Belgian discovers his wife used to be a man after 19 years

[lpast]

[h=2]A Belgian is seeking to have his marriage annulled after discovering that his Indonesian wife of 19 years had been born a man.[/h]
The man, only named as Jan, married Monica, his family's former au pair in a previous marriage, in 1993 despite legal difficulties raised by the Belgian immigration authorities.

But it was only in recent weeks that he discovered that his wife had originally been a man and had undergone a sex change.

"I feel I've been assaulted," he told the Het Nieuwsblad newspaper.

"I brought her to Belgium. That was not easy. The Belgian courts had serious doubts about the authenticity of her birth and her identity papers, but eventually they accepted it anyway. I thought she was an attractive woman, all woman. She had no male traits."


Belgian discovers his wife used to be a man after 19 years - Telegraph

 

[Wiseone]

[h=2]A Belgian is seeking to have his marriage annulled after discovering that his Indonesian wife of 19 years had been born a man.[/h]
The man, only named as Jan, married Monica, his family's former au pair in a previous marriage, in 1993 despite legal difficulties raised by the Belgian immigration authorities.

But it was only in recent weeks that he discovered that his wife had originally been a man and had undergone a sex change.

"I feel I've been assaulted," he told the Het Nieuwsblad newspaper.

"I brought her to Belgium. That was not easy. The Belgian courts had serious doubts about the authenticity of her birth and her identity papers, but eventually they accepted it anyway. I thought she was an attractive woman, all woman. She had no male traits."


Belgian discovers his wife used to be a man after 19 years - Telegraph

This article fails without pictures.

 

[Your Star]

She should have told him, but he wasn't assaulted, that is just ridiculous. And at the end of the day, if you love the person, this shouldn't matter.

 

[NoC_T]

"I feel I've been assaulted," he told the Het Nieuwsblad newspaper.

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

 

[NoC_T]

She should have told him, but he wasn't assaulted, that is just ridiculous. And at the end of the day, if you love the person, this shouldn't matter.

It could be argued that if she'd loved him enough, she'd have divulged something as fundamental as having been born a male. Especially since it couldn't have failed to cross her mind, that it might make a difference to whether he loved her at all.

I guess you're right, but Jesus.

 

[roguenuke]

Although I wouldn't fault him for feeling betrayed, he wasn't assaulted. It would be little different than her keeping a previous marriage from him, keeping having an abortion from him, keeping having had major reconstructive surgery from him that was different, or keeping not being able to have children from him. All these things should be shared with a husband, but if they aren't and found out, there is no "assault". A violation of trust, sure. But he trusted her enough to love her before he found out she was once a he.

 

[Your Star]

It could be argued that if she'd loved him enough, she'd have divulged something as fundamental as having been born a male. Especially since it couldn't have failed to cross her mind, that it might make a difference to whether he loved her at all.

I guess you're right, but Jesus.

True, it was a violation of trust, but it wasn't assault.

 

[NoC_T]

Although I wouldn't fault him for feeling betrayed, he wasn't assaulted. It would be little different than her keeping a previous marriage from him, keeping having an abortion from him, keeping having had major reconstructive surgery from him that was different, or keeping not being able to have children from him. All these things should be shared with a husband, but if they aren't and found out, there is no "assault". A violation of trust, sure. But he trusted her enough to love her before he found out she was once a he.

She betrayed that trust.

Clearly, had he known in advance, he wouldn't have loved her at all. Whatever that says about him as a person, it points to a certain deception on her part, as she must have been aware of how he'd feel, being familiar with him. The realtionship was founded on a lie. That's not love.

 

[NoC_T]

True, it was a violation of trust, but it wasn't assault.

Agreed. I wouldn't describe it as being assault.

 

[roguenuke]

She betrayed that trust.

Clearly, had he known in advance, he wouldn't have loved her at all. Whatever that says about him as a person, it points to a certain deception on her part, as she must have been aware of how he'd feel, being familiar with him. The realtionship was founded on a lie. That's not love.

Lots of relationships involve lies that existed when the relationship began and were never revealed because the person with the lie felt (sometimes justly) that the relationship would not last if they revealed the truth. The lies are of all types.

But that is why we have annulments here for situations where the marriage existed because of a lie that existed before the marriage. That is what is needed here. Hopefully Belgium has annulments that account for this if that is what the husband honestly wants.

I don't feel all that sorry for the woman. She should have came clean as soon as the relationship got serious. She brought it on herself. I just don't feel that "assault" is the right descriptive word here.

 

[NoC_T]

Lots of relationships involve lies that existed when the relationship began and were never revealed because the person with the lie felt (sometimes justly) that the relationship would not last if they revealed the truth. The lies are of all types.

But that is why we have annulments here for situations where the marriage existed because of a lie that existed before the marriage. That is what is needed here. Hopefully Belgium has annulments that account for this if that is what the husband honestly wants.

I don't feel all that sorry for the woman. She should have came clean as soon as the relationship got serious. She brought it on herself. I just don't feel that "assault" is the right descriptive word here.

It's the wrong word, definitely. To say she assaulted him, implies something more immediate. Not the course of a relationship. You could even call it abusive, but not assault.

Had it been assault (even in this non-physical sense), he would have had to have been aware of the deception, immediately following the beginning of the union. It couldn't be an ongoing assault, or he'd have ended it.

It's basically the time frame that jars with that description.

 

[Republic Now!]

Not assault, but certainly something you'd feel a bit ill about after the fact.

She should have told him, but he wasn't assaulted, that is just ridiculous. And at the end of the day, if you love the person, this shouldn't matter.

I've had multiple people I've loved, but their born sex would preclude me desiring to pair and mate with them, which is why this is a bit of a sick thing on part of the wife.

Although I wouldn't fault him for feeling betrayed, he wasn't assaulted. It would be little different than her keeping a previous marriage from him, keeping having an abortion from him, keeping having had major reconstructive surgery from him that was different, or keeping not being able to have children from him. All these things should be shared with a husband, but if they aren't and found out, there is no "assault". A violation of trust, sure. But he trusted her enough to love her before he found out she was once a he.

I think "My genitalia which you've had multiple sex acts with is an inverted penis" is a bit different than "I used to have a marriage with this other person."

 

[Your Star]

I've had multiple people I've loved, but their born sex would preclude me desiring to pair and mate with them, which is why this is a bit of a sick thing on part of the wife.

Not really, it's not like she had sex with him while she had male parts.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Bet his ex wife is thinking this is rather funny.

 

[roguenuke]

Not assault, but certainly something you'd feel a bit ill about after the fact.

I've had multiple people I've loved, but their born sex would preclude me desiring to pair and mate with them, which is why this is a bit of a sick thing on part of the wife.

I think "My genitalia which you've had multiple sex acts with is an inverted penis" is a bit different than "I used to have a marriage with this other person."

It's not though. All of our bodies are just tissue and bone and blood. If a woman takes butt tissue and gets it put as grafts onto her face, does it make a difference? To some it would, to others not so much. But finding out you were touching what was at one time butt, not face, still doesn't mean that she "assaulted" the person who has a problem with it. Apparently the guy couldn't tell the difference for years, so why should that particular fact matter just because he knows the difference now? The betrayal of trust should be the issue, not what the parts used to be.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

And at the end of the day, if you love the person, this shouldn't matter.

I would see it as a fairly large breech of trust. It would matter to me quite a bit.

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh my... I just don't know what to say...

 

[joko104]

This might have something to do with why she couldn't have children.

 

[Republic Now!]

Not really, it's not like she had sex with him while she had male parts.

He always had male parts and always will to the husband.

It's not though. All of our bodies are just tissue and bone and blood.

Yes, and our sexual impulses and emotions go deeper than that. That's why we have rape. Just because it's visually similar does not mean it's the same thing to the husband.

If a woman takes butt tissue and gets it put as grafts onto her face, does it make a difference?

Really not the same thing, again.

To some it would, to others not so much. But finding out you were touching what was at one time butt, not face, still doesn't mean that she "assaulted" the person who has a problem with it.

Like I said, I don't think it was assault. However, there is a distinction. Most people don't want to have sex with a sex their not attracted to, whether that's the same sex or opposite sex. There is some level of deception here, because the wife knew there was a chance the husband wouldn't be okay with it, so probably should have mentioned it before hand. Whether or not you think it's a valid reason not to want to be with someone is irrelevant because it's not your decision. Clearly, lying about your sex to someone (even if you like to pretend the "past sex" doesn't matter it's not your decision to make for the husband) you're having sex with is fairly deceptive. This is not like getting a haircut.

Apparently the guy couldn't tell the difference for years, so why should that particular fact matter just because he knows the difference now?

Uh, because he was having sex with a man all that time in his mind. That's kind of a big deal when people have a sexual preference.

The betrayal of trust should be the issue, not what the parts used to be.

The issue should be whatever he feels is an issue, and having sex with an inverted penis is clearly a problem for him.

 

[joko104]

There is a contradiction of values when it comes to transgendered people.

On the one hand, the GLTB community INSISTS that a person's sexual orientation is inherently deeply and irretractably rooted in the person's more core psychology. But, in this instance, the view completely changes and how dare he have a problem with having a relationship, marriage and sex with someone who is DNA "male."

If a person TRULY is always and only controlled in sexual gender orientation, then inherently he would find "her" offensive and intolerable. If not, to "cure" gayness the person of the opposite gender would only need to dress like the same gender, turn off the lights in the dark - and no problem, right?

I would not say he was "assaulted" in a criminal sense, but he was violated and defrauded. "Her" deception cost him 19 years of evolution of a long term relationship now wasted and lost because of her fraud against him.

 

[rocket88]

There is a contradiction of values when it comes to transgendered people.

On the one hand, the GLTB community INSISTS that a person's sexual orientation is inherently deeply and irretractably rooted in the person's more core psychology. But, in this instance, the view completely changes and how dare he have a problem with having a relationship, marriage and sex with someone who is DNA "male."

If a person TRULY is always and only controlled in sexual gender orientation, then inherently he would find "her" offensive and intolerable. If not, to "cure" gayness the person of the opposite gender would only need to dress like the same gender, turn off the lights in the dark - and no problem, right?

I would not say he was "assaulted" in a criminal sense, but he was violated and defrauded. "Her" deception cost him 19 years of evolution of a long term relationship now wasted and lost because of her fraud against him.

I don't see anybody saying that he's wrong per se. It was wrong for her not to tell him about it. It's impossible to tell what a person's DNA is unless they undergo a DNA test, and sexuality and gender are not easy beasts to tame. A penis is just an easily visible sign. The "low-hanging" fruit, so to speak (no pun intended).

I don't pretend to know anything about gay-ness or whatever you want to call it. By all accounts, it's not a choice. I don't find that hard to believe because I never chose to be straight. I just am.

 

[Republic Now!]

There is a contradiction of values when it comes to transgendered people.

On the one hand, the GLTB community INSISTS that a person's sexual orientation is inherently deeply and irretractably rooted in the person's more core psychology. But, in this instance, the view completely changes and how dare he have a problem with having a relationship, marriage and sex with someone who is DNA "male."

If a person TRULY is always and only controlled in sexual gender orientation, then inherently he would find "her" offensive and intolerable. If not, to "cure" gayness the person of the opposite gender would only need to dress like the same gender, turn off the lights in the dark - and no problem, right?

I would not say he was "assaulted" in a criminal sense, but he was violated and defrauded. "Her" deception cost him 19 years of evolution of a long term relationship now wasted and lost because of her fraud against him.

I was thinking the same thing. Personally I don't think sexuality is a choice. I don't know how, if you hold this position, you can look at this scenario and say "If he loves the person, it shouldn't matter."

 

[Republic Now!]

I don't see anybody saying that he's wrong per se. It was wrong for her not to tell him about it. It's impossible to tell what a person's DNA is unless they undergo a DNA test, and sexuality and gender are not easy beasts to tame. A penis is just an easily visible sign. The "low-hanging" fruit, so to speak (no pun intended).

I don't pretend to know anything about gay-ness or whatever you want to call it. By all accounts, it's not a choice. I don't find that hard to believe because I never chose to be straight. I just am.

Which is precisely why if you choose to remove that organ you should make it clear to your sexual partners.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Not assaulted, but deceived.

Could you love a liar?

She should have told him, but he wasn't assaulted, that is just ridiculous. And at the end of the day, if you love the person, this shouldn't matter.

 

[joko104]

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

If you found out your mate or spouse had been born the opposite gender? Obviously if there are children that isn't possible (not yet anyway), but set that aside.

I absolutely would not break up with her and would do all I could to assure her I still completely want her at the center of my life.

I would agree it was exactly the correct decision. She is very feminine.

I would be glad for her and I both that the medical technology existed.

I probably would find it somewhat exotic.

I would not be bothered that she had not told me prior. She owes me no explanations about anything, ever.

I'd be glad she had the surgery, because I MIGHT not be with her otherwise.

But I'm not sure about that. She is a one-of-a-kind very unique person. I do NOT agree it is exclusively about "orientation" for everyone in every situation. Relationship and sex are not the same to me. Sex was just sex. For relationship - of which I have had exactly one - sex came after the relationship and even after marriage. Sex follows the relationship, not the other way around. Since that is not the circumstance, I suppose I can't know for certain.

It might explain some curiousities about her.

YOU?