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

Absolutely! Thanks.

Yes, definitely.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

A woman, or indeed person, in this scenario cannot consent to their own death. Some woman may enjoy hands on their neck during sex, but I can confidently say none of them wish to die. Therefore, as two consenting adults it is far better to avoid this very risky behaviour for the protection of all parties. Losing the rough sex defence would make non murderous men think twice I'm sure.

Don't even get me started on those who do want to cause real or imagined harm to women. It's like a green light to them!

Uttely mind blowing that anyone practising this with fatal consequences has been convicted of anything less than murder.

3% voted no????

Please support!

Yes, thinking of consent and games and intent; you can play a lot of games (like rugby, cricket, boxing, horse or cycle racing) which carry a small risk of death and accept that risk. Your death in that game could be caused directly by another player (like that poor cricketer a few years ago and the poor bowler who nobody blames). But, the lethal action is not the point of those games. They are not about half performing an action which, if performed fully, would be the act of one person killing another (except arguably boxing). Or about fully performing an action which will, in a known proportion of instances, kill (like Russian roulette). The act that kills is separate from, peripheral to the purpose of game itself (except in boxing - and boxing seems to have a lot of safeguards in place). That is accidental death within a game / caused by a game gone wrong.

So the 'game gone wrong' defence cannot work, when the game itself is simulated or partial death, given that no-one can consent to being killed.

Would you expect to get off a murder charge because the person you shot had agreed to play Russian roulette? Of course not. You'd have been expected to refuse to shoot them. (Perhaps to tell them that if they wanted to risk their own life, that was up to them but you could not be the one to pull the trigger).

Yes, please do. We need it to stop.

Absolutely,
please get behind this with as much force as you can muster

Wow! Excuse my ignorance, but I had no idea that this was a defence. How do you not know you are hurting someone?

Yes 100% support

Of course

Can't think of a single reason not to. Totally yes

Ues please

Yes

Yes. my cousin, Grace Millane, deserves this campaign to be as public and supported as possible.

Absolutely!! Get behind this.

Yes please support.
As a survivor of domestic abuse it strikes me that some of the women who agree to rough sex have probably been coerced or grommed into participating? My ex was grooming me for anal sex sex which I had always been against but he was very subtle and clever in his grooming. Luckily I left before I submitted.
What I am saying is if these women are in a coercive relationship then there is more going on here and the defence of rough sex is therefore even more worrying.

cpjoli

Yes !!

Yes!!

Fabulous that MNHQ are considering getting behind this.

Unequivocal and emphatic YES. Please.

The only argument against this that I can think of is what about women who genuinely want to play life-endangering sex games? Well fair enough, I support anything between consenting adults etc etc but surely anything that would make those consenting adults take better care to stay alive is good for all concerned?

Yes
YANBU
no brainer

The only argument against this that I can think of is what about women who genuinely want to play life-endangering sex games?

Some people want to do all sorts of dangerous things. I'm sure there are people who love driving, and being driven, recklessly fast while under the influence. If you kill someone in those circumstances it's not classified as murder but the fact that the passenger got into the car willingly isn't, afaik, any sort of mitigation whatever. It's still death by dangerous driving and you'll be subject to a sentence of up to 14 years plus ban, retesting and fines.

I don't know whether the penalty for causing death during violent sex should be murder or manslaughter - because of 'intent' - it's the men getting off entirely or with derisory sentences which are the problem IMO rather than the classification. I'd rather see a long sentence for manslaughter than getting off a murder charge. But for sure, whether the woman was a willing partner or not makes no difference to the responsibility and culpability of the killer.

How do you not know you are hurting someone?

Because we are expected to believe that men cant be held responsible for their actions when they are sexually aroused.