Can someone explain this one to me?

[schrodinger]

(with apologies for the Daily Mail link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361150/Wo...

I'm unclear on the offence that's been committed here. AIUI the act was consensual at the time, but later when the victim saw the perpetrator as a woman, she realised she had been deceived, and thus an offence has been committed - I assume because her consent was given on the understanding of facts that turned out to be untrue.

So... following this logic, if some jack-the-lad chats up a woman telling her he's a millionaire, they then have sex, and it turns out he's a no-hoper, has the same offence been committed? It not, why not?

[PurpleMoonlight]

We had this discussion in the previous similar thread.

It's the extent of the deception that matters, pretending to be a different gender is pretty serious whereas lying about your wealth isn't.