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 yes.

At what point do we draw the line in policing what people do in their own homes with their partners?

At the point where men are literally getting with murder.

Participants of very risky violent sex will risk injury/death on one side and prosecution on the other side.

Yep, exactly. And I really don't see anything wrong with that.

Yes. Why would you not do it?

Consenting to our own murders?

Please back the campaign on our behalf. Thank you

Yes

You'd be bloody unreasonable not to support it. FFS. Do you really have to ask??

@JoeExoticsEyebrowRing

Participants of very risky violent sex will risk injury/death on one side and prosecution on the other side.

Yep, exactly. And I really don't see anything wrong with that.

Precisely.

If you want to consensually engage in that, it is probably a good idea to have the thought of what could go wrong uppermost in your mind at all times. If that takes a bit of the edge off your fun, boo hoo, cry me a fucking river.

And if it isn't consensual, then it is murder, which is precisely the point of this campaign.

Yes.

@TestingTestingWonTooFree

raspberryk

As a mainstream defence it's not acceptable, however what about for the minority where an genuine accident had occurred? Lots of people do consensually enter into potentially dangerous sex practices, fully informed of what the potential consequences might be.

I guess it’s just tough luck. If I drink drive and kill someone, I expect to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving. The fact that I didn’t intend to do it won’t get me off the hook. Participants of very risky violent sex will risk injury/death on one side and prosecution on the other side.

Yes, the driving analogy is perfect. You do what you can to minimise the risk. So in the case of driving you don't drink and drive, you keep within speed limits, you pay attention to the other traffic etc. With sex you just... don't strangle or otherwise injure your partner. You wouldn't expect to be let off if you killed someone while speeding, if your defence was "I thought it was safe, I've done it before with no problems".

I'm all for an exciting, varied sex life, but I draw the line at things that carry a large risk of being killed or seriously injured.

Yes, absolutely.

Another wholehearted yes.

Yes.
With billions of massive bells on!

Yes 1000 times.

I guess it’s just tough luck. If I drink drive and kill someone, I expect to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving. The fact that I didn’t intend to do it won’t get me off the hook. Participants of very risky violent sex will risk injury/death on one side and prosecution on the other side.

Perfect analogy, bears repeating. There is no excuse, not even consent.
Women need to know that "liking" violent sex (and I don't believe they really do) could lead to death or mutilation.

Please, yes do

I don't understand why it's allowed as a defence anyway. I thought people couldn't consent to being assaulted, particularly seriously assaulted, or murdered. We don't even allow humane compassionate end of life euthanasia like dignitas.
I'm not going to post much more about my own situation anymore as it feels too exposed but I noticed this thread and wanted to give my experience. I used to think I was into things like spanking. I've realised I'm not but even if I was, it shouldn't be used as an excuse if I was murdered. I've been in violent relationship (not spanking) and if killed me he would have probably got away with a rough sex defence because of the s&m dabbles in my past. I don't think that's right. I think even when something's consensual there needs to be a line so no serious hospital attention harm even if consented to. It's like suicide. People might be suicidal but someone else isn't allowed to kill someone just because they ask to be killed. (Euthanasia by consent by a qualified doctor for incurable or terminable illness is a separate issue.) I hope that makes sense.

Quoting raspberryk

"As a mainstream defence it's not acceptable, however what about for the minority where an genuine accident had occurred? Lots of people do consensually enter into potentially dangerous sex practices, fully informed of what the potential consequences might be.
At what point do we draw the line in policing what people do in their own homes with their partners?"

Where do we draw the line?

Somewhere where when Natalie Connolly was abused and battered then left to die the perpetrator is convicted of murder.

That would be a start.

Yes!

I thought people couldn't consent to being assaulted, particularly seriously assaulted, or murdered. They don't. Unless it's during "sex" because obviously that significantly changes things.

Then rape, significant harm and even death are ok because "she asked for it".

You should absolutely support this.

Yes, that's very true. You're not allowed to abet a suicide. You would be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. Only the most exceptional case, with horrible, prolonged suffering, a long-stated desire to die and long-standing desperation on the part of the killing carer, would get the killer off the hook in that sort of case.

So, even if someone really does accept the risk of dying during sexual activity, no-one else is allowed to assist them towards that 'accidental suicide'. Especially so because it's not even an actively sought suicide, with any real desire to die.

You can't say 'well that person doesn't seem to value their own life that highly, so it's fine for me to kill them'.

An analogy would be cases of consent to cannibalism. The killers in those cases were not let off for murder, even though there was explicit consent to definitely (not maybe) being killed.

Yes, please

If it involves a male orgasm it seems like judges and juries lose their critical reasoning skills.

It's a wholehearted yes from me.

For all of the reasons given above.