By Charles Amos
Credit: Charles Deluvio
Introduction
The `rough sex gone wrong` defence is not an easy topic to talk about. Nonetheless, this July Justice Minister Alan Chalk made clear that the defence would be outlawed in the forthcoming Domestic Abuse Bill, forcing the issue into public debate.
Basically, the `rough sex gone wrong` argument involves the defendant pleading for a sentence of manslaughter, instead of murder, on the basis that their partner consented to being treated roughly. This may involve being beaten, slapped, or strangled amongst other practices. The minister made it crystal clear that `simply because she consented` will no longer stand as a reason for reducing charges.
Amongst the proponents of this Bill are Harriet Harman, Jess Philips, and Mark Garnier. The feminist campaign group We Can’t Consent To This has long been urging ministers to outlaw this defence. Opposition to the measure has been sparse, but it shall be provided here. For this measure is a total abomination.
Basically, the `rough sex gone wrong` argument involves the defendant pleading for a sentence of manslaughter, instead of murder, on the basis that their partner consented to being treated roughly. This may involve being beaten, slapped, or strangled amongst other practices. The minister made it crystal clear that `simply because she consented` will no longer stand as a reason for reducing charges.
Amongst the proponents of this Bill are Harriet Harman, Jess Philips, and Mark Garnier. The feminist campaign group We Can’t Consent To This has long been urging ministers to outlaw this defence. Opposition to the measure has been sparse, but it shall be provided here. For this measure is a total abomination.
The Paternalist Attack on Extreme Sex
Credit: Tingey Injury Law Firm
Paternalism forms the bedrock for the justification of this measure. To a very great extent the threat of a murder charge essentially prohibits the most extreme forms of sexual activity. Under this ideology bureaucrats are said to know best, irrespective of whether or not the individual agrees.
We Can’t Consent To This has made it quite clear that they wish to prohibit all violence in the bedroom, disregarding whether or not it is consensual. Consensually violent sex is unjustifiable to them. The banning of the `rough sex gone wrong defence` is merely the thin end of the wedge for a further curtailment of our sexual freedoms.
Heightened orgasmic pleasure induced by asphyxiation is always outweighed by an increased risk of death according to the paternalists. To them, value is an objective measure, a scale on which external observers can weigh up costs and benefits. Irrationality is to pursue actions where objective costs are in excess of objective benefits.
Such a philosophy is not sound. Objective costs and benefits have to presuppose an ultimate end: For the paternalists this is the prolongation and preservation of life. This premise has no grounding in ethical theory or our intuitions. Man is an end in himself, free to pursue his own purposes as he pleases, with the cooperation of others if they agree.
Since these purposes will differ from individual to individual so too will the costs and benefits attached to various sexual activities, value is subjective. Consensual sex acts only occur when both parties have coinciding value preferences. If a woman wishes to be strangled with a plastic bag to the point of death and her partner agrees then a mutually advantageous transaction has been arranged. Both parties are fully aware of the risk, and no doubt part of the sexual high is derived from that very fact.
Nonetheless, let us consider the logical conclusions of prohibiting deadly sexual activity, the paternalists’ ultimate aim. If the reader rejects the final conclusion of the theory, he must reject the paternalist premise. First let us consider the deadliness of `rough sex`.
If I assumed that just 0.1% of the population is engaged in rough sex, and given only 30 women have died of the activity since 2010, according to the Guardian, the fatality rate of the activity is a minuscule 0.000045%. In reality, a survey conducted by the BBC suggests that 38% of 18-39 year old women have experienced choking in the bedroom, meaning our fatality rate of 0.000045% is a huge overestimation of the fatality rate.
In comparison to `rough sex` autoerotic death is a far more significant issue. Every year at least 140 people die of autoerotic causes, over 40x more than of rough sex. If We Can’t Consent To This are willing to outlaw all consensual violence in the bedroom due to the deadly risk, it follows that autoerotic activity must also be prohibited.
In order to enforce such a prohibition an Autoerotic Asphyxia Police would have to be established. State Officials would be tasked with investigating young men’s porn history, monitoring their purchases of rope, and checking their romantic relationships. Once these Officials had identified the porn addicted, rope buying loners, a spying operation would have to occur.
At an opportune moment the Autoerotic Asphyxia Police would have to smash through the locked door of the young man’s bedroom and arrest the individual for engaging in such a deadly practise. No liberal individual can possibly accept such authoritarian conclusions. Yet this is simply the logical result of not allowing people to harm themselves sexually. How else would such crime be stopped?
If individuals are allowed to risk killing themselves in sexual experiments, why should individuals not be allowed to risk killing each other in consensual sex? If there is no intent to kill there is no murder. As self-owners, two such individuals would be perfectly within their rights in engaging in such activity.
If the paternalists are serious about applying their theory consistently and implementing it properly, an Authoritarian Sex Police would have to be established. How else is the State going to prohibit consensual strangulation, except by smashing down bedroom doors? If the reader wishes to object to an Authoritarian Sex Police, he must reject the paternalist premise. You cannot will one without the other.
We Can’t Consent To This has made it quite clear that they wish to prohibit all violence in the bedroom, disregarding whether or not it is consensual. Consensually violent sex is unjustifiable to them. The banning of the `rough sex gone wrong defence` is merely the thin end of the wedge for a further curtailment of our sexual freedoms.
Heightened orgasmic pleasure induced by asphyxiation is always outweighed by an increased risk of death according to the paternalists. To them, value is an objective measure, a scale on which external observers can weigh up costs and benefits. Irrationality is to pursue actions where objective costs are in excess of objective benefits.
Such a philosophy is not sound. Objective costs and benefits have to presuppose an ultimate end: For the paternalists this is the prolongation and preservation of life. This premise has no grounding in ethical theory or our intuitions. Man is an end in himself, free to pursue his own purposes as he pleases, with the cooperation of others if they agree.
Since these purposes will differ from individual to individual so too will the costs and benefits attached to various sexual activities, value is subjective. Consensual sex acts only occur when both parties have coinciding value preferences. If a woman wishes to be strangled with a plastic bag to the point of death and her partner agrees then a mutually advantageous transaction has been arranged. Both parties are fully aware of the risk, and no doubt part of the sexual high is derived from that very fact.
Nonetheless, let us consider the logical conclusions of prohibiting deadly sexual activity, the paternalists’ ultimate aim. If the reader rejects the final conclusion of the theory, he must reject the paternalist premise. First let us consider the deadliness of `rough sex`.
If I assumed that just 0.1% of the population is engaged in rough sex, and given only 30 women have died of the activity since 2010, according to the Guardian, the fatality rate of the activity is a minuscule 0.000045%. In reality, a survey conducted by the BBC suggests that 38% of 18-39 year old women have experienced choking in the bedroom, meaning our fatality rate of 0.000045% is a huge overestimation of the fatality rate.
In comparison to `rough sex` autoerotic death is a far more significant issue. Every year at least 140 people die of autoerotic causes, over 40x more than of rough sex. If We Can’t Consent To This are willing to outlaw all consensual violence in the bedroom due to the deadly risk, it follows that autoerotic activity must also be prohibited.
In order to enforce such a prohibition an Autoerotic Asphyxia Police would have to be established. State Officials would be tasked with investigating young men’s porn history, monitoring their purchases of rope, and checking their romantic relationships. Once these Officials had identified the porn addicted, rope buying loners, a spying operation would have to occur.
At an opportune moment the Autoerotic Asphyxia Police would have to smash through the locked door of the young man’s bedroom and arrest the individual for engaging in such a deadly practise. No liberal individual can possibly accept such authoritarian conclusions. Yet this is simply the logical result of not allowing people to harm themselves sexually. How else would such crime be stopped?
If individuals are allowed to risk killing themselves in sexual experiments, why should individuals not be allowed to risk killing each other in consensual sex? If there is no intent to kill there is no murder. As self-owners, two such individuals would be perfectly within their rights in engaging in such activity.
If the paternalists are serious about applying their theory consistently and implementing it properly, an Authoritarian Sex Police would have to be established. How else is the State going to prohibit consensual strangulation, except by smashing down bedroom doors? If the reader wishes to object to an Authoritarian Sex Police, he must reject the paternalist premise. You cannot will one without the other.
The `It May Be Murder Though` Argument
Credit: Andy Ling
There is of course a prominent, non-paternalistic, objection to the preceding line of argument. This is that unlike autoerotic death, death caused via extreme sexual intercourse has the potential to be non-consensual i.e. murderous. Considering the typical physical imbalance of power within any heterosexual relationship this issue must be taken seriously.
No one is defending a man deliberately strangling a woman to death during sex; such an individual should be charged with murder. Nonetheless, the idea that all such instances of strangulation or violence are non-consensual is clearly not the case. Things in the bedroom can go wrong and women can be killed by accident.
The `rough sex gone wrong` defence is therefore a perfectly valid plea for a reduction in the severity of the charge, or perhaps for no charge at all. Admittedly, it cannot be known for certain that a man has not deliberately killed his partner, but to charge all men with murder for the death of their partners is certain to see the innocent falsely imprisoned.
The justice system at the moment already seems capable of differentiating genuine from phoney cases. According to We Can’t Consent To This, 60 examples collected from 1972 to 2019 only 45% of cases of `rough sex` deaths have resulted in a lesser charge of manslaughter. Juries seem more than able to assess the evidence on a case by case basis and come to an informed decision. Legislation in areas like this simply fails to comprehend the complexities of the scenarios involved.
In areas such as this it is far better to allow evolved Common law to deal with such issues on a case by case basis, then the blunt instrument of legislation. For legislation such as this does not tend toward reason, rather it tends toward virtue signalling on the part of feminist politicians, with hapless conservatives too afraid of sticking up for justice, for fear of being accused of defending rape.
Will murderers get away by using this defence? Yes. However, that is no excuse for punishing everyone indiscriminately, including the innocent. On issues such as this Blackstone’s ratio should be invoked; ‘better ten guilty men go free than one innocent individual suffer.’
It is simply not good enough to say it is `bad luck` that men who have accidentally killed their partners would be charged with murder, as Harriet Harman MP has said. To charge innocent men with murder is an abomination and a total affront to justice, and surely not something their dead partners would want to see.
No one is defending a man deliberately strangling a woman to death during sex; such an individual should be charged with murder. Nonetheless, the idea that all such instances of strangulation or violence are non-consensual is clearly not the case. Things in the bedroom can go wrong and women can be killed by accident.
The `rough sex gone wrong` defence is therefore a perfectly valid plea for a reduction in the severity of the charge, or perhaps for no charge at all. Admittedly, it cannot be known for certain that a man has not deliberately killed his partner, but to charge all men with murder for the death of their partners is certain to see the innocent falsely imprisoned.
The justice system at the moment already seems capable of differentiating genuine from phoney cases. According to We Can’t Consent To This, 60 examples collected from 1972 to 2019 only 45% of cases of `rough sex` deaths have resulted in a lesser charge of manslaughter. Juries seem more than able to assess the evidence on a case by case basis and come to an informed decision. Legislation in areas like this simply fails to comprehend the complexities of the scenarios involved.
In areas such as this it is far better to allow evolved Common law to deal with such issues on a case by case basis, then the blunt instrument of legislation. For legislation such as this does not tend toward reason, rather it tends toward virtue signalling on the part of feminist politicians, with hapless conservatives too afraid of sticking up for justice, for fear of being accused of defending rape.
Will murderers get away by using this defence? Yes. However, that is no excuse for punishing everyone indiscriminately, including the innocent. On issues such as this Blackstone’s ratio should be invoked; ‘better ten guilty men go free than one innocent individual suffer.’
It is simply not good enough to say it is `bad luck` that men who have accidentally killed their partners would be charged with murder, as Harriet Harman MP has said. To charge innocent men with murder is an abomination and a total affront to justice, and surely not something their dead partners would want to see.
Conclusion
In finishing this piece, it is clear to see that there are two separate defences for this measure. The first is overtly paternalist and seeks to use this measure as a means to discourage certain extreme sexual activity. The second defence argues that since a jury can’t be certain a man killed his partner by accident, he should be charged with murder due to the mere possibility that he might have.
To accept either of these defences is to curtail freedom and impoverish justice. Liberals must not give in to their opponents; the innocent must be saved from this wretched Bill.
To accept either of these defences is to curtail freedom and impoverish justice. Liberals must not give in to their opponents; the innocent must be saved from this wretched Bill.
RSS Feed
