Case of the Phony Dawn

Here's a story that ranks about as high in the weirdness category as that story about the sleep-sex woman. Stephen Hill invites four guys over to his house to have sex with a woman named Dawn. This goes on for three years. Finally, it occurs to the guys: 'are we really having sex with Dawn... or is that just Stephen pretending to be Dawn?' Three years to figure this out! With a story like this you know there's got to be a lot more to it than you're getting in the news report.


Posted on Tue Dec 21, 2004


Um...not to be overly gross here, but good GOD, how stupid do you have to be not to be able to tell the difference between having sex with a young girl and a dirty old man? I mean, you'd think it would feel different or something...
Posted by Katherine  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  03:15 AM
From the story, it sounds like "Dawn" was only giving them oral sex. Of course, if we listen to the current mode of thinking, (another thing to thank Clinton for), it wasn't sex, so I guess it wasn't any sort of crime...
Posted by Drunk Stepdad  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  06:32 AM
how?... how can you mistake a wrinkly old guy for a young girl when you are having sex with him? didnt they ever get curious as to why they could never see or touch her? (ok that doesnt prove it was a man, but it does give other conclusions)

well since what they were doing was pretty unmoralistic (having regular sex with an anoymous partner who they did not know was consenting at all) it almost serves them right
Posted by joe odd  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  06:35 AM
Maybe they shouldn't have looked a gift horse in the mouth.
Posted by Craig  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  07:00 AM
Here's another story about this:

If you've never had any type of sex wouldn't know the difference between oral sex given by a man vs give by a woman. Being teenagers, this may have been their first sexual encounter. Although, if I were being asked to do this, I'd be curious as to why "Dawn" would be into this...
Posted by Maegan  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  08:08 AM
"unmoralistic," that's a new one...
Posted by ouch  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  01:05 PM
The whole thing sounds like one of those far- fetched stories that you used to hear on the playground in elementary school. Like the Playboy magazine factory hidden somewhere in the creek by the school (I never found it no matter how hard I looked), or the beautiful 'white-lady' who lived in the big concrete drain pipe that you could see through the grating next to the soccer field.
Maybe those two stories are true also?
Posted by Humdinger  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  01:47 PM
If you've never had any type of sex wouldn't know the difference between oral sex given by a man vs give by a woman.

Maegan, as far as I know, the male and female mouth don't differ, anatomy-wise. If it was oral sex only, no touching and no looking, one couldn't tell the difference.

Of course that says nothing of why it took them THREE YEARS to figure out something was amiss.
Posted by James D  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  02:36 PM
When the whole "Tula" Bond Girl thing came out we had a friend who swore up and down that HE could tell the difference.
We didn't want to know why he was so certain about that.
Posted by Charybdis  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  03:36 PM
This is another one of those chestnuts that strikes me as more of a tall tale (legend?) than a true hoax. I mean, was anybody seriously expected to believe the tale?
Posted by Big Gary C  on  Tue Dec 21, 2004  at  07:17 PM
Either way...the story is hard to believe.
Posted by Maegan  on  Wed Dec 22, 2004  at  08:26 AM
>> Allen said Hill tricked the boys, three brothers and a cousin -- all between ages 13 and 15 -- by telling them a woman wanted to have sex with them, London reported.

"Beginning in early 2003, the defendant is alleged to have told the boys that he knew a woman named 'Dawn' who wanted to meet and have sex with them," Allen said in a statement issued Monday. "He told them that 'Dawn' insisted on remaining anonymous so that the boys would have to be blindfolded during the encounters and could not touch 'Dawn' but would have to simply submit to whatever 'Dawn' did to them."

This conflicts with the three years figure given in the Yahoo story.

>> The final testimony focused on Hill's victims and his alleged sexual relationship with a father of one of the boys. <<

>> Judge Davis stepped down after Hill's attorney accused him of being unfair and making faces during witness testimony. <<

>>His lawyer delivered a snapshot into Hill's mind when it was revealed that Hill's father dressed him in women's clothes when he was a child. During three hours of testimony, Hill claimed he was humiliated by his siblings and was suicidal and sexually confused as an adult <<
Posted by ac  on  Wed Dec 22, 2004  at  10:38 PM
>>>Maegan, as far as I know, the male and female mouth don't differ, anatomy-wise. If it was oral sex only, no touching and no looking, one couldn't tell the difference.<<<

Only provided the person in the role of 'Dawn' was very careful not to let his partners' members (or other skin surfaces) come in contact with his stubbly or hairy chin and upper lip (which I would imagine might be tricky).

If it was a gloryhole type of situation, sure, that's feasible. But you really have to wonder about the lack of sensory acuity of the boys. Women have a fundamentally different smell than men due to differences in body chemistry (notably in sweat), and you don't have to have too sharp a nose to detect it. 'Dawn' would most likely be inadvertently making some distinctly unfeminine noises during the acts, too. And you probably have to be sexually experienced to notice things like this, but it's rather difficult for an averagely-endowed woman to perform oral sex on a male in most positions without brushing her breasts against some part of his body--one wonders why the boys never wondered where Dawn's tits were during all of this.

Anybody might be fooled during a one-time encounter, but these were repeated encounters.

And now I'm not going to think about this anymore for awhile.
Posted by Barghest  on  Thu Dec 23, 2004  at  03:45 AM
"stubbly or hairy chin and upper lip"

That's basically what I meant. Thanks Barghest.
For the kids just to do this & not question it or tell anyone is odd to me. I realize they were children & technically even if they enjoyed it, it would never be their fault, because the adult in the situation should never have let it happen...
Posted by Maegan  on  Thu Dec 23, 2004  at  12:57 PM
Another case of getting up at the crack of dawn!
Posted by Michael Birbeck  on  Sun Jan 16, 2005  at  03:59 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.