Interesting line

A medical student convicted of indecent assault for grabbing a woman’s breasts during consensual sex has had his conviction quashed.

Philip Queree, 37, met the woman known as Miss X, on Tinder and they had what was described as “rough” sex on their second date.

But Queree was later taken to court for repeatedly grabbing her breasts too hard and pulling her hair while they had intercourse.

Despite consenting to sex with Queree, the victim told him she did not want her breasts touched.

She accused him of using “excessive force” and causing her pain and bruising even after she told him to stop.

There is indeed a line, of course. Consenting to sex does not mean consent to buggery, nor does consent once mean consent to exactly the same act 30 minutes later and so on.

Consenting to sex and not to having titties touched is perhaps the other side of that line. You know, maybe?

Do note that the quashing was not that he hadn’t assaulted her by being too rough or whatever. Rather, that it’s not an indecent assault. A common assault charge might stand, but indecent not, on the grounds that touching titties seems to be, reasonably enough, within the definition of consenting to sex.

27 comments on “Interesting line

  1. Despite consenting to sex with Queree, the victim told him she did not want her breasts touched.

    I don’t know. I am not overly sympathetic to anyone in these cases but if she said *beforehand* not to touch her breasts and he did, that would look like sexual assault to me.

    The question is what would a reasonable man think – breast touching seems reasonable to me – but that depends on when he was told it.

  2. Although would that apply to things like “I promise I will pull out” and other little White lies boys tell?

  3. I reckon she saw him in daylight or sober and realised she shouldn’t have consented to anything.

    We have all been there….the cold light of day changes everything.

  4. Agreeing to a bout of ordinary copulation does not constitute an unlimited agreement–so if he wants to hang her upside down from the ceiling for three hours that would clearly be out of order.

    But nor should the experience be a bullshit list of her stupidities either. During sex he is likely to want to squeeze her tits. Tough tittie love. If he is squeezing them using the Preying Mantis-style grip (PM is a Chinese martial arts style that strives to develop a crushing, flesh-tearing grip) and leaving finger-shaped jet black bruises she again would have grounds for complaint. But to take ” a bit too rough for her liking” to court –instead of just giving him his marching orders –should see the Court punishing her not him. Which should include her name alongside his. So that any other potential “suitors” can get a clue what they might be in for.

  5. Don’t understand why she can’t just chalk it down to poor judgement and move on? What is the sense in dwelling on a bit of bad sex?

  6. I can understand a political zealot wanting this kind of scenario to happen.

    But for a regular person to complain to the police because of crap sex with a weirdo who grabbed her boobs too much? It’s just baffling. I’ve had some bad sex in my life (mostly due to alcohol), but personally I prefer not to dwell on it!

    If she is really upset then why isn’t she satisfied with just telling everyone he has a tiny dick, or something like that?

  7. Wanting to grab/squeeze her tits does really qualify as one of the bedrocks ( teehee) of ordinary vanilla sex Tom. I don’t really see you can label the bloke a weirdo for wanting to so squeeze or getting carried away–or more accurately carried out from under her orders–in the general heat and furore.

  8. That’s what I mean, it’s so mundane. She thinks he’s a boob grabbing weirdo, he probably thought it was great (until she called the police). Who knows or cares what happened? She hasn’t been physically attacked or raped. In effect she is complaining about bad sex- the kind of thing that women usually deal with via gossiping and ruining your reputation, if they even care.

    It’s just too trivial to involve the police. Why would anyone do that?

  9. Surely, the question’s why the police & the CPS went all the way with this? Although we can easily answer that ourselves. Stupidity seems to be the primary qualification required in either profession. Although it’s only optional for the judiciary.

  10. “The reasons behind this decision will be published at a later date.”

    So, all the facts aren’t out, then.

    At which point I must put forward the theory that Queree likes it rough as compensation for a horrible time at school.

  11. I think I remember when reading about this case a few months ago that she asked him before the sex not to grab her tits because they were sensitive or something and it was painful and she repeatedly asked him to stop it during the deed.

    If I girl started laying down weird ground rules before we banged I’d probably walk. Dude was probably some desperate 37 year old virgin who got carried away.

  12. “…asked him before the sex not to grab her tits because they were sensitive…

    …laying down weird ground rules…”

    Not quite the same thing in my book.

  13. “If she is really upset then why isn’t she satisfied with just telling everyone he has a tiny dick, or something like that?”

    There’s an even more obvious solution. She just grabs him by the balls, and then asks him whether someone’s repeated requests for her not to squeeeeze should be taken seriously?

  14. Can this concept be translated to other matters?

    Say I give you £1000 as a gift, on the condition it must not under any circumstances be spent on drink and drugs. And then I discover you did spend £300 of it on exactly that.

    Can I claim you ‘stole’ the £300 spent contrary to the conditions of the gift?

  15. Your point would be correct ( and for you astonishingly sensible) NiV –if he was squeezing her tits in a brutal “Preying Mantis” style.

    She seems to have told him in advance not to touch her tits bit also said ” I had never experienced anything like this in my life, I had never felt pain in my breasts during sexual intercourse.”. If so why did she tell him not to touch her breasts in advance? If he started the Preying Mantis after the sex had commenced why did she just say stop, get up and go home/sling him out? There does not seem to be any question of him being told to stop the sex but continuing after being told to stop as that would be a rape charge. So what did go on seems unclear. If her tits were being agonised unbearably why did she not bring the capers to a complete halt? This case seems to have a lot going on below the surface.

  16. “Your point would be correct ( and for you astonishingly sensible) NiV –if he was squeezing her tits in a brutal “Preying Mantis” style.”

    So she’s got him by the balls and is squeezing. But she says “This isn’t a ‘Preying Mantis’ grip. What are you complaining about?” Is that fair enough?

    “She seems to have told him in advance not to touch her tits…”

    And that means what, exactly? That so long as it’s not ‘Preying Mantis’, that’s OK?

    “This case seems to have a lot going on below the surface.”

    Probably. There’s probably some other relationship difficulty, and she’s using the legal system as a bludgeon. like I said, it would seem very simple to explain to a guy why you shouldn’t do that without permission, and why stuff a long way short of a ‘Preying Mantis’ “crushing, flesh-tearing grip […] leaving finger-shaped jet black bruises” might be reasonable cause for complaint. I don’t see why you need a court case to make the point.

  17. “And that means what, exactly? That so long as it’s not ‘Preying Mantis’, that’s OK?”

    It means he should have said goodbye at the point she started laying down terms and conditions that really need to be examined in writing and at leisure. He may be an idiot who can’t understand “you’re squeezing too hard” but considering that she pushed this all the way to a court case I don’t think it unreasonable to consider the possibility she is a fruitcake with an “idiosyncratic” definition of what constitutes too hard.

  18. Agreeing to a bout of ordinary copulation does not constitute an unlimited agreement–so if he wants to hang her upside down from the ceiling for three hours that would clearly be out of order.

    Out of order, but not a matter for the law. Particularly when it’s
    only her word against his, and a significant minority of women lie about such matters.

    He could have counter-claimed that he had asked her to be particularly careful during fellatio, that she wasn’t and that he didn’t consent to having his penis painfully scraped by her teeth….By so doing, he might have been able to preserve his anonymity…

  19. “JuliaM

    Safe words, people!”

    Try to avoid confusion by adopting “Spank Me” as your safe words.

  20. “He could have counter-claimed that he had asked her to be particularly careful during fellatio, that she wasn’t and that he didn’t consent to having his penis painfully scraped by her teeth….By so doing, he might have been able to preserve his anonymity…”

    I’m beginning to wonder why men accused in this way aren’t counter accusing in exactly the manner you suggest – if any accusation of sexual misconduct the ‘victim’ must be believed what would the police do if both parties are accusing the other of assault/rape?

  21. It’s “praying mantis”, by the way. Most common martial arts style for this sort of misunderstanding is Drunken Monkey.

  22. ‘Despite consenting to sex with Queree, the victim told him she did not want her breasts touched.’

    How’d that work out for you?

    Agree with Tom Smith. Just don’t date him again. Calling the police in is bizarre.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.