Man squeezes woman's boobs too hard - it ends up in court - should it have?

jonon9

Ok lets leave out the assault in this story and focus on his 'Bright' future. Can anyone not see the irony in this

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/medical-student-too-bright-for-prison-is-spared-jail-for-stabbing-boyfriend-with-bread-knife-36166924.html

andekwarhola

If she tells you to stop doing something during sex because it's causing pain or discomfort, especially repeatedly, you stop doing it.

It's not fcuking rocket science.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strandroad

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

jonon9 wrote: »

Ok lets leave out the assault in this story and focus on his 'Bright' future. Can anyone not see the irony in this

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/medical-student-too-bright-for-prison-is-spared-jail-for-stabbing-boyfriend-with-bread-knife-36166924.html

I thought it was disgraceful actually.

greencap

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

Ok he's in the wrong.

If someone asks you not to do something to their body, in those particular circumstances and you do it anyway then you're straight up in the wrong.

(permission to have sex doesn't give carte blanche to do whatever you want, its a bit like a gym membership in that way, you might have a silver membership, so you can use the weights room and showers, but not the pool)


That said the punishment should fit the crime.
I'm sure the judge was somehow obliged to hand out that sentence, but really it shouldn't be more than a lower end of the scale assault charge.

To put some perspective to the details I've decided to use my balls as a measuring device.

I think this is fair, since balls are the best male equivalent of tits we have available, they're not the main event (which in this case would be the delicious long shaft or punani) and they also swing.

If we equate the squeezing of a breast to mistreatment of the balls then we can scale the pain involved and see that an assault charge is appropriate, thereafter we can set a monetary value as a fair compensation.

I would estimate the squeezing of a sore breast to equate with a light punch in the balls, since we can reasonably imagine that if a woman were to lightly punch you in the balls during sex you would still keep going. (as did the woman involved)
The benefit still outweighing the cost.

Repeated punches to the balls however would lead to loss of the boner and the same kind of whimpering as a girl whos had her boobs squeezed too hard.

Therefore she should be compensated to the monetary value which directly equates to the following formula (3 light punches to the balls + loss of 1 sex session).

For most of us a days work roughly equates to a punch in the balls, so we'll put that at €100.
And the cost for 1 sex session from an escort costs approximately €200. Apparently.

So the fair judgement would be €500 to the plaintiff.

McBain11

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

DrPhilG wrote: »

2 things...

1 - what changed for her? After the act, despite her sore boobs, she was worried about him and wanted him to stay. She didn't seem to have felt assaulted at that point. Why did she go from "please stay, let's talk, I think I'm falling for you" to "I'm calling the cops, I've been sexually assaulted".

Sounds a bit like a woman scorned to be honest.

2 - as previously mentioned, it's his word against hers. How can someone possibly have their life destroyed like this on purely one person's testimony? That's a scary thought.

Exactly what I was thinking. It really is a case of he said she said is it not?

Maybe I'm way off, as I just read the OPs section and there may be more on this, but was there medical and physical proof in court of bruising etc. and that way too much force was being used? This area is now an absolute minefield and I think that there will be hundreds if these case going on in court in future. A bit of cop on on both parts would have sorted this.

Obviously if she says something is hurting, it's on him to stop that action or change position etc. Their is clearly responsibility on her part also, if a guy is being an absolute dick in the sack (pardon the pun), surely it's on her to end the situation there and then if possible, and throw him out of bed and the apartment.

No matter what way the world has gone, in sexual situations there is a handing over of power from the female to the male in most instances. Now he may have abused that in this case, but surely she has a big role in reading the situation at the time also. If he's being an assh*le, throw him out.

This is why the wanting to talk about it after doesn't sit that well with me. It reads like, she wanted to discuss what happened so that when they have sex in future it's not like that again. It wasn't a nice experience whatsoever for her, and she thinks that if they talk it through it can be fixed. He though, just ups and leaves after getting his ride. She now realises the ride was the sole aim of this lad. She was not happy and a situation that could be rectified by a post sexual conversation ends up in court and sexual assault charges.

Roger Hassenforder

strandroad wrote: »

I thought it was disgraceful actually.

Your nan was a snitch though, ratted her to mommy
You know what switches get...

retro:electro

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

I'd be interested to know if there were other women who testified in court that he has done this to them in the past too? Maybe that's why the judge said he is a risk to women? Because if this is more than just a one time thing and he actually gets off on hurting women then this changes the whole narrative.

RayM

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

anna080 wrote: »

Yes he is a fcuking idiot for doing what he did but in my view this punishment doesn't at all fit the crime.

He was a highly-educated 36-year-old. If he was a couple of decades younger, maybe idiocy could be cited as a mitigating factor. What about the effect that being on the sex offenders register will have on his career and reputation? Well, maybe he should have thought of that before sexually assaulting someone.

McBain11

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

btw I agree with the sentiments of a lot on here around the talk of him not being able to be a doctor anymore. Why is that relevant? If he was a homeless person, a doctor, or the CEO of google, I really don't get why that seems to be a main part of the discussion at all?

Personally, it looks a very grey case here, and unless there was hard evidence or proof of previous maybe coming into it, it looks like a real 'he said she said' case. I just do not get why the mention of the man being a doctor has anything to do with sentencing though. That aspect of cases is really starting to get on my tits these days (pardon the pun again).

McBain11

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

anna080 wrote: »

I'd be interested to know if there were other women who testified in court that he has done this to them in the past too? Maybe that's why the judge said he is a risk to women? Because if this is more than just a one time thing and he actually gets off on hurting women then this changes the whole narrative.

This is what I was thinking. Is there previous with this lad that was presented in court? Otherwise it looks like going on the sex register over a 'he said, she said' case, and it could well be overturned.

There must be more to that judgement.

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

I'd be interested to know if there were other women who testified in court that he has done this to them in the past too? Maybe that's why the judge said he is a risk to women? Because if this is more than just a one time thing and he actually gets off on hurting women then this changes the whole narrative.

Well, his solicitor made a point of him being a first time offender with the following so it's unlikely:

Advocate David Steenson, defending, said that the case had ruined the defendant's life.
He said: 'His life has gone from being an extremely promising one, from being a doctor, to being unemployed.'
He said the defendant, a first offender, was claiming income support and would now be living on £92 a week while staying at his parents' home.

Pac1Man

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

I think it's time to introduce full induction courses before the sexes even look at each other in future.

BlaasForRafa

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Clearly? You base that off one occasion ....in a "He said, She said" situation?

:rolleyes:

the_syco

strandroad wrote: »

Looks like she was originally really attracted to him but he behaved like a maniac and hurt her, but she was originally really attracted to him, but he behaved like a maniac and hurt her... confusion.

It sounds like he said no, left, and she brought him up on charges.

jonon9 wrote: »

Ok lets leave out the assault in this story and focus on his 'Bright' future. Can anyone not see the irony in this

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/medical-student-too-bright-for-prison-is-spared-jail-for-stabbing-boyfriend-with-bread-knife-36166924.html

He squeezed, she stabbed. He gets put on the sex offenders list, she gets off scot free. There's nothing else to say, but the system is fcuked.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

McBain11

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is this all just what the woman has said was said at the time? the rougher sex comment - I don't think the man admits saying that does he?

Going by the OPs original post, the man says that he said very little and left when the woman wanted to talk it out. Is this not the clearest case of he said/she said ever?

Was there any medical or physical evidence in court? All the man admits to is that the woman asked him to be gentler with her and she never mentioned her breasts to him. Or should I re-read it, I might have missed a few bits!

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

This guy had an opportunity to defend himself and even in his court statements he comes across as a complete d1ckhead.

Agree 100% with permabear on this one. He was told twice, this was assault during consensual sex which shouldn't be so difficult a concept to understand.

jonon9

the_syco wrote: »

It sounds like he said no, left, and she brought him up on charges.


He squeezed, she stabbed. He gets put on the sex offenders list, she gets off scot free. There's nothing else to say, but the system is fcuked.

You aint wrong there! Its fcuked.

Outlaw Pete

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Any amount? Give over.

So if a guy is getting a blow job and a woman uses her teeth too much, that's sexual assault because the guy didn't consent to her being so rough?? No it's not. It's a case of the guy taking personal responsibility and not risking letting that woman anywhere near him again. If he does and she gives him a repeat performance, that's not a matter for the courts.

If she sinks her teeth into him causing him injury: then she warrants charging.

She consented to sex with someone she found attractive and charming -- but she didn't consent to him inflicting pain on her against her wishes, ignoring her repeated requests to stop.

Absolutely, which is why she should have told him to get lost and never darken her door again.

Sam Quentin

He should have done it with his trousers on... Then he could keep his hands in his pockets

Actually I shouldn't joke, if her side of the story is true!?
Then he sounds like a fairly pervy git.
Seems he was on tinder for séx and she was on it for love...

McBain11

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Any amount? Give over.

So if a guy is getting a blow job and a woman uses her teeth too much, that's sexual assault because the guy didn't consent to her being so rough?? No it's not. It's a case of the guy taking personal responsibility and not risking letting that woman anywhere near him again. If he does and she gives him a repeat performance, that's not a matter for the courts.

If she sinks her teeth into him causing him injury: then she warrants charging.



Absolutely, which is why she should have told him to get lost and never darken her door again.

Spot on.

This is sex lads. This isn't badminton. There is physical contact involved. What's more a lot of the times there is hugely passionate physical contact involved. There are lines that obviously should never be crossed in the bedroom. Is that the case here? Going by what the woman has said I'm not too sure at all. It seems like her unhappiness with the sexual experience with the man turned into sexual assault in her mind the minute she realised he was out the door.

Some of the comments here frighten me a bit. Sex is about giving yourself over to someone else. You give over a lot of trust and a lot of powere. The anticipation. The what next. The not knowing of what next. That is what makes really great sex. It seems some think that if even the slightest line is crossed in the bedroom, it's sexual assault. On that basis there a few cases I will be bringing to court soon, as there are so many times in sex where I've got scratches or cuts, etc. which I never ever gave permission for.

Minderbinder

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

Deleted User wrote: »

This guy had an opportunity to defend himself and even in his court statements he comes across as a complete d1ckhead.

Agree 100% with permabear on this one. He was told twice, this was assault during consensual sex which shouldn't be so difficult a concept to understand.

I can’t load the article but from all the posts in here I gather there were no evidence apart from her word against his?

If this is the case, then that judge needs investigating and it should be the easiest appeal case in history. Amazing if she didn’t take photos of the ‘bruising’ which probably would have been visible for a few days at least given her ‘severe pain’.

By all accounts on here there is no evidence at all and I’d wager she was bitter about being used for sex.

cloudatlas

You forgot the 'blast her with piss' option in your poll.

Mellor

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

"woman squeezes man's balls too hard during consensual sex, after which consent was withdrawn, amounting to assault. It ends up in court. Should it have?"


YES

You can't with draw consent after the fact/

Hammer89

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, which is why she should have told him to get lost and never darken her door again.

The bruise was on her breasts, not her door.

Arghus

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

Boards really is a cesspit these days.

One eyed Jack

Considering it's from the Daily Mail, they actually explain it quite well -


What is the law on indecent assault and consent?

An indecent assault is defined in law as 'offensive sexual contact with another person', according to the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

It is usually used to prosecute cases where someone has been stroked, kissed or grabbed, without their consent.

In this highly unusual case, the offence was still deemed to have taken place even though the victim had consented to other sexual activity.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 gives the rather open definition of consent as 'if [the person] agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'.

Juries are often asked to decide whether a defendant in a sex case had a 'reasonable belief' the complainant consented, or whether it was clear to them that the person did not consent.


The jury found him guilty, and the judge passed an appropriate sentence IMO. What any of us here would determine for ourselves is or isn't indecent assault is irrelevant to whether anyone else should or shouldn't determine for themselves that they were indecently assaulted. She did take personal responsibility for herself by asking him to stop doing what he was doing, numerous times, and changed positions to try and prevent him from doing it again, and then he claims in Court that he thought she was referring to her vagina when she said she was sore? I can understand completely why the judge in the case determined that he posed a risk to others - he's completely oblivious to the harm he caused, and assumed his conduct was justifiable. He appeared to want to take no personal responsibility for his actions.

jonon9

Arghus wrote: »

Boards really is a cesspit these days.

A now is there a need for that sort of carry on shure were only having a chin wag.

BlaasForRafa

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes a one-off occasion, this pair had not had sex before or since and there were no other witnesses to say he had done anything like this before. Also we only have her word that he said he'd had rougher sex before. And even if he had, that may well have been not a problem for the other party.

It sounds like the judge went along with the current hysteria being stoked by the media.