Should bad sex ever end up in court?

They met on Tin­der and had sex on their sec­ond date. Now this stu­dent doc­tor has a crim­i­nal record for grop­ing his lover too hard. What he did was wrong but NEI­THER emerges with any dig­nity from this tawdry tale

Daily Mail - - News - by Libby Purves

As if we needed any more grim rev­e­la­tions in the week of Har­vey We­in­stein’s ex­po­sure, an­other per­fect storm of de­press­ing mod­ern sex­ual at­ti­tudes has bro­ken on us. It’s enough to make any­one sew up their py­ja­mas for good or, at the very least, wish the hu­man race could re­pro­duce peace­fully, like amoe­bas. Or gera­ni­ums.

A court room in Jersey this week found 37-year-old med­i­cal stu­dent, Philip Queree, guilty of sex­ual as­sault. Queree, who has now been placed on the sex Of­fend­ers’ Reg­is­ter for five years, was given com­mu­nity ser­vice and must pay £2,000 costs. He is ap­peal­ing, but the facts of the case are gloomy enough.

For Queree was con­victed of in­de­cent as­sault after squeez­ing a woman’s breasts too hard while the cou­ple had con­sen­sual sex. He met the woman, who worked in the med­i­cal world, on Tin­der, the dat­ing app.

Now, even the lousi­est in­ter­net sites for meet­ing new part­ners can be of use, and there may well be some who have found last­ing and hon­est love on this plat­form.

But those of us who pre­fer ac­tu­ally meet­ing peo­ple, or at least con­vers­ing on­line, tend to wince at the idea that a quick snap­shot on a cold, flat screen is enough to let you de­cide who you want to date.

swipe right — ph­woaaahhrr! — for Yes. swipe left — Ugh! — for No. You would hope that most peo­ple out­grew that sim­plis­tic at­ti­tude to­wards the op­po­site sex around the time they stopped lust­ing after Justin Bieber or cut­ting out pic­tures of Tay­lor swift for their bed­room wall.

That two adults, work­ing in the highly so­cia­ble and hu­mane field of health­care would en­trust their in­ti­mate re­la­tion­ships to Tin­der rings the first alarm bell.

At least, I sup­pose, they waited for the sec­ond date to have sex. After all, a re­cent U.s. sur­vey found that over half the re­spon­dents con­sid­ered it fine to have full in­ter­course on the first meet­ing with a stranger you had cho­sen from a photo on the in­ter­net. But even a sec­ond date is pretty quick work.

A sur­vey by an­other dat­ing site OKCupid makes it painfully clear, though not sur­pris­ing, that men are far keener on this speedy con­clu­sion of mat­ters than women are. Yet they of­ten get their way: and that, I sus­pect, in­di­cates a sad need­i­ness in women. Plenty are afraid that if they don’t ‘put out’ as fast as pos­si­ble they’ll be swiped off left for ever in the man’s opin­ion. Ac­cu­sa­tions such as ‘frigid’ fill them with ter­ror.

so courtship, ro­mance, prom­ise, com­mit­ment, shy earnest kisses — all that goes out of the bed­room win­dow. Just get on with it. It’s ‘only’ sex.

WHICHbrings us to the of­fence it­self, con­firmed in court as sex­ual as­sault. The hap­less pair set­tled down to what we used to call love­mak­ing. They were both will­ing. But she says he grabbed her breasts force­fully, so much so that it hurt. so ‘at first she said noth­ing’. Oh, that need­i­ness! That fe­male anx­i­ety not to of­fend the mas­ter race!

Men do, of course, of­fend eas­ily if their bed­room man­ners are crit­i­cised, which helps to ex­plain why pow­er­ful men like Har­vey We­in­stein get away with it so long be­fore women dare com­plain.

In the case which came to court, the woman merely moved to save her breasts, whereon he did it again: she says she ac­tu­ally cried from the pain, and com­plained that he was rough. All the same, her state­ment said, she ‘ wanted to con­tinue’. so they did. And it hap­pened again. And — after a shower — be­fore they parted she tried to talk about it. But he stormed out.

The sad thing is that nei­ther of them seem to have had much re­spect for one an­other, or for the act of love: not a smidgeon of af­fec­tion, or appreciation, or hu­man kind­ness comes off this hor­rid tale. she texted him, im­plor­ing him to re­turn and ex­plain why he was such a thug in the bed­room yet so charm­ing in nor­mal life. But as he wouldn’t talk about it, she hauled in the law and made a com­plaint. And he is now sen­tenced for as­sault.

I sup­pose in some ways you could say that it was brave of the vic­tim — although as usual she keeps her anonymity while his rep­u­ta­tion and med­i­cal hopes are in tat­ters.

You could say it was brave to ad­mit that she kept on mat­ing with a near-stranger even though he had al­ready made her cry and given her bruises that pro­duced

Ap­peal­ing against his con­vic­tion: Philip Queree

‘dif­fi­culty lift­ing her arm’. But even if it was brave, it was also venge­ful. Not every bad night, not every aw­ful date with an aw­ful stranger, de­serves a solemn court hear­ing.

The fi­nal ef­fect is just to de­mean her, cast away any idea of mod­esty or pri­vacy in the most in­ti­mate of re­la­tion­ships, ruin him and strip them both of any kind of dig­nity.

But then, as we know from many a rape al­le­ga­tion where both par­tic­i­pants were blind drunk, the hook-up cul­ture breeds a great deal of mis­er­able an­gry venge­ful­ness. And not even full ac­quit­tal does the ac­cused’s rep­u­ta­tion any favours.

It was only this week that Ali­son saun­ders, Di­rec­tor of Public Pros­e­cu­tions, sparked con­tro­versy by sug­gest­ing that men cleared of rape charges are not al­ways ‘falsely ac­cused’.

In­ter­viewed by John Humphrys on the To­day pro­gramme, saun­ders — rather shock­ingly if you were brought up on the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence — breezily said that there is a dif­fer­ence be­tween a de­fen­dant be­ing found not guilty and the al­le­ga­tion against him be­ing ‘false or ma­li­cious’.

The real sad­ness, how­ever, is the way that this cul­ture of easy sex, rel­a­tively new in Euro­pean his­tory, wrecks so many lives and makes so many peo­ple of both sexes seem sleazy, im­mod­est and stupid.

Mr Queree was a third-year med­i­cal stu­dent, and has had to drop out of a pres­ti­gious course which ac­cepts only the bright­est: that is a waste of re­sources, learn­ing and hope. You could ar­gue, of course, that it’s wrong to have a ca­reer ru­ined by one lousy Tin­der date.

SOwhat can we take away from this grim but all too mod­ern story? There is no point these days ad­vo­cat­ing the old virtues of mod­esty, chastity and sex­ual re­straint: es­pe­cially since in for­mer cen­turies those rules op­pressed women far, far more than men (a man could be a rake, a roué, a likely lad sow­ing wild oats. Women just got la­belled sluts or tarts).

so in­stead let’s talk about sel­f­re­spect. It’s as sim­ple as that. Women of all classes and pro­fes­sions need to stop valu­ing them­selves on whether they’re ‘ hot’, bed­dable, en­tic­ing to the ba­sic male.

Fash­ion, me­dia and en­ter­tain­ment push that am­bi­tion at us all the time, with body- con clothes and lan­guage sug­gest­ing that it is above all vi­tal to be sex­u­ally al­lur­ing.

The only way to push back is gen­tly to say: ‘Ladies, here’s one im­por­tant truth. It really doesn’t mat­ter whether ran­dom men in the street fancy you. You ac­tu­ally do not need to dress and move at all times like a walk­ing sex­ual self­ad­ver­tise­ment. You have other qual­i­ties and con­tri­bu­tions to make.’

And when you do will­ingly get in­ti­mate with a chap, re­mem­ber that your rights and your value are not di­min­ished by hav­ing agreed to take it all the way.

Love­mak­ing — even if you in­sist on be­liev­ing it is mere sporty fun rather than a se­ri­ous hu­man con­nec­tion — has to be bound by the same rules as ev­ery­thing else. If some­one does some­thing or de­mands some­thing you aren’t happy with, just say no. Firmly.

If some creep grabs you roughly and treats you like a sex doll, don’t put up with it and carry on. say ‘No’. Or even ‘How dare you!’

It’s your body. Not his toy.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.