The story of how the male contestants on Sky’s reality show “There’s Something About Miriam” are suing Sky Broadcasting has been getting press on air, on the blogs, and in print, so you may have read about it already, but in case you haven’t here’s a recap: (via The Guardian.)
[…]
The firm has written to Sky and the show’s producer, independent company Brighter Pictures, telling them the six contestants have claims including conspiracy to commit a sexual assault, defamation, breach of contract and personal injury.
The men claim they were tricked into kissing, cuddling and holding hands with Miriam and say it was only after three weeks of filming that they were told the beautiful woman was, in fact, a man.
While viewers would know from the start that Miriam is a male-to-female transsexual, the contestants – who include a Royal Marine commando, a ski instructor and an ex-lifeguard – only discover the truth when Miriam picks the winner and then lifts up “her” skirt.
One contestant was so furious he is said to have punched the show’s producer when he found out.
The six contestants’ case against Sky and Brighter Pictures, which is a subsidiary of Big Brother producer Endemol, is expected to include the claim that the companies conspired to commit a sexual assault on the grounds the men did not consent to being fondled by a man.
Now, I’m not an expert on sexual assault laws, but it seems to me that the plaintiffs in this case don’t have a legal leg to stand on. Their kissing, cuddling, and fondling of Miriam (a pre-operative transsexual) was entirely consensual on their part (as near as I can tell) and is no more sexual assault against them than if they had picked up Miriam in a bar and taken her home with them.
It sounds to me like these six men (I’m tempted to make insulting comments about them, but it seems that everyone involved in the show was acting in a reprehensible manner) were profoundly embarrassed by what happened and are trying to find some legal ground to keep themselves from being internationally shamed. (For some reason, I can’t shake the idea that these were all uber-masculine, manly-man types. I can’t imagine a show that played so much off of homophobia that didn’t have contestants of this type.) But really, how can they claim that Sky is responsible for any personal injury (what personal injury? Finding out that the super-model-type you thought you had free reign to grope was actually a preoperative transsexual?) when any sexual acts they may have committed with Miriam were entirely consensual.
I’ve seen it argued that the men have a legal standing in their case because Sky may have told them that Miriam was a woman and therefore they were deceived into fooling about with a man who they had been told was a woman. Again, all the acts were entirely consensual, so as far as I’m concerned there was no sexual assault, but if Sky did refer to Miriam as a woman they weren’t really lying. Most preoperative transsexuals prefer to be referred to as members of the gender they wish to become (and already are, in my opinion; what’s an organ?) and so Sky may have been following the wishes of their employee, Miriam, or simply following what’s an established convention in the trans community.
I guess the question remains: when writing legal contracts, are preoperative male-to-female transsexuals referred to as men or as women? I’m not sure how much this changes; for instance, the men may not have read the contracts, or Miriam may have been referred to with a gender-neutral term (e.g., “the contestant”) and it was only the Sky people who referred to Miriam as a woman.
I’d be interested in the opinion of someone who is more familiar with sexual assault laws and laws with regard to preoperative transsexuals.
[Edited for accuracy.]
[The original form of this post referred to Sky Broadcasting as being owned by Fox. One of the commentators informs me that this is not true; in fact, Sky Broadcasting and Fox are both owned by News Corporation. I’ve corrected statements to the contrary in the post and have removed all references to Fox. Sorry for the inaccuracy.].
Actually, British Sky Broadcasting is not owned by FOX. They are owned by News Corporation. News Corp owns FOX too. Stop referring to Sky as FOX, they are not the same thing.
In my opinion, this show was a stupid idea. Even though transsexuals may prefer to be referred to a member of the future gender does not change the fact that they are a member of their current gender.
Damon Runyon, original version:
“One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come up to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an earful of cider.”
Year 2003 Version:
“Never, never, never, agree to be on a reality show.”
The question of whether the show lied if it told the men that Miriam was a woman gets bogged down in semantics. There is a certain (and important) sense in which Miriam is a woman. Yet the men were presuming a different (and more popular) definition of “woman,” which includes the criterion of “has a vagina and no penis.” That criterion may not be critical for a person defining their sexual/gender identity, but it is important to a heterosexual man looking for a mate. You’ve got two different (though overlapping) concepts being communicated by the same word.
To continue Stentor’s thought, that means the men may have a case for breach of contract, if the gender of Miriam was referred to. In this case, the term “woman” or whatever would become ambiguous. And typically in contract law, if there’s any ambiguous wording, it’s against the side of the one who didn’t draft it.
No matter how disgusting these men may be, I hope they win their case, as the world would be a better place for not having this show see the light of day. Too bad it’s too late for “Joe Bachelor” or whatever the fuck.
I, too, think it boils down to semantics.
I find that there is a huge difference between the terms “gender” and “sex”.
Richard said, “Even though transsexuals may prefer to be referred to a member of the future gender does not change the fact that they are a member of their current gender.”
I’d say it “does not change the fact that they are a memeber of their current sex.” Miriam personifies the feminine gender, which is just associated with being a female.
I don’t see sexual assualt as they willingly snuggled with her. They found her “woman”-enough for that much.
I don’t often have sympathy for Murdoch products, and this is not one of those times.
It’s also nice to see that cider in your ear quote.
In the opinion of my partner, a UK lawyer, a case of conspiracy to commit sexual assault could actually be made, although on the face of it the men involved participated willingly, they would not have done had they known Miriam was a pre-op transsexual.
An analogy could be drawn with the case of the HIV-positive man who had sex with two women, not telling them that this was the case, who was subsequently convicted for grievous bodily harm and jailed. Had one of his friends also told the women that this guy was HIV-negative, then this friend could’ve been charged with conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm or aiding and abetting. The same goes for Sky Broadcasting in this case.
Now, I can understand PinkDreamPoppies being upset by the revulsion the men showed when they knew the truth of the situation, but that is not the point of the situation. It’s a question of informed consent, which was clearly missing in this case.
Also, hairsplitting about whether referring to Miriam as a woman was true or not doesn’t matter.
What counted was the impression she and SKy Broadcasting gave to the men.
If you tell me, you’re a woman, I’ll believe you, but I would wish you’d tell me that you’re a pre-op transsexual before we had sex, if only to save some bother during that crucial first time.
Quite frankly, I think the two sides deserve each other, and I’d be quite happy if the exploitative homophobic asshole producers and the gullible homophobic asshole contestants managed to bankrupt each other, to the enrichment of a few honest hard-working lawyers.
I don’t think what the producers are guilty of is sexual assault. But if the current fad for “reality” television continues, then the entertainment industry is going to have to follow the example of academia and develop guidelines for the ethical treatment of human experimental subjects.
I would be surprised if the folks at Sky didn’t already have lawyers telling them not to refer to “woman” but instead to terms such as, e.g., “model”.
–Kynn
Can an analogy be drawn with the case of an HIV+ man having sex with a woman but not telling her of his HIV status? By willfully withholding information about his HIV status, the man endangers the woman’s health and life. In the case of “Miriam,” the men who courted her suffered no risk to their health or life. At worst, they might suffer public embarrassment.
Is the relevant legal issue one of consent? If so, how much do you need to know about your partner for your apparent consent to count as real consent? Remember, in the HIV case, the woman “consents” to sexual intercourse. In the Miriam case, the suitors consent to … dating? Kissing? Groping?
I agree with Cleis here: I don’t think that the case with the HIV+ man is comparable to the case at hand. The women who had consensual intercourse with the HIV+ man (I’m presuming that they contracted the disease) had their health and lives threatened by his withholding information.
The men on There’s Something About Miriam, however, were not actually harmed in any real way. They were duped, they groped, kissed, and cuddled a preoperative transsexual, but their health and their lives are not at risk in the same way those two women were.
As to the question of informed consent… I’m not sure what the laws are like in the U.K., and what legal precedent has been set, but I think a more appropriately analogous situation would be if I went to a bar, met a woman, had a friend refer to her as she, and later discover that she was a preoperative transsexual and my friend knew that all along and chose not to tell me (for whatever reason). By U.S. law, and I’m assuming by U.K. law, that’s not grounds for saying that I wasn’t properly informed and therefore was sexually assaulted.
I think Raznor makes a good point: if the contract refers to Miriam as a woman, the guys probably have a bit more grounding for the case. I assume, though, as I mentioned in my post, that the contract refers to “the contestant” or “Miriam” at all times rather than using “he” or “she.”
Sadly, I can’t hope that the men in this situation win their case because it would lead to reforms in the reality TV show genre. I think the reality TV show thing needs to curl up and die in a dank hole somewhere, but I think that there’s no legal basis for this case and a victory in it would be a further reinforcement of anti-trans prejudice.
As I see it, this case is nothing more than a bunch of blokes who let their hormones lead them into a situation where they unintentionally did something homoerotic and are now searching for some legal way to mend their wounded pride.
The most important point I’m trying to make, and want to repeat it to be clear, is that if this had happened with six guys in a bar, a preoperative transexual, and those six guys’ friend, the case would be laughed out of court.
Anyone remember the Sally Jesse Raphael show from a few years back where a straight man killed a gay man after the gay man voiced on-air his crush on the straight guy ?
Why would a station launch a show with such an inflammatory concept ? Do they have no long term memory ? Do they actually like keeping scads of lawyers in guccis and big diamonds ? WTF ???
The only thing that doesn’t have me totally depressed about this case is that it didn’t end as tragically as with Gwen (or Lida) Araujo, a 17-year-old transgendered girl from California who was murdered at a party by three male “friends” who had just discovered she was biologically male (this happened last year, 10/03).
Poltoonist Mikhaela B. Reid made a touching cartoon about this tragedy, as well as many sensitive and well-thought posts (mainly about the awful media coverage, who kept insulting Araujo’s memory by using her male first name) on her blog, with excerpts from moving letters she received from other transgendered people.
A year old, but still a required reading for anyone unfamiliar with the issue.
Amy,
We cross-posted, but we’re on the same line here.
(Why? Probably because they thought that, by reproducing what is a classical gag in comedy, but with “real people” unaware of the script, they would benefit a hundred more times from it; and also because they knew that, no matter the result, we, i. e. “the public”, would talk about it).
No, they have long term memory, but what you’re referring to is human life. I mean people live and die, but advertising is forever!
But, you know, as easy as it is to blame these asshole executives, you also have to take into account the asshole audience who actually watches this shit.
I cannot speak to English legal standards, but in terms of American law, I think that you underestimate the merits of the plaintiffs’ legal claims. I have set out the reasons for my disagreement at length here.
I don’t know much about sexual assault laws, but I think it’s pretty clear that in terms of actual sexual assault, this doesn’t cut it. So they didn’t know something important about Miriam’s identity – people shouldn’t expect to know everything about one another’s identity when they meet on a bloody reality TV show (or a bar, or really anywhere else – you have to ask questions to get answers). Remember Boy Meets Boy, which had a bunch of straight men hidden among the gay men in an obvious attempt to humiliate the main character? What about all the people who sleep with people they don’t know are married? The men who are suing are only getting taken more seriously because they’re non-trans het men being “humiliated” (by a transsexual woman, no less! there’s sexism here too) rather than queer or trans people.
Also, Miriam is a woman. I think it’s really important to let people decide how their own genders should be described, and I think it’s important for all of us to accept those self-descriptions. Trans people (and especially trans women) are some of the most vulnerable in terms of violence (think of Gwen Aurajo, the women who were killed in DC last year, and all the others), and it doesn’t help to say “but Miriam was really a man!” because one of the major ways people justify violence against trans people is by arguing that they’re lying about their genders and thus somehow violating other people’s whatever. It’s also an important way to protect all of us who want some freedom in how we present ourselves day to day, so that men don’t have to be macho and women don’t have to be femme. It’s not clear that Miriam is legally a woman, because it’s often very difficult to get your legal gender changed, but that shouldn’t be all that important. It’s hard to get a lot of things acknowledged legally, whatever the day to day reality is.
All that said, I’m with dch. A plague on both their houses!
Laurel:Your comments are a trifle surreal. Yes, of course people interact with imperfect information. That’s the human condition. But have you seen Miriam’s picture? It probably would not occur to you (or anyone else) to ask questions like: “Yes, but are you really a woman?” or “Pardon me, but are you quite sure that you do not have a pair of testicles secreted under that swimsuit?” This is information that only Miriam (and the producers of the show) had, and it’s the sort of information that a pre-operative transsexual has a responsibility to convey before engaging in a romantic behavior with others. After all, I take it that most people consider whether or not a potential romantic partner HAS A PENIS to be a material consideration.
Is it just me or is the head and neck in that picture photoshopped (and rather badly) onto the rest of the body? I mean the skin is a completely different colour. I can’t imagine that the make-up artist is that incompetent.
Call me crazy, but I have no patience with people who think that whether a potential romantic partner has a penis is a big deal. I mean really. Are you attracted to this person? Do you like them enough to have sex with them? Then what’s the fucking big deal?
Oh wait…you don’t like her enough to have sex with her, you’re just failing to see her as a human being, because she’s a beautiful woman, and now you feel cheated because your sexist homophobic expectations didn’t get fullfilled. Poor baby.
Well, a transexual should tell his/her romantic partner about being transexual, if it’s serious enough so that secrets between partners would be bad. But that’s personal.
Similarly a pre-op transexual, for practical reasons, should tell his/her partner about the presence of or lack of a penis (depending on circumstances) to avoid that awkward point of discovery that is inevitable given the fact that sex usually involves nudity.
Aside from that, to say a transexual has a legal obligation to inform potential mates of the fact that he/she is trans is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. If you don’t like having sex with people who have penises, and the person you’re about to have sex with turns out to have a penis, then you can just, you know, not have sex with that person.
Besides which, if you’re wondering if someone was born a man or not, there’s always certain signs to look for.
It was Jenny Jones, not Sally Jesse.
And Jake and Raznor (and a few others) have it perfectly right here. And WTF is that with comparing this to having sex with someone who is HIV+?! I mean, is there something I should know — is cuddling and kissing someone with a penis a risk to my health and life? Cuz, if there’s a health risk here, I demand to know now! Sheesh.
To call this sexual assault is beyond offensive and repulsive.
Nobody called it sexual assault; rather conspiracy to commit sexual assault. As in, not the act itself, but aiding and abetting in this act, which as I understand it one can be charged with even if the act itself was not committed.
The whole point I’ve been trying to make is that
Sky Broadcasting got these men involved with Miriam under false pretences, that this is very likely actionable under UK law and that there’s jurispredence for this sort of action in the case of the HIV+ guy.
What I’m seeing in the original post and some comments is what looks like a kneejerk reaction against the possible plaintiffs from personal beliefs; i.e. that men who object to their partner being a pre-op transsexual are pretty disgusting.
Now I can agree with that p.o.v. somewhat, but if I were in the same situation as those candidates, I would be upset as well. It’s never nice to be made a fool off.
I agree with bean that referring to this as sexual assault is offensive at best, especially for those of us who are trying to eradicate true sexual assault.
I understand that these men had their trust and their masculinity violated and are publically humiliated for potentially having the whole thing aired on television. What they should be suing for is a lack of informed consent, NOT sexual assault.
Big damn difference.
I think someone else said it before me, but this should be a lesson. Don’t EVER put yourself on a reality show. You will be humiliated.
The most important point I’m trying to make, and want to repeat it to be clear, is that if this had happened with six guys in a bar, a preoperative transexual, and those six guys’ friend, the case would be laughed out of court.
But that’s actually a big legal distinction. You can say anything you want about a person at your house, but if you print it in the papers, you are subject to libel laws. Similarly, it’s the airing of this piece that threatens the men involved (whether or not we sympathize), because it converts their “humiliation” into a public loss of face/reputation. If there’s such a thing as libel, then there must be grounds for such a case as this, at least for its going to trial.
Just another two cents.
A lot of further thoughts.
I don’t agree that it was sexual assault, but I think it was degrading and exploitive to both the men and the TG Miriam.
Then again, I’m not a big fan of the “let’s-publicly-humilate-random-people-for-entertainment” genre, which is basically what reality TV is.
It is clear to me, and it should be clear to everyone, that people have a right to define their own genders by whatever standard they want. But that doesn’t mean that you get a free pass when you *know* that the other person doesn’t use the same standard. It is obvious that the premise of the show was to find straight ‘manly’ men who would normally never hook up with a transgendered person, and trick them into doing so. And then film their predictably horrified reaction. Should they have been horrified? A fully and completely adjusted person 100% comfortable with their sexuality in a world with no bigotry or prejudice would not be. Lots of people wouldn’t be, perhaps millions of them. But Sky didn’t try to find one of those people. They intentionally found people who would get upset. Here in the states, many jurisdictions have a tort called Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), which fits this to a tee. Sky is certainly guilty (or would be in the US) of that. Should a transgendered person always tell a potential partner that they are transgendered? Of course not. But if you *know* that your potential partner would be distressed to discover that you are transgendered, does the fact that he is insecure and bigoted give you a right to upset him? No. There is ambiguity and imperfect communication in every aspect of our lives, but there was no ambiguity here. Sky and Miriam knew what they were doing, what the almost certain consequences would be, and went ahead anyway. Should they be prosecuted for sexual assault? I could certainly see a jury convicting them…
I think this is the very first time in my lifetime that I dearly wish for the lawyers to win. Every plaintiff, every defendant, should be exposed for the two dimensional, money grubbing whores they are. Reality game shows, the people who participate, and the people with the money behind them, get what they deserve. It’s really just exploitation of other peoples’ real life misery. That goes for COPS, Sally Jesse, Montel, and on and on. (Yes, I know, I’m spitting in the ocean.)
I think the tort that would apply would be Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, since it seems obvious that they rigged the contest to have the contestants pick the transsexual (especially if they loaded the lineup they picked her from with women-born-women who don’t conform to television beauty standards).
Then again, I don’t think Murdoch’s lawyers would have let the contestants on without signing a comprehensive release of all liability, which is that their lawyers are fighting against.
However, I think pranking homophobes, racists, and other similar people is fair game. OK, so you discover you’ve picked up a pre-op trans woman, and you’re not into them? That’s just another “Guys Night Out” “Whatever happens here, stays here” moment to be laughed off. If you react that strongly, you’re a jerk.
Curmudgeonly Clerk: ok, what about Boy Meets Boy? the show’s producers intentionally recruited a bunch of straight men so as to potentially humiliate the gay main character. obviously if you’re flirting with someone and you’re just straight-up not attracted to people of that gender, you should mention that; none of these people did, because they had a financial incentive not to. No one said that was assault. The point is, you can’t know from looking what someone’s chromosomes or genitalia are like, any more than you can see sexual orientation. We’re all used to the assumption that we can, but Miriam is just a particularly obvious example of the fact that you can’t play “spot-the-transsexual” with that much accuracy.
Besides, they were obviously attracted to her. so who *cares* what body parts she has? It’s not like they had any obligation to do anything with her that they didn’t want to do.
Obviously the whole premise is wildly transphobic and mocks these guys (and Miriam, by suggesting that she’s not a woman). But they’re not the wronged parties here. The whole point of reality TV shows is often to embarrass the contestants. so they were tricked and mocked: what exactly did they expect?
“Sexual assault” doesn’t seem like the right term, but there are severe problems here. Consider analogous cases where a woman is tricked into exposing herself nude to someone she believes is a woman, then into helping to undress that “woman”, only to discover that the “woman” has a penis. And she thought that she was just trying on lingerie! Does she have cause for action?
This analogous case suggests that there should be grounds to sue because of the trauma. Call it homophobia if you will, but then is it OK to trick a lesbian into being intimate with a man who impersonates a woman? If she objects, is she to be condemned as “heterophobic”?
I’m not insensitive to issues surrounding transgender folks. I had a good friend who was a male-to-female transexual, but I can’t imagine her attempting to freak out or humiliate men for cash. The con artist (what else can you call it) was participating in this stunt for its shock value. The infliction of embarrassment was calcuated and deliberate.
Laurel, good point about Boy Meets Boy. (Likewise, Joe Millionarie did the same thing–everyone on the show was told he was rich when he wasn’t, but no one made a legal stink about it.)
Like you, I don’t agree that this is sexual assault–but it was designed to humiliate and exploit the men and the TG woman. That’s reprehensible, and that seems to be the MO of reality TV and daytime talk shows. It’s garbage, pure and simple.
Is it rape if you didn’t realize that you were being raped? You were tied down and the rapist believed that he was raping you, but you were consenting at the time? He thought it was rape, you thought it was some of that good old fashioned rough sex that you were craving? I would say that the important factor is the intent of the rapist. In the case of Miriam – the men sexually touched, and were sexually touched by, a person who’s ultimate goal was to inflict distress upon them.
Does their experience compare with more traditional types of sexual assault? Of course not. But the victims of more traditional sexual assault don’t have their experience televised for the world to see, either. ‘What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas’ only works if it actually stays in Vegas.
These guys, as far as we know, weren’t running around telling everyone that TG people are sick or damaged – they were, I think we have to assume, quietly living with their preferences, however homophobic they are. Does the fact that we find their bigotry distastful mean that we will deny them their right to withold consent?
The issue, at the end of the day, is ‘Is there enough wiggle room in the relevant Sexual Assault statue for them to get to a jury?’ If the answer is yes, then Sky and Miriam will both be found guilty. It’s tough to get the benefit of the doubt when everyone thinks you are scum.
Tor, you’re analogy doesn’t quite work. In order for a person to be accused of rape, the victim must press charges. So in a legal sense, if the “victim” believes him/herself to have consented to sex, then to ask “is it rape?” doesn’t even enter into it. As for whether we morally would consider the situation you described as rape, this becomes a philisophical question. I’m inclined to say the situation you describe would not be rape, since I take a more pragmatic view of morality. If the “victim” is not in fact victimized because he/she believes to have consented to sex, then the “rapist”‘s intentions really don’t have a bearing in the consequences. But this is all academic, since I really doubt that that hypothetical situation would ever arise.
Jake wrote:
Call me crazy, but I have no patience with people who think that whether a potential romantic partner has a penis is a big deal. I mean really. Are you attracted to this person? Do you like them enough to have sex with them? Then what’s the fucking big deal?
I completely agree. While I have nothing but comtempt for reality shows and the people who make them, the homophobes who are suing deserve to be literally laughed out of court for their ludicrous sexual assault suit. My only concern with this nonsense is concern that the MtF might get bashed by someone.
Jake wrote:
Call me crazy, but I have no patience with people who think that whether a potential romantic partner has a penis is a big deal. I mean really. Are you attracted to this person? Do you like them enough to have sex with them? Then what’s the fucking big deal?
I completely agree. While I have nothing but comtempt for reality shows and the people who make them, the homophobes who are suing deserve to be literally laughed out of court for their ludicrous sexual assault suit. My only concern with this nonsense is concern that the MtF might get bashed by someone.
It would set a terrible legal precedent to establish that snogging with a pre-op transsexual is in any way, shape, or form sexual assault. It would, in a sense, legitimize “gay rage” defenses, and it would, to an extent, remove some of the legitimacy pre-op transsexuals have.
I also think that it would set a terrible precedent in legitimizing the idea that a man’s heterosexuality can be damaged or discredited so easily. Because, really, that’s what the lawsuit is about.
Good grief. This is ridiculous. It was a reality show, they should have figured that the producers were lying about something. As someone already pointed out, no one sued after they found out that Joe Millionaire was a construction worker.
BTW, speaking of Joe Millionaire — I happen to know someone (very indirectly) who went on the show. She was kicked off pretty early on, but she let people know about the contract she had to sign — which included a clause stating that anything the producers can lie to them. They started off the show knowing that they were being lied to about something. And I have no doubt that the producers of this show put the same clause in there — not to mention, we have no idea whether they actually called Miriam a “woman” or not.
Did the reality show lie to these men for the sole purpose of humiliating them for ratings? Yup. Is this reprehensible? Yup. Was it sexual assault? NOPE. (And btw — in order for one to consider this “conspiracy to commit sexual assualt,” one must believe that a man who willingly sleeps with someone who turns out to have a penis is, in and of itself, sexual assault. That is ridiculous).
And (again) to equate this to unknowingly have sex with someone who has a fatal communicable disease, known to be passed through sexual intercourse, is beyond reprehensible in itself. Kissing, cuddling, fondling, and, yup, even having sex with someone who turns out to be of a different gender is not a risk to anyone’s health or life (with the possible exception of the transexual him/herself, because many homophobes are willing to resort to violence in such a situation). It may be humiliating, it may even be morally wrong — but it will not put anyone’s health or life at risk.
As for the rape analogy — what fucking bullshit. If the “victim” does not feel victimized — in any way — if she truly believed it was consensual, then a rape did not occur. It really doesn’t matter what the man’s intentions were. For the exact same reason that it doesn’t matter what the man’s “intentions” were if the woman feels she was raped. If she repeatedly says no, and tries to push him off, but he continues (under the misguided notion that he is “seducing” and/or “persuading” her or otherwise), it really doesn’t matter what his “intentions” were — he still raped her.
I should mention, since I brought up the exact circumstances where referring to Miriam as a woman could constitute a breach of contract, I doubt Sky gave its contestants such a poorly worded contract. Networks have teams of lawyers assisting them so they can specifically prevent that sort of thing from happening.
I completely agree with bean on this. It’s like if I fantasize about having sex with some woman, whether or not that woman consented to it is immaterial. But so long as we’re dealing with ridiculous hypothetical situations, what if a man and woman have sex, both consenting, but afterwards both are brainwashed to think that the man had raped the woman, so the man believes he raped the woman and the woman believes she was raped. What then? Oooooooooooooh. And now apply that to the Miriam case somehow.
I would like for everyone, whether you disagree with my initial premise (that this case is a load of horse pockey) or not, to step back from the situation for a second and reimagine it.
Let’s say that Miriam was black but had skin that was light enough that she could pass as a well-tanned caucasian. The premise behind the show was that they’d get these six guys to court her, she’d pick one she liked, and at the end of the show she would surprise them by introducing them to her parents, both very dark-skinned. This happened, and the six men promptly sued the broadcasting company saying that they had no wish to be sexually involved with a black woman and that the studio was guilty of “conspiracy to commit sexual assault” and that they had been greviously emotionally wounded and publicly embarrassed.
Would the case have legs to walk on? Would your arguments for or against it be the same? Why or why not?
Upon reading the above posts, and further reflection and research, I’ve changed my position – Miriam and Sky can not be found guilty of (conspiracy to commit) Sexual Assault.
My point was that this case involves one person touching another, knowing that the other person would have witheld consent if he knew all the facts. That makes Miriam a jerk, but are she, and Sky, criminals? Taking a look at New Jersey’s criminal statutes (the first to pop up on google) – no. The relevant definition for sexual assault (second degree) is, “The actor uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain severe personal injury…” No one is alleging physical force or coercion here, in my opinion. I’m sure that GB has a different statute, but I think that the result will be the same.
I wasn’t ever comfortable calling what happened sexual assault, but because I had a botched idea of the definition of Sexual Assault, I thought that a judge would permit the charge to go to the jury. The issue here is the legal definition of Sexual Assault in the court with jurisdiction in England. Not some vaguely defined idea of Sexual Assault half remembered from Crim Law and confused with whatever I learned in Torts.
I do think that Miriam and Sky are both guilty of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, because they *knew* the men would be distressed by the discovery at the end of the show, and they went ahead anyway. In fact, their distress was the climax of the series. And the standard for IIED isn’t the same as in Criminal Law – you end up hurting an ‘eggshell plaintiff’ – you pay the damages. And Sky went out and found people they thought would be particulary vulnerable to this type of distress. But that doesn’t mean that the Plaintiffs have a claim. IIED may not even exist in GB.
Does anyone remember that scene in Trainspotting (the movie, I’m not sure it is in the book), where the ultra-violent “psycho” played by Robert Carlyle gets drunk in a bar, then picks up a highly “appealing” woman, starts cuddling with her, and, once he discovers “the horrible truth”, beats her up almost to death?
I recall that, while the character’s violence was shown as something scary under any circumstances, there was no consideration at all for the trangendered character, who was completely depersonalised and deshumanized. In my memory, “Psycho”‘s acolyte, Renton (Ewan McGregor), was laughing out loud at his friend’s disgusted surprise, hence prompting the audience’s amusement.
It seems that the Sky people had bet on similar reactions, but this time with so-called real people. This is scary.
Although I agree with the majority of posters here in terms of the validity of the legal case (i.e. It’s not at all valid. It’s not sexual assault. It’s not rape. It’s a steaming pile of monkey poo.), I feel that I must take issue with the attitude expressed here that the contestants deserved this treatment because they were big homophobic heterosexual manly men types.
Like others, I liken this to “Boy Meets Boy,” which I found to be horribly offensive and homophobic. It manipulated the emotions of the main character in unforgivable ways, setting him up for a deliberately hurtful and humiliating joke simply because of his sexual orientation. It was a snide gay joke gone big media, and it pissed me the hell off.
Keeping that in mind, I don’t see much difference between Boy Meets Boy and There’s Something About Miriam. I find neither legally actionable, I find both morally reprehensible, and I have nothing but sympathy for the decieved parties in both cases.
The only real difference between the two, as near as I can tell, is in the nature of the trick. . .James from BMB was tricked into expressing romantic interest in men who would have no interest in him, whicle the contestants on TSAM were tricked into expressing romantic interest in someone who, had they been fully informed, they would have had no interest in (and who, in fact, it’s likely they’ll be publically stigmatized for having had mild sexual contact with).
I believe that sexual orientations are real things, whether you’re hetero-, homo-, or bi- sexual, and that they need to be respected. There are plenty of men and women out there who believe that “whether a potential romantic partner has a penis is a big deal,” and it’s not because they’re repressed prudes. . .it’s because their sexual orientation selects for the inclusion or exclusion of a penis. Put another way, would it be acceptable to tell a confirmed gay man “Look, why don’t you just sleep with some women? I mean, you really like some women, right? You get along great, right? And after all, if you thought that some individual woman was a man, you’d have no problem sleeping with her, right?” To me, that sounds pretty condescending and disrespectful. Sometimes, the genitals matter.
—JRC
There is more to this story. I looked at Miriam’s picture and am a little more in tune with the transgendered community than most folks (have several friends). Miriam used to work as an escort in NYC, and has been in porn movies. So one would seriously have to question her motives for being on this program. And I also wonder if Sky knew about this prior to filming, because do be duped by a TS is one thing, if these guys knew her past, they would be very PO’ed.
As a friend of several TS persons who all lead “normal” lives, this situation is painful to me. The life is very hard for them, for the “straight” community does not accept transgenders, and, in many cases, neither do gay men or women. Many people are predisposed into thinking TS women are prostitutes and drug addicts, primarily because of the media. This program only builds on the perception.
I don’t think that the plaintiffs in this case “deserve it” because they’re homophobes, I just think that the case itself, and the media frenzy surrounding it, is based on and fueled by homophobia and that if the situation had not involved a transgendered person, the story wouldn’t have gotten so much play.
I echo the sentiment of “a plague on both their houses” expressed earlier. It’s a crappy situation fueled by crappy prejudices. What Miriam did was sick and manipulative, but the men’s reaction to it is equally shameful. (And the media… Ew. They’ve made a big deal in the past few days that the men are getting tested for herpes, but they’re not presenting it in a “because it’s a health concern” kind of thing (and I doubt Sky would put someone on a sex show who had herpes) but rather it’s seen as a, yeah, all those trans have herpes so of course they should be getting tested. Ew.)
What Miriam did was sick and manipulative, but the men’s reaction to it is equally shameful.
Shameful, yeah, but I’m not sure I would say equally. . .a spur-of-the-moment reaction to a shocking revelation can’t really be compared to premeditated deception, IMO.
Of course, as a big ol’ liberal softie, I’m generally prepared to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, so I find myself spinning scenarios where the reaction of some of the contestants was because they found themselves really liking and being interested in a future with Miriam, and being angered not just at the genital bait-and-switch but at the whole sick deception and at the manipulation of their emotions. I know that that’s probably a more sophisticated sequence than reality reflects, but I like to think that there’s something more to these things than simple lust. *sigh*
—JRC
I wouldn’t have said “equally shameful” if the contestants hadn’t reacted in the specific way that they did, i.e., they charged Sky with “conspiracy to commit sexual assault.” I’m a liberal softie, too, and can imagine situations in which the contestants were upset, but a contestant who was upset over being deceived is not a contestant who would assert that he had been sexually assaulted, or that a conspiracy was afoot to sexually assault him. It’s a question of degree.
Hrm. . .yes, I see your point. At first I thought that you were referring to their initial reaction upon the lifting of the skirt (Could that have possibly been designed to be more crudely shocking? I doubt it.), but in terms of the lawsuit, I think I understand where you’re coming from more. I’m still not sure I agree with you in terms of how the culpability stacks up, though.
In any case, I guess more of the meat of what I meant was in replying to Jakes’ post that it’s somehow wrong to be offended and shocked when it turns out that the person you’re interested in has been decieving you as to her biological sex. I mean, call me crazy, but I don’t think that, in and of itself, makes them homophobes or sexist.
He wrote:
Oh wait…you don’t like her enough to have sex with her, you’re just failing to see her as a human being, because she’s a beautiful woman, and now you feel cheated because your sexist homophobic expectations didn’t get fullfilled. Poor baby.
See, I think you can “see someone as a human being,” and still be pissed off at her when it turns out that she’s been deliberately participating in a deception she knew would cause you emotional distress. And, BTW, what “sexist homophobic expectations”? That she would have female genitals to match her female gender? Boy howdy, if that’s sexist and homophobic, then nearly everyone I have ever met in my entire life is a sexist homophobe, including many, many lesbian women.
—JRC
BTW, I wanted to toss in a plug for my favorite trans comic strip, Venus Envy, which can be found here:
http://venusenvy.keenspace.com/
—JRC
Quote: “Quite frankly, I think the two sides deserve each other, and I’d be quite happy if the exploitative homophobic asshole producers and the gullible homophobic asshole contestants managed to bankrupt each other, to the enrichment of a few honest hard-working lawyers.”
Sure, most of these guys are out for a little bump and grind, and nothing more; a bit of how’s-your-father in the back of a cab, and no phone call in the morning. But what about the guys who are looking for a meaningful, lasting relationship that involves HAVING CHILDREN? No-one’s talked about that yet. Sure, adoption is possible, but what if these guys want to have their own kids by the woman they love? If she has a penis, that puts a dampener on that, doesn’t it? Miriam is clearly guilty of deception. I don’t think she’s guilty of “conspiracy to commit sexual assault”, but deliberately misleading someone is not a good thing to do, and she would definitely appear to be doing that. Relationships with transsexuals are all well and good – it’s not so different from a “true” homosexual relationship – but even if there’s no legal obligation to reveal that you are one, there’s certainly a moral factor that should come into play for the reason I just gave. Trust and honesty are the most important parts of a meaningful relationship; without those, there is NO meaningful relationship.
This behavior is everyday and does not surprise in anyway… to be expected in these days of self exploitation… the only injustice I see is that of promoting further unconventional ideas, indiscretions and sexual behavior broadcasted to naive youth around the world… as it seems a few unwitting Casanovas got fixed with their pants downward… Miriam was always Miriam… these glittery boys were led by their reproducers and the producers alike… the spider and the flies!
Uh huh. I read through Hypo’s comment twice and have no clue what he/she is trying to say. Maybe I’m just tired.
But what about the guys who are looking for a meaningful, lasting relationship that involves HAVING CHILDREN? No-one’s talked about that yet. Sure, adoption is possible, but what if these guys want to have their own kids by the woman they love? If she has a penis, that puts a dampener on that, doesn’t it? Miriam is clearly guilty of deception.
Yeah! And think of all those poor men who find out that the women they love are infertile — maybe since birth, maybe due to a later problem — think how much those poor men are being fucked over. I think we should make a law that requires women to get regular testing to make sure they are able to have children, and all men should be given free access to those test results, that way men won’t be duped by those horrible infertile women who are unable to give a man the only thing a woman is good for anyway. Oh, and any woman who simply doesn’t want a child (at least, not when her man wants one) should be shot and killed on the spot!!!
These men were made to believe that Miriam was a woman, i.e a human with a vagina, and a natural one at that! They performed all those acts (kissing, fondling etc) under false pretences, and would not have performed those acts had they known the truth. Just because they didn’t want to hook up with a bloke, it does not make them homophobic, they are simply heterosexual men who have the rights to act in a heterosexual way. Homophobics are people who do not approve of homosexuality. These men could very well approve of homosexuality and have no problem with it, they just choose not to be a part of it, because of the very reason they prefer women. The analogy that if this very thing happened at a bar, it would be laughed at, does not work, because had it happened at a bar, it would not be a situation where it was broadcast for the public to see. that is basically what the men were suing for, public humiliation, among other things. If you say something about anyone that gives them a bad name, which has no absolute truth, you can be sued for defamation. The same concept applies here. The men were lead to believe that Miriam was in fact a woman. And who exactly will even think of the question ‘is she really 100% a biological female?’ when they see her picture? I think the men deserved to win the case. Also, many people here are saying the men were attracted to his/her face, body, etc but they were only attracted to those things based on the belief that the package also featured a vagina. Again, i very much doubt the men would have been attracted to miriam, or at least want to win her affection, had they seen a picture of miriam with her/his body and nice face but also showing her/his penis!
I think we should make a law that requires women to get regular testing to make sure they are able to have children, and all men should be given free access to those test results, that way men won’t be duped by those horrible infertile women who are unable to give a man the only thing a woman is good for anyway.
Sarcasm aside, it’s an example of a larger, complex issue. At what stage in a relationship do you have a moral responsibility to your partner to be clear about what you expect from the relationship and what you can give him? If you’re definitely not interested in settling down and starting a family with him, how early do you have to make that clear?
Trust and honesty are the most important parts of a meaningful relationship
Absolutely. And that goes whatever body parts the people involved were born with.
These men were made to believe that Miriam was a woman
She is a woman. Caring more about what body parts someone has than what they’re like as a person might not be homophobic, but it’s not a particularly mature attitude either. As for the humiliation, it’s no worse than what other reality TV shows inflict, unless you have a special reason for being humiliated by association with a person-with-penis.
FYI, here is Miriam’s official web site: There’s Something About Miriam indeed. She’s great.
Okay, I admit when I first started watching this show it was with glee that these Pommie boys were going to be humiliated.. however now I find I cannot laugh off my fascination/entertainment without giving it further thought.
Yes the men were deceived and that is not nice. I don’t think much of this Miriam either however – mainly for deceiving HERSELF in order to be exploited. She has said she wanted to be on the show to see if true love exists, and we can all safely bet that she wasn’t going to find it amongst a bunch of red-necked ‘machos’ picked solely for their capacity to be outraged when the final ‘reveal’ was made.
Miram must have know this was not the best forum for finding true love, nor was her perfect match likely to be in a type picked by the producers. My problem with Miriam is that she hides behind her ‘pure intentions’ and says she was not out to deceive. No respect there for not having the balls (ha) to say what you are really about, and playing the innocent.
What entertains me about this show, and all the comments above, is that no-one speaks of the men’s deception! If we are speaking of the moral wrong of deceit perhaps we can shame the men alongside Miriam for also pretending to be something they’re not: romantic, genuine, sensitive and well-mannered. How they behaved to Miram’s face compared to what they said behind her back was reprehensible. And this is before they knew her ‘dirty little secret’… imagine she was not TG for a moment and the pairing had eventuated – think about the kind of man she would have been lumped with. Aggressive, insecure, homophobic, lying, callous, superficial, alcoholic.. the list goes on.
Quite frankly I think the winner and Miriam would have made a perfect match if he could have just past the penis thing. Which I’m sure he could have, if it was on a spring break with the boys in Thailand and the world wasn’t watching.
I find the whole concept of shows with the single premise of humilation of the participants really disturbing. I think what glues viewers to such programmes is that the participants are picked to typify much loathed traits, how much they are humiliated is a function of how much those traits are expressed, and so ‘justice’ is done and atavism satisfied.
The final ‘Miriam’ show was aired in Australia tonight. I watched it, and came away with the uncomfortable feeling that in bloodier times I would have been knitting beneath the guillotine.
This is Criminal Law I. Fraud in the inducement is not sexual assault; fraud in the factum is. Which is to say, if you know you’re agreeing to sexual activity, it’s not rape. (The classic law-school example is a doctor who persuades a patient that by having sex with him, she will be cured of an illness.)
heu,
i was reading ur page on ”there’s something about miriam” i’ve been hearing and reading alot about it and wanted to check it out for myself. i was wondering if u knew when it would air in the united states…
please e-mail me back
The show’s premise itself is disgusting. But I feel like with all the efforts put forth about how disgusting the men’s reactions were I wonder if we’ve changed the standards for being homophobic. The only people who wouldn’t be bothered would be bi-sexuals and gay men. Plus you have to factor in the fact that they were LIED to, and whenever you learn that your partner or future partner has LIED to you, you are going to be shocked and appalled no matter how serious the issue and I have to say that this is one of the biggest schocks posible. Also it seems like the whole purpose of the show was to cause the emotional distress of the six macho male characters so I’d expect that there would be a clause in the contract allowing this. Imagine you agreed to have sex with someone, and you agreed for it to be on camera. Then you get into the bed with them kissing and fondling and you’re smiling at the camera when they take off their clothes. Then you(being a guy) see a penis, do you have a legal right to sue for posession of that tape? Furthermore do you have a legal right to sue for emotional damages? Imagine you’re a girl and you are about twenty two years old. You’re in bed consensually with a man and have also consented to being video taped. Imagine if suddenly an old woman rushes in and yells “You dirty good for nothing husband” and you learn that he’s like forty years old, imagine if he did all of this just to humiliate you on camera and he was showing the tape to all of your friends/family wouldn’t you try to sue him?
This show and the article are so breathtakingly transphobic as to defy description. Sadly, many of the comments are, as well.
Locke, if you’re still around, It may do you well to know that many transwomen have suffered violence at the hands of gay men when they learned of transition plans. In my experience, gay men are MUCH less understanding than straights, not that straight men are bastions of understanding.
Love is often deadly to us. and we don’t owe you shit about our pasts.
The show only works because male sexuality is so fragile.
Men are fragile. I know- I’ve broken a few
This is crazy… In my opinion they should not get the chance to win. It’s all about the money, nothing more. Nobody will remember their names from the show. And friend will always remember they were kissing transsexual, no matter if they win or not. :D
AFAIK, preoperative transsexuals refer to the desired gender long before final operation. It’s a long process to change the gender physically but mentally – Miriam is probably a girl since HER childhood. I’d tell the guys only one thing – don’t be foolish, reconcile to the fact, that you won’t probably have another chance to kiss such beauty. ;)