A man has accused a “bigger” and “stronger” woman of forcing him to have sex with her without consent, a court heard.
Imogen Brooke allegedly refused to take no for an answer after going on a date with a college student, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
The “very drunk” 30-year-old got on top of the man, whose protests were going “in one ear and out the other,” and started to have sex with him, a jury heard.
After 15 minutes she got off him, rolled over and went straight to sleep, leaving the “violated” man lying in bed in disbelief, the court was told.
Jurors at Southampton Crown Court heard Miss Brooke was “bigger” than the alleged victim being “about twice” his body weight, and that it was a “misconception” that the victims of sexual assault were always female.
Twice the body weight? That’s, umm, big……piccies are available on Google images – yes, big……
Dear host…
A more explicit warning about the beached whale involved may be in order to prevent severe loss of appetite in the weak of constitution.
I don’t believe him for a minute. He would have been crushed to death.
Was there contributory negligence on his part, or did she just waddle out of the watering-hole and do him?
I should imogen her defence to be that she didn’t realise he was there.
Serves him right for dressing provocatively.
Serves him right for dressing provocatively.
That hot-dog-shaped marathon running costume just wasn’t a good idea!
I find it hard to imagine maintaining the required stiffness with that thing on top of me.
Sounds like the Fat Slags from Viz are still at it (fnarr fnarr).
“Leaving the “violated” man lying in bed in disbelief”
Disbelief that he allowed himself to get into that situation in the first place…
Wear peanut cologne and the elephants will come.
Literally.
Believe all men, right?
Come on, if I had a woman throwing herself at me I’d…
Oh. Nevermind.
But why would he lodge a complaint? Better to get the episode behind you, or at any rate not get on top of you.
But *if* the accusation is true, and Ms Brooke became pregnant, the accuser would be expected to contribute to the child’s upkeep. Mugged twice, as it were.
On reflection the “victim” should consider himself lucky he wasn’t dealing with a Lola.
“Was there contributory negligence on his part”
Now now. We all know that going inside for coffee and slipping into something more comfortable is not an invitation to make a pass these days.