MNHQ here - should we support the campaign to end ‘rough sex’ defences?

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello

As lots of you will already know because their campaign originated on Mumsnet, the group We Can’t Consent To This has been running a campaign to end ‘rough sex’ defences - and we’d like to know what you think about MNHQ signing up as a supporter of their
campaign.

Their aim is to end a situation in which defendants can claim that the death of or injury to a woman was caused by ‘consensual sex games gone wrong’.

They say:

‘We’ve now found 60 UK women who’ve been killed by men who claim a sex game gone wrong - and in the last 5 years the defence was successful in 7 of the 17 killings of a woman which reached trial, with the man being found not guilty or receiving a manslaughter conviction. We've found many more women injured in what the accused men claim was consensual sexual violence.
Yet more women tell us it’s now commonplace to be assaulted and abused by men they’re dating, with 38% of UK women under 40 reporting being assaulted - choked, slapped, gagged or spat on - in otherwise consensual sex. That equates to 3.6 million women under 40 in the UK who have experienced unbidden violence in sex - and we know that women over 40 experience this too.
We do not believe that women can consent to their grievous injury or death, and will campaign until claiming this is no longer a useful defence.’
We Can’t Consent To This is currently lobbying to tackle these ‘rough sex defences’ by adding amendements to the Domestic Abuse Bill that is going through Parliament, meaning that now is the time to get writing to MPs to encourage them to support the changes.

We'd love to get behind this campaign but as ever we said we’d ask you what you thought - so please let us know by adding your thoughts here or voting YANBU for ‘Yes please I’d like Mumsnet to support this campaign’ and YABU for ‘No, I don’t think Mumsnet should support this campaign’. (Apologies for using the AIBU metric for this but it’s the best way we have at the moment to get a snapshot survey of people who’ve read the OP.)

Big thanks

Of course

Definitely.

Why ask??

YES YES YES

Please

Who on earth are the 3% who voted YABU?!

Of course Mumsnet should back the campaign!

Jokolo

Thank you.

The thread title says to end it which I feel many people take to mean no longer allow.

I am uncomfortable with the state saying to a person on trial that they can have their day in court but the state will stop you saying things on this list.

Many people I talj to in real life clearly feel that ending rough sex defence means this and I'm un comfortable with the state going down this route.

Yes!

Yes, yes, yes absolutely support this campaign

Yes please!

Yes, please - without a doubt.

With respect, that's clearly not what it says. It's all right there in the post.

Taking one snippet out of context and extrapolating wildly based on your feelings is of course 90% of all content on social media, so I shall expect no less here. ;)

Absolutely definitely.

Please do mumsnet. I think its what mumsnet exists for. It's an awful defense. We cannot consent to it.

Their aim is to end a situation in which defendants can claim that the death of or injury to a woman was caused by ‘consensual sex games gone wrong’.

I iam hoping to.learn from you as I feel you're more knowledgeable than me.

What do.you understand by the use of the word end in the above statement?

What would that look like in a police interview or court room?

Absolutely yes please do.

Would this be the first time a law has been passed to stop somebody saying what they want in their own defence?
The issue is that a claim is made that the victim can't back up, because she is dead.
In no other circumstances would this argument work; "he wanted me to mug him and shoot him" wouldn't get very far.
So relying on a defence that can't be proven means the judge or jury need to accept that it is likely the woman consented to X.
In the case of Natalie Connolly it is extremely unlikely she would have consented to having a plastic trigger bottle of carpet cleaner inserted into her causing arterial bleed and then snapped in half inside her. However the willingness of the judiciary to assume women are up for degrading, painful sex as a rule is what needs to be challenged. Wanting something like that done to you is massively unlikely, when coupled with the drink and drugs in her system and the fact her partner was both much older and much richer than her, there are too many potentially coercive elements for any right minded individual to assume he committed manslaughter and not murder.

Yes please and discount 1 yabu, I hit the wrong button.

Flying oink

That doesn't answer my question.

What does it mean when people say not an acceptable defence?

Does that mean not allowed to say it in court?

he wanted me to mug him and shoot him" wouldn't get very far.

You're right it wouldn't get very far. But the petson on trial would be allowed to say it.

Obviously yes but why are you asking and not just doing ?

Yes 100%

What does it mean when people say not an acceptable defence?

It means that it wouldn't be considered as a valid argument in defence, as, for example, being married to your victim is no longer a valid defence against a rape charge in the UK.

Of course

Yes definitely!

That makes more sense Pelleas thank you.