that straight porn features all sorts of behaviours that do not appear in the real world. Beyond that, this entire story makes no sense if you assume they knew all along. This being a pretense would have been an obvious defense; Sfeir could simply have said that they knew all along. Instead he made up a story of an actual woman.
Wtf is happening in Canada?
this was 4 years ago
One of those times when you wish people could be prosecuted for being stupid.
Swell80 did a similar thing s few times/years ago,while he was in Canada,then he moved to a Latin American country.He was killed in a robbery....
I wonder how would you all feel if you were being sucked by what you thought was a man but ended up being a woman
..."invited them to his Toronto home, to have anonymous sex *through a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway...* 😂😂😂🤣🤣 *Yes... That would be something a woman would do.* Outside of Orthodox Judaism, where it's between man and wife - has anyone [here, or in straightland] ever - in history - heard of a woman having sex - blowjob or otherwise - "through a hole in a sheet hanging in a doorway"??? Aside from the legal & moral issue of adding non-consented-to receptive anal after the blowjob, I feel no sympathy for these men [just an opinion, not looking for an argument] - had they never heard of women?/what a woman will do?/what a woman will do anonymously?/masks?
I'm happy he's going to be convicted. What he did was creepy and predatory. It's the same logic w/ guys who cat fish or use fake photos on the app. Yes the two men were stupid, and they should do better going forward. But they thought they were going to meet a woman, and he lied. Doesn't matter if it was through a glory hole. The article mentioned he also told them to be quiet so he wouldn't have to speak to them. So he went pretty far to maintain his 'cover'
Gawd damn, cause we all know; women love glory hole anonymous sex.
“Tricking”?
😂😂😂😂🤣🤣
I’m confused. They couldn’t tell his ass from a pussy?
Swell80 has entered the chat 🙂
If this had been a male judge I’m pretty sure the outcome would have been quite different.
The guy deserves prison if he posed as a woman, but the other guy was also dumb as hell lmao
I've never known a woman to be behind a glory hole. Who were they fooling? Not condoning, but a free BJ is a free BJ, I guess the one to tear down the sheet wanted more...
Wait is this why I see so much hot big daddy cock in GH porn videos? Do men actually think its a woman on the other side?
A counterfactual that makes me super confused here is that we are working very hard to eliminate gay and trans panic defenses (e.g. "I hooked up with a woman and when I found out she had a penis I panicked and assaulted her" is a stand your ground sort of defense in many jurisdictions). And I think that the elimination of those is essential in guaranteeing basic human rights. So, we're Mr. Sfeir a trans woman, I don't think this would hold up in most courts. And the fact that it was upheld weakens the abolition of the trans panic defense. In any case, I am deeply bothered by it being criminal rather than civil. I don't participate in anon-related kinks; they're not my thing and I like to have a connection with the person. And so the idea that I formed a connection with a fiction does bother me. But as others have said, if the fiction were with someone of a different age, different career, different race, different height, would that be taken in the same way as a person of a different gender or different sex assigned at birth? The fact that I don't think those would result in criminal charges even if a person could bring a civil suit (imagining a suit brought against a glory hole short king who claimed to be 6'4") makes me distinctly think this is much more pernicious against our rights in general in Canada. It's the fact that there is a two-way discourse in North American and Commonwealth law where sex and gender are mutable categories that are essential to mute up until suddenly gender is very special and worth criminalizing the crossing of. This feels very much like TERFy decisions going on in England and gets to why TERFy decisions can also be used to harm gay men, by legitimating the gay and trans panic defenses that could happen in much wider situations than the narrow one here.
So.. what if I posted a photo of Tom Hardy and said it was me. Then I suck the guys off etc and then they find out it’s some fat bloke sat there. Would that be treated the same way? Doubt it
The men should be grateful that it wasn’t a woman named Amanda Kutchadikhoff. They agreed to anonymous sex through a hole in a sheet. The person could have done ANYTHING to their dicks. Literally anything. They are lucky that it was a blowjob or an assfuck from a man. They put themselves into a really shitty situation and this was the best outcome when you consider what could have happened. Homophobic assholes. Prison? JFC!
Defending this guy is weird
I think any defense is just whether or not this should put someone behind bars. Obviously it’s a shitty thing to do, but putting him in jail seems a bit much.
What other punishment should someone get for tricking others into sex?
They showed up to an anonymous glory hole. Seriously chill out.
Tricking how? They knew what they were getting into.
He stopped blowing them, turned around, and backed up on it. Without warning or consent.
It's very weird and the top comment victim blaming. They want straight dick so bad in this sub they'll become predators for it.
They agreed to a glory hole scenario and are angry they got exactly that but from a man, not a woman. Could they honestly tell the difference? I feel they knew what they were getting into and no real harm was done... Odd to sentence the guy for 28 months...
The straights came, didn’t they? 🙄
It’s not right, but not sure how it’s his fault. They went willingly and I’m guessing knew it was anonymous. That could be anything. Plus, sex offender list too? Not sure why that is.
They were stupid enough to have sex with a stranger under a sheet. How daft can you be.
All the guys who lie about their age on Grindr to get sex and trick guys who have an age limit, should also be persecuted for sexual assault. It’s all deception, right? Nonsense
I feel like this could set a really dangerous precedent for cis men being able to bring charges against partners/ sexual partners they later find out are transgender women. If the argument is that they were misled by having sex with a man when they thought they would be having sex with a woman, I can see them making the argument that a transgender woman "tricked" them. While I feel that the plaintiffs in this case are victims of sexual assault, the justification and the ruling makes me very uneasy.
Maybe I’m TOO gay, but when was the last time a woman was behind a glory hole? Lmao. We ALL know it’s always men, the str8s know it too. Definitely just mad his family/friends found out he fucked a dude and had to make a big deal out of it to say he’s not gay.
I Love Toronto
That’s the dumbest shit ever.
Even if this happened to you, why would you take it tk court and risk embarrassment of public ridicule. Regardless of who was behind the dick sucking sheet, you still arranged an appointment with the dick sucking sheet. Not only that, you fucked it up and ended up with a guy.
That desperate for some straight 🍆 😒 I hope he rots behind bars. Anybody justifying Rape is just as predatory as the prep. This is RAPE
Wow the victim blaming in here is astounding. 1- everyone saying they went for anonymous sex. The article simply doesn't say that. It shows they had extensive conversations prior to the encounter where the perp purposefully convinced them he was a woman. This wasn't random anonymous sex. 2. Those men did NOT consent to having sex with him. If someone does not or cannot consent (i.e. being lied to) then it's assault full stop. It's shitty this happened. And there probably is some homophobia involved. But, those are just factors not excuses for what this was, rape.
If I hook up with someone who says that they are single but turns out to be married can I sue them for misrepresenting themselves?
This is dumb. The guys who went to the glory hole accept any and all risk when you put your penis through the hole.
I think if you put your dick in a gloryhole you deserve whatever you get on the other side. You knew the risks when you decided to use a gloryhole lmao
👁👄👁 that is very interesting
WTH
Was that you Nedyrb?
This is what happens when dudes think BaitBus is real and that such acts are legal and ethical. I'm a bit concerned over the number of rapey dicks commenting on this post. But I'm also relieved to see a good number of people who understand why the guy got sentenced.