We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Rosie DiManno: Judge’s guilty ruling in unprotected sex case draws a new line in the bedsheets

1 5 0
05.07.2019

Plenty of Fish depends on being mutually luring.

The Canadian dating app hooks up willing participants who want to get together for a drink, a meal or, let’s be frank, a shag.

Which is the arrangement a particular man and a particular woman made back in October, 2017. Booty call was always straight-up on the agenda.

Her place, her rules: Condom mandatory and “no means no.” He was “totally Ok with that.”

So far, so good.

From that point, the hookup devolved into a he-said she-said dispute that ended up in court — even though the presiding judge stressed the case was “not a credibility contest” — the man charged with sexual assault.

Of course it was a credibility contest, weighing the contradictory evidence. But not, perish the thought, that post-coital conduct — specifically a chit-chat in bed and the woman taking a few days afterwards to consider whether she would make a complaint to police — should suggest any adverse inference. That would “invoke myths and stereotypes about how victims of sexual assault should act,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Nathalie Champagne wrote in her recent decision finding Anibal Rivera guilty of sexual assault.

Rivera, the judge concluded, breached the terms of their sexual encounter. He ditched the rubber proviso — twice; seemed oblivious to the woman’s frozen disengagement from the proceedings as she “laid there limp”; and, second time around, ignored her declaration that she “did not want to,” as he forced her into performing oral sex, then penetrated her vaginally and anally.

Since men and women apparently now need to exactingly stipulate what they want from each other, or will accept from each other, in a sexual instalment, and with the parameters of consent constantly shifting in the........

© Toronto Star