Another woman "consents to sex death"

[PeevedOfPortishead]

More rage this morning.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6393863/Property-developer-killed-girlfriend-violent-sex-session.html

A woman is beaten to death and left to die at the bottom of the stairs during coke-fuelled aggressive sex.

Which she allegedly consented too... Presumably at the same time she consented to him spraying bleach on her face to clean off the blood.

I have the rage. How are these barristers sleeping at night offering this up as defence?

Holy crap.
I won't click on a Mail link. Surely this person will be convicted?

Click: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6393863/Property-developer-killed-girlfriend-violent-sex-session.html

That sort of defence is surprisingly successful judging by similar trials tho' the inclusion of the accused's desire for revenge for his partner sending photographs to another man might weigh with the jury.

A while ago somebody here said that she is tempted to leave a statement with her will that if she ever died in a 'rough sex session gone bad' then it should be investigated as a murder because she definitely hadn't consented.

Consenting to some kinky sex IS NOT consenting to serious blunt force trauma to the face and chest and being sprayed with bleach to clean up the fucking blood!!!!

He has money. He will probably be let off.

The fact that he specifically targeted her face and chest is very telling. Wanting to remove her beauty. Punishment for sending topless pics. No one else allowed access to his property.

Sick fuck.

Oh that poor young woman.
Nobody- sober or high or drunk- can legally consent to be killed. When will they stop using this as an argument?

This thread shows some other cases where men claimed that women asked to be killed or claimed the woman asked to have something so dangerous done to her that her death was almost inevitable.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3332144-Why-is-he-crying-Laura-Huteson-death

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. The killer's barrister obviously has to come up with a defence, it doesn't mean it's going to be accepted.

At least this guy is being charged with murder. Here's the recent thread about Laura Huteson (throat cut consensually, dontchaknow) - it collates a lot of similar cases.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3332144-Why-is-he-crying-Laura-Huteson-death

Oh, sorry, Lion. We cross posted!

It has dawned on me that all a man has to do walk away from a murder charge is say “we had sex”. That’s it. Those are the magic words that absolve men of all guilt. Any violence that happens is fine if the victim has ever had sex.

RIP Natalie
I am also very sick of womens drug/alcohol use being portrayed as meaning they must have been up for some life threatening sex.
Then in cases like the Ulster rape, there is no suggestion that maybe men who are totally wasted cant judge consent accurately. Fucking double standards.

Years ago, a commentator pointed out that 'manslaughter' should be pronounced 'man's laughter'.

Back in the 80s, don't know what the figures would be know, women were almost uniformly charged with murder involving an intimate partner whereas men were charged with manslaughter. The thinking being it was murder for women because they had to pre-plan to overcome the physical difference. For men, it was always driven by passion/whatever and 'spur of the moment'.

I've not read the DM account, The Times covers it:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millionaire-property-developer-killed-lover-in-sex-session-bzhzt8zwx?shareToken=e03ea9513b97db8dfa8c4c6c2c08091d

The supposed love that women have for rough sex seems to be letting lots of men get away with rape, murder and all shades in between.

The recent case in Ireland shows the extremes this goes to - a woman is wearing a thong, so absolutely MUST have wanted to lose her virginity in the dark, in the mud, to a man she had never before met with his hands around her throat. It's staggering to think that that's the logical conclusion, rather than the jury seeing this as a cut and dried case of stranger rape.

Porn has frazzled the minds of men into thinking that most women love violent, degrading, dangerous sex and as such we're losing our right to justice if we're ever raped and murdered.

This makes me want to scream.

I was the poster saying that one should be able to lodge a sworn affidavit with a solicitor saying "my sexual preference is for vanilla, consensual, gentle sex. If you find me strangled to death and the man who did it says it was a consensual sex game gone wrong, he is lying because I would not have consented to such an activity."

Fermats it seems utterly absurd to contemplate such an action... But I'm seriously tempted to at least put an "in the event of my death" letter in my filing cabinet.

I had an online argument quite recently about this very issue (women eagerly "consenting" to strangulation during sex). Most of the men totally got it and found the practice abhorrent - only one said that women are ALWAYS begging to be strangled during sex. The majority of women he claimed. :(

I was the poster saying that one should be able to lodge a sworn affidavit with a solicitor saying "my sexual preference is for vanilla, consensual, gentle sex. If you find me strangled to death and the man who did it says it was a consensual sex game gone wrong, he is lying because I would not have consented to such an activity."
...
(different poster)
only one said that women are ALWAYS begging to be strangled during sex. The majority of women he claimed

Obviously at some point, somebody will helpfully provide an app. that you can temporarily freeze and unfreeze (like the bank card adverts) should you find yourself so minded so we can definitely cover demographic differences like this.

One of the first things you learn in criminal law is that it's not possible to consent to GBH and therefore "but he asked me to nail his testicles to that bit of wood" is not a defence. Interestingly the key case involves men doing things to other men. Reading between the lines of the case law it seems to be the case that if the victim is a woman, she probably isn't really a victim.

The recent case in Ireland shows the extremes this goes to - a woman is wearing a thong, so absolutely MUST have wanted to lose her virginity in the dark, in the mud, to a man she had never before met with his hands around her throat. It's staggering to think that that's the logical conclusion, rather than the jury seeing this as a cut and dried case of stranger rape

That's made me cry

Reading between the lines of the case law it seems to be the case that if the victim is a woman, she probably isn't really a victim.

That is intriguing - what is she? Merely the complainant or some other category?

@arranfan It's been a few years since I studied this so I can't cite any cases, sorry. The main one was between men in the 1980s who had consented to some fairly violent sexual stuff, and there was a successful prosecution for (IIRC) GBH against the people doing these acts, despite the people having things done to them opposing the prosecution as they said they had wanted these things. In comparison there were cases of similar acts against women where it was found that their consent meant there had been no crime.

Somewhere in English law there is a line between "rough sex, none of our business" and "this is so violent it can't be allowed regardless of apparent consent", and it just so happened that the case law seemed to incline towards things done to men being on the "too violent" side and things done to women being categorised as a bit kinky but not worth interfering in.

Being the suspicious sort, my interpretation (and that of my lecturer) was that this is the result of underlying misogynism.

Hopefully someone who knows their shit will be along to explain this better!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown

The Spanner case. Yes, I agree, it's very curious that male-on-male sadomasochism resulting in actual bodily harm is outlawed, but when the person being beaten to a pulp is female, suddenly that's just rough sex.

Peeved I would put money on the one man in that group who said "most women like being strangled" in fact being a rapist himself.

I am so incensed by the injustice of this, and the injustice of everything really. Anyone else here who has a daughter/s, how do you handle this? I'm not normally particularly delicate, but oh God, that poor woman, her poor family. I grew up in the 80's, I think it was easier for me than my dd, have we regressed?

fermats I did tell him that... In a more polite way. Without outing him - I know for a fact he belongs to a group of men with a very dysfunctional lifestyle and attitude towards women. I'd be highly surprised if he's ever had sex which wasn't paid for. I gave up the argument as it seemed pointless and I felt tainted by association.

Would it be terribly kink shaming of me to say that beating the shit out of a consenting person should no longer be legal under any circumstances? Even if doing it did give you an erection?

I don't understand why legalising some things that consenting adults do that don't cause physical harm means that we need to say doing whatever the fuck you want is OK.

I think the point about making it illegal is that people will still do it - but they will be damn careful they have consent, it's mutual, they don't go too far.

It is interesting that I actually know someone in RL whose former partner murdered a male prostitute - and got convicted. His defence of "it was a sex game gone wrong" did not fly. I can't help but think that the fact that the victim was male played a part in justice being served for once.

Frankly the world could do with a lot more kink shaming. The "your kink is not my kink and that's okay" mantra of those so open minded their brains have fallen out is being weaponised to push all sorts of really dark agendas around child abuse, lowering the rape conviction rate below even its current pitiful level, making sure women basically do not have a voice at all in the criminal justice system.