Why is he crying? Laura Huteson death

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

Laura Huteson death: Hull man killed woman in 'bizarre' sex game www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-45140580

How often hetersexual men die during “risky” sex games because I can’t think of one case from the news? I know that sadly happens in same sex couples/ participants (can think of a couple examples from the news) but in hetero? It seems it tends to be women who love being throttled, punched, tied up, brutalised.

What does it mean he did not intend that to happen. What did he think would happen.

Agree TheGoddessFrigg

Only Man enters this sacred uninterruptable fuck-trance that renders him incapable of normal adult responsibility.

If i say 'ow' dh stops

I mean i think he is a special man...but he's not that fucking special

for Laura

This choking thread?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3248843-When-men-choke-a-female-partner-there-is-a-very-high-risk-they-will-eventually-kill-them

Some of the comments below the OP are shocking. Strangely, not one of them in favour has come onto this thread to comment.

Sorry that should be in favour of the practice of choking

TheGoddessFrigg agreed, all imposed on female only!

I will try to put down some bullet points but I find it very very hard not to just sound off about this fucking travesty.

I think Justice’s petition wording covers the main points really well and concisely.

It may also be worth us thinking about any different actions that we might want the different organisations we’ve identified to take.

There may be some other groups to alert to this that we haven’t mentioned yet like criminal justice charities etc so I could google around for some of those.

I feel like the more organisations that are getting the same message hopefully some kind of critical mass might form for looking at these cases differently.

Hopefully any lawyers on here with specific technical legal points that we should mention to advocate for change will post those on the thread too.

Is anyone in touch with journalists who write comment pieces? The case is still recent enough for think piece about how a man can kill a woman, claim ‘I don’t recall that she told me to stop’ then only get six years in prison. And be described by the judge as ‘not dangerous to the public’.

Centre for Women's Justice?

Women are not responsible for stopping men from KILLING THEM. Nobody can legally consent to another person killing them.

Great post, even twice, Chatty.

I've emailed them to ask that the sentence be reconsidered.

That’s really great Science.

So I've been looking at the proposed new guidelines for gross negligence manslaughter sentencing. Most of the advice concerns workplace or professional negligence - eg Grenfell or employers with dangerous working conditions.

The new guidelines allow for maximum sentences of 18 years for very high culpability:

High culpability under the draft Manslaughter Guideline has a custodial sentence starting point of eight years and a category range of six to 12 years’ custody; ‘very high’ a starting point of 12 years’ custody and a range of 10-18 years’ custody.

one of the suggested factors in the draft Manslaughter Guideline indicating high culpability is where the negligent conduct persists over “weeks or months”

www.kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/article/gross-negligence-manslaughter-custodial-sentences-under-review

It's difficult to put legal advice about workplace issues into this context - but surely a man who kept a knife under his pillow for sex encounters has established persistent negligent conduct?

Would Janice Turner at the Times be interested I wonder?

Try Milly Gentleman at the Guardian.

I can PM her email.

I do find the posts with legal knowledge very valuable.

Decent blokes can stop immediately even in throes of passion () -definitely my experience.

Re drugs and alcohol - hmmm, unless he was on fucking spice I'm not buying that it was those substances that made him do it.

Obviously her fault for not using the "safe word". That sentence and the charge are both a joke.

I’m trying to think about good points for letterwriting. I’m not a lawyer and am wondering what the most effective actions will be that we could to call on judges and others to do?

Is it best to call for ‘sex games gone wrong’ to be regarded no longer permissible as a defence in these scenarios at all?

So, even if there WAS provable consent by victims to take part in that instance of the claimed ‘sex game’ (and certainly ignoring defendants who just claim there was consent to a dangerous sex game without proof) ... we ask judges to treat the consent as irrelevant if death results, or if a living complainant brings a case stating that an abusive and violent sexual experience happened.?

This seems reasonable to adopt because we know that abusers and murderers do use ‘sex games’ or ‘sex games gone wrong’ as a cover.

The community who are into consented sex games assert that all the power in the game is with the submissive person, so surely it would fit with that to conclude that if sex games are played according to their ‘rules’, then sex games should create zero harm to the person who was submissive in the game. (Harm as defined only by that person’s subjective definition of harm)

So if there complaint of harm arising from what the defence says was a ‘sex game’, or if a death arises from a claimed ‘sex game’ then:

By definition that episode was NOT a sex game and it was abuse. Because either

• the victim pressing this case hadn’t consented to the hurt she complains of. That hurt was NOT what she had wanted (even if at some point she had said yes to sex or to some another type of hurt) so it was abusive because lack of consent.

Or
Victim is dead, her death could not have been as part of a sex game with her consent because sex games rely on consent (otherwise they are just abuse) and nobody can consent to being killed. A fatal ‘sex game’ happened by definition without her capacity to have consented to it therefore it is fatal abuse, (ie murder) by the perpetrator.

So defendants who have harmed or killed women could no longer rely on ‘we were playing a sex game and I didn’t hear her say the safe word’ as a defence.

This I think would make no change or interference to the private sex lives of those who enjoy sex games with mutual consent but would remove the cover of ‘sex games’ from those who seek to abuse partners.

A defence account given of ‘sex games gone wrong’ therefore becomes an admission of abuse, so that should be considered an aggravating factor at sentencing. (Certainly not any mitigation as it would appear to be at present).

Defendants would not be able to absolve themselves of their normal everyday responsibility not to kill other people just by saying ‘sex game’ any more and they would have to rely on finding other mitigations for their actions to defend themselves.

Or there is another possible pragmatic argument given the misogynistic courtroom environment?

If judges believe the myth that something particular is going on when a man has sex (ie that sex compromises the man’s normal awareness, such that the man is more likely to unknowingly/unheedingly seriously injure and/or kill his sexual partner and can’t really be blamed for this).. while the partner of the man is of course uniquely vulnerable and accessible to the man to hurt or kill while they are having sex:

then perhaps there should be a new crime of eg ‘death by dangerous fucking’ like there is with dangerous driving.

This would not challenge the bullshit of the (male) fucktrance but it would subvert it by creating a new special circumstance in which the accused is obliged to take on a specific responsibility not to kill or hurt another person to whom they have unique access to during the occasion of them being sexual partners.

This new duty of care would intend to recognise that sex (with men) can be a potentially dangerous scenario for women.

Not sure if any of this makes much sense or does the job we need.. any lawyers around?

I read a media report on this case, they just kept on and on repeating that she'd met him the same night they had sex. I had to stop reading. The fucking cheek of the insinuation that she wasn't a good woman so I guess we're meant to take that into account. I hope her family aren't reading the reports.

I can't even say much more about it. That absolute scum will likely be out in 3 years.

I worry that judges apply outdated standards to their judgements from their own long ago experience and in effect they are naive around-

-the desensitising nature of sexually violent porn being presented as ‘normal’ to porn consumers. 24/7 availability on a smart phone to any adult or child with next to no regulation at all. Commercial forces dictate these are becoming more extreme to attract and retain viewers who are increasingly desensitised.

-the exacerbating psychological and physical effects of drugs on these scenarios. Cocaine especially is disinhibiting and physically desensitising making orgasm harder to achieve. Leading to solipsistic approach and greater physical force in the sexual encounter. Also alcohol disinhibits and numbs.

• understanding that the rules around ‘sex games’ which the relevant community promotes would NOT include:
• that you have just met, before agreeing to do a life-threatening ‘sex game’
• that games involving fantasies of submission and domination do NOT acceptably translate into any real life situation where the submissive person’s life can be non-culpably taken
• that it is a consentibg sex game where there is no relationship of trust built up with that person before the sex game (so a long term abusive relationship that starts ‘playing sex games’ before an incident of harm or death is not OK by this standard, because she does not trust him due to the abuse)
• that the most recent consent to do with this sex game (ie relating to the pertinent occasion- and regardless of any victim’s history of ‘sex games’ interest before) must be regarded as void l, if the complainant or dead woman or the perpetrator was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

-that men who are having sex must take responsibility for their contribution to the safety and well-being of their partner whether they think she consents to doing something dangerous or not. (And Including when they ‘don’t recall’ or ‘didn’t hear’ an objection from the victim) -The responsibility for NOT Killing always lies with the (potential or actual) killer.

• this obligation can never be delegated to the victim. The victim is not required to speak, utter a ‘safe word’ or perform a ‘safe action’, nor otherwise act to defend herself to STOP the killer from killing.

-There is no consent scenario to cover killing. -This principle must be applied universally and equally to those who kill WHETHER OR NOT THE KILLER WAS HAVING SEX at the time that he killed.

Ugh that could have done with an edit.

I read a media report on this case, they just kept on and on repeating that she'd met him the same night they had sex. I had to stop reading. The fucking cheek of the insinuation that she wasn't a good woman so I guess we're meant to take that into account. I hope her family aren't reading the reports.

Of course

I wondered if this organisation might be helpful: justice.org.uk/our-work/areas-of-work/criminal-justice-system/prosecuting-sexual-offences/

Their membership includes other possibly relevant criminal justice organisations: criminaljusticealliance.org/members/

A case a few years ago in portugal involved a 91 year old woman who died following 'a sex game gone wrong' or murder as I prefer to call it

The age is not a typo

then perhaps there should be a new crime of eg ‘death by dangerous fucking’ like there is with dangerous driving.

Sad but true.

I think that what would need to happen is that a prosecution developed an argument in court, for a specific case, that "sex games gone wrong" constitutes high, or very high, culpability under the new sentencing guidelines. The time span of the negligent behaviour seems to be the main plank to show - so, like I say, this guy keeping a knife under his pillow, presumably for regular use in this way, would show a lengthy time span of negligent behaviour?

But I am no legal expert.