I read this earlier on the BBC and had the exact same thoughts.
She's dead - I'm really interested to know how the judge arrived at this conclusion:
"The judge said there was no suggestion the sex had been non-consensual."
The sex... OK. What about the violent aspects of it? They were drinking vodka and doing coke, what was her capacity to consent like? Was she with it?
I find it really disturbing that acts that outside the bedroom would be seen as serious assault are suddenly AOK if they happen during a sexual encounter. There've been loads of men accused of violent crimes against women use the "she liked it rough" excuse in court.
And for this case - she's dead? At his hand. Is he a reliable witness as to what state she was in and what she did or didn't consent to?
The headline is appalling. It's not a "sex game gone wrong" it's "man kills woman".
Yes also reminds me of the recent strangulation where the reporting and the words of the judge IIRC encouraged us to feel sorry for the poor chap.
On a thread with one of these recently someone said that they never could haveimagined we'd get to a point where a man in court could say "oh she wanted me to punch her in the face / strangle her / stab her" and the judge and jury would all nod their heads and think yep that seems kosher. Agree porn is a big driver in this.
Every step forward we make is turned against us. Efforts to open up about sex and female pleasure, remove shame etc. And that gets twisted into "sex positive no kink shaming here" and the proliferation of violent porn as the norm.