A 42-year-old man accused of forcing a 35-year-old woman to have anal sex on a South Shore beach told a Supreme Court jury yesterday he had not been interested in her sexually.

The Sandys Parish resident said he only had sexual intercourse with her because he did not want to offend her.

He said the only reason he took her down to a secluded beach was to "enjoy the pleasant view'' and see the "waves rushing up on the rocks''.

Although he admitted he kissed her first, he said he was "turned off'' by her body when she pulled up her dress.

The defendant has denied having carnal knowledge of the American woman against the order of nature (buggery), attempting to rape her and indecently assaulting her.

The court heard the alleged offences occurred on the afternoon of December 12, 1990, after the defendant and complainant went on a lunch date.

The accused has testified he first met the complainant, who divorced her husband a month before the alleged offence and now lives in Mississippi, while she was walking in Somerset.

After a brief conversation he said he invited her to lunch at the Paraquet Restaurant and then took her to a tiny, half-private beach in Warwick because she had expressed interest in going to a South Shore beach.

The defendant said they first looked at the beach from the cliff top but he decided to take her down to it when he saw how much she was "glowing''.

Sex was not on his mind, he testified, because he had "no sexual interest at all in her''.

He said she agreed to go down to the beach and she found a flat rock for them to sit on where they chatted for a few minutes before he kissed her and she kissed him back willingly.

That was when he asked her if he she wanted to have sexual intercourse, which she did, he testified.

Cross examining, Crown Counsel Mr. Brian Calhoun asked the defendant: "What turned her on so much? Is it something about you that made her want you after knowing you just one hour? I'm sure many men would like to know your secret of how you get women lusting after your body in just one hour.'' The defendant said "silent communications'' and their conversation may have attracted her to him in such a short time.

Mr. Calhoun also asked: "Was it just a coincidence that you took her to a place that was conducive to having a sexual relationship?'' He further asked the defendant if he thought he had "an easy target on his hands'' because the complainant appeared "gullible, naive and not all that bright''. The defendant said he had not thought she was those things.

The defendant admitted under cross examination that he asked her to bend over to have sex but he said he had not intended to commit buggery. He said the buggery was accidental.

But Mr. Calhoun charged the defendant had changed his story after learning that consent was not a defence for anal sex.

During his summation, Mr. Philip Perinchief, for the accused, reminded the jury that Dr. Keith Cunningham had testified the woman had an abnormally large anus and the defendant could have accidentally committed buggery.

And he said "by any stretch of imagination'' the way down to the beach was "treacherous''.

Why would a lady go down such a cliff with a total stranger? he asked. He also questioned why -- if the attack had been "brutal'' as Mr. Calhoun alleged -- her dress or underwear was not torn and she had not sustained any injuries other than tenderness to her breast and shoulders.

In his summation, Mr. Calhoun asked jurors to if it was unreasonable for a woman to go to a South Shore beach in the middle of the day with a man she just met -- and if that meant she wanted sexual intercourse. He submitted it was not and claimed the alleged offence was a "classic case of date rape''.

The jury is expected to begin deliberating today following directions from Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade.