The charge of rape (or sexual assault) by misrepresentation means when the person impersonates someone else… a different person. The same person, in disguise or with cosmetic or prosthetic enhancements, is not impersonation. If A knows B, consents to sex with B, and somehow C fools A into thinking they are B - that’s rape by fraud. If A meets and gets to know B, but it turns out that B is not the sort of person they presented themselves to be, but they are still that person B that interacted with A and persuaded A to have sex - that’s NOT fraud or impersonation.
So when there is an appeal, the question will be - does the law on fraud apply to the situation or did the trial judge misinterpret the meaning of the law?
The other point might be - A consented to sex with B, assuming B was a man. Sticking an object into A’s vagina was likely not part of the consent. But, at what point does that lack of consent kick in regarding “reasonable” expectations? Is using a toy or implement exceed the normal and reasonable bounds of what a person consents to when they consent to sex? Does consent to using a blindfold reasonably imply consent to the use of “surprises”?
the law is often called on to interpret such interesting nuances.
IMHO - if the woman consented to a blindfold, then surprises were part of the “package” so to speak.
