The government’s coronavirus sex rules are an insult to singletons

As the second wave of Covid-19 looms, the UK government is scrambling to put in place restrictions to stop the virus spreading. While I applaud the swift action that should have happened the first time around, the execution of one particular change doesn’t sit right with me: the policing of people’s sex lives.

A few months ago, a nationwide sex ban was announced for anyone who didn’t share a household with their lover, but the government swiftly backtracked by adding that two households could form a support bubble (and effectively do whatever they wanted within it).

But it seems prime minister Boris Johnson and his MPs are not quite finished telling us who we can and can’t sleep with, as a new rule has just been set forth which says that only those in “established relationships” are allowed to have sex.

There are so many reasons why this is problematic, but let’s start with the phrase itself: what is an established relationship?

Unsurprisingly, no definition has been provided and this is now a grey area that many people will take advantage of. It is the sexual equivalent of the “Stay Alert” slogan.

The new rule also reveals an outdated view on intimacy. Speaking about the restriction, health secretary Matt Hancock warned Brits to stay away from anyone they are not explicitly dating, while speaking of his wife and quipping: “I know I am in an established relationship.” It was meant as a joke, but his words had a patronising undertone.

I understand and respect the need to limit excessive touching, and by proxy the spread of the virus – which means sex with more than one person is off the table – but there are a range of relationships out there that don’t involve commitment of the conventional kind.

Take an open marriage, for instance; this is, by traditional standards, a so-called established relationship but it also allows for sex with multiple partners, who themselves might have a partner. Is this in accordance with the updated sex ban? Who knows.

Beyond the lack of clarity, the rule is also an insult to singletons, who have been left to their own devices during lockdown, and it feeds into the trope that only those who are with a committed partner deserve love.

There’s a misconception that single people have somehow failed at the romantic game, but the reality is that many choose to be on their own.  

That shouldn’t mean that they are then automatically cut off from physical closeness for the duration of the pandemic.

Let’s remember that intimacy isn’t just about sex; it’s cuddles, hugs and simple touches like someone running their hand down your back.

I bear no ill will towards people in happy relationships, but they do not know the loneliness that many single people struggled with in lockdown. Many of us were starved from human connection – all the while hearing about coupled-up mates having lunchtime sex and date nights.

Some even had to suffer through watching housemates get cosy with their respective other, while they could do nothing but lock themselves away in a room, waiting for the government to act.

As a woman who has spent most of lockdown alone, and suffered through two months at the start of the pandemic without any human contact whatsoever, I am fed up with the government not looking after single people.

And I find it ironic that we are taking advice from a health secretary and prime minister who couldn’t even control the spread in their own cabinet – such as the scandal involving Professor Neil Ferguson, an official advisor on coronavirus, who asked his mistress to swing by for visits at the height of the first wave.

Why not just treat us like adults and simply say: you are allowed to have sex with one person during lockdown. It’s no one’s business if that person is a stranger or an “established” partner.