Normalisation of Male Sexual Violence

[El Pollo Diablo]

Acts of violence by men during sex has become normalised, according to a BBC report on a survey by Savanta ComRes. I can't immediately find the survey. Nonetheless, the article states that:

more than a third of UK women under the age of 40 have experienced unwanted slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sex

based on a weighted, representative sample of 2,002 women between 18 and 39.

More than a third (38%) had experienced these acts and said they were unwanted at least some of the time, while just under two-thirds of women had either experienced it and said it was never unwanted (31%), or they had no experience, didn't know or preferred not to say (31%).

So, of those who answered that they had experienced it, 55% said it was unwanted at least some of the time.

An infographic displays the level of pressure applied:



There are lots of personal cases in the BBC report as well, which is worth reading, and I can certainly understand the anxiety and anger it must cause. There appears to have been a rise in the number of cases of sexual violence "gone wrong" where the woman has died (accepting that this might be an excuse), I wouldn't be surprised if p.rnography played a strong role in this, especially as it tends to be consumed in a private environment and rarely discussed in any meaningful depth between men. This might then allow a warped sense of what's acceptable during sex to develop.

Note: any derails will be split off.

[tom p]

I'm completely certain that this is down to p.rnography.
Specifically the likes of pornhub, where searches without violent terms almost always seem to throw up results with violent sex including things like choking and slapping.
Blokes then think that women want this, or that it's normal*, and start doing it. Women think that men want it and acquiesce.
There was an article in the guardian not long ago that featured a couple where he would choke her, thinking she wanted it, she allowed it thinking he did, and neither of them enjoyed sex as much as they should.
It's now being increasingly used as a defence by murderers too, which adds insult to injury for the grieving families and let's these bastards literally get away with murder.

I think that pornhub and its sister sites should restrict videos which feature such things to only searches for such things. That way if you're a pervert who gets off on seeing women strangled, you can still get your kicks, but you have to explicitly ask for it and if you aren't, then it isn't presented to you while you're trying to enjoy a pleasant w.nk. In fact, I think the government should blacklist any sites that don't follow that rule. Sure people could use a vpn to get them, but then you're actively seeking them out anyway.

*Since this is the internet, there is bound to be someone who says it is normal or that one shouldn't use judgemental terms like that, well.you can f.ck off. Choking people during sex is not normal and it is dangerous.

[JQH]

It's now being increasingly used as a defence by murderers too, which adds insult to injury for the grieving families and let's these bastards literally get away with murder.

Most recently in that case in New Zealand. Fortunately the jury didn't fall for it.

[tom p]

Yes, fortunately indeed.

I've been thinking more about this.
I reckon part of the problem with regulating is admitting there's a problem. To say it exists is to own up to w.nking over internet p.rn, something comedians admit to a lot, but politicians never do (unless the alternative emission admission is worse).
And if you try and regulate it, a group of vocal w.nkers will object strongly and lots of blokes (mostly) will silently agree with them while pretending not to.

[greyspoke]

The survey evidence is interesting. It appears that most of the time, if people are getting the sort of sex they want it is by accident not agreement. This is probably a combination of a lack of the necessary social skills and an unwillingness to use them (possibly intoxication may be a factor also).

Being so very far removed from the dating game now, I don't really have relevant personal experience (that I can remember).

Is there anyone here who does and is willing to comment on how pre-intercourse discussions* do/should take place?

*I initially wrote "negotiations" but that sounded rather commercial. But really, that is what is required. Easier said than done, I am sure.

[Opti]

I'm not in a great position to say much, I've been faithfully with one woman for 40 years ... yes, of course we've explored our sexual boundaries, but neither of us have expressed a desire to do harm to each other. It's not something either of us understand.
Maybe someone can explain?

[GeenDienst]

Says here the use of the "Ooops..." defence has risen 10-fold in courts in the UK in recent years.

And a related issue that was much in the headlines a year or two back is whether it is or should even be possible to consent to sexual practices involving actual significant harm.

[greyspoke]

Says here the use of the "Ooops..." defence has risen 10-fold in courts in the UK in recent years.

And a related issue that was much in the headlines a year or two back is whether it is or should even be possible to consent to sexual practices involving actual significant harm.

The answer to your second point is a firm no. Consent to "serious harm" (legal term) is ineffective*. That doesn't deal with the problem though. The defence in such cases goes along the lines of "there was consent to activity not involving serious harm but accidentally and unintentionally serious harm occurred". If believed by the jury that would get the defendant off a charge of murder because of the lack of an intention to cause death or serious harm. The defence is lack of intention, the introduction of consensual kinky sex into the situation makes the causation of unintended serious harm or death somewhat more credible than many other accident scenarios that might be postulated. It could be run as a defence where the violence was not in fact sexual**. Undoubtedly (I think there are examples of this but cannot find links atm) serious injury can/has occur(red) accidentally during consensual not-particularly-kinky sex. There are well-known examples of it happening during single-person sex, though those situations probably involved activity that could not have been consented to (see above) if carried out by another. Bizarre accidents occur but are rare, It isn't a trivial problem for a jury, it will be all the other factors in the case which might cause them to reject the bizarre accident explanation, or in some situations accept it.

* There is a kind of exception to this for martial arts sports, which would not be possible if this was applied to those situations. Actually the sports analogy is worth considering. What is the key difference between the two situations? The absence of third party evidence of what went on. Which is the fundamental problem with prosecuting sexual offences generally.

** Defendants to murder charges might alternatively try a defence based on consensual sporting activity, but that would not work as well because sports have rules and many require more than two players etc. You are getting into the "dog ate my homework" territory here. And of course, dogs probably have eaten homework, or shat on it.

[greyspoke]

Actually I think the issue in the case about consent to harm a few years ago which I think you are referring to was more to do with the simulated/real nature of the activity. The headline read "penis nailed to a block of wood" but in fact the nail went through a piercing hole (or something like that). Facts always get in the way of a good case.

[jimbob]

I wonder if 50-shades of grey had a more obviously-mainstream effect too?

[JQH]

Says here the use of the "Ooops..." defence has risen 10-fold in courts in the UK in recent years.

Here's why I don't get the acceptance of the "rough sex gone wrong" defense:

EVEN IF the victim consented to some BDSM practice surely the bloke would stop choking her when she passed out and try to revive her? To continue choking at that point does rather suggest a desire to kill.

[tom p]

I wonder if 50-shades of grey had a more obviously-mainstream effect too?

Possibly. And probably more on the 56% in that chart who didn't feel pressured into it.
Probably didn't have a massive effect on men - I've never met a bloke who has read 50 shades.

I would like to see that data from the survey disaggregated if it was. There's a big difference between, say, some consensual spanking, and choking.

[Little waster]

I would like to see that data from the survey disaggregated if it was. There's a big difference between, say, some consensual spanking, and choking.

On a general point*, is there a term for the survey-form logical fallacy equivalent of Tvtropes "Arson, Murder and Jay-walking"?

You see it a lot in newspapers reports of "shock" survey results where Option A: Vaguely defined thing which could be interpreted as either something tediously humdrum and everyday or possibly something mildly scandalous/worrying which gets 45% response is lumped in with Option B: Something clearly worrying but thankfully uncommon on 4% and Option C: Something absolutely terrible but which is almost unheard of on <1% to produce the desired headline "50% of people have experienced Option C-type things!!!!"



*I'm not saying that's what happened here.

[Tessa K]

Says here the use of the "Ooops..." defence has risen 10-fold in courts in the UK in recent years.

Here's why I don't get the acceptance of the "rough sex gone wrong" defense:

EVEN IF the victim consented to some BDSM practice surely the bloke would stop choking her when she passed out and try to revive her? To continue choking at that point does rather suggest a desire to kill.

I agree that it most likely comes from p.rn and a misunderstanding of BDSM where everything is consensual and negotiated. The mantra is always safe, sane and consensual. Anyone who does someone serious damage doesn't know what they're doing. Yes, some people male and female like pain and violence but it's always up to the sub (the receiver) to set the limits, determine safe words etc. Quite apart from anything else, not knowing when to stop means someone is totally incompetent. There are plenty of places where you can learn to do it safely both online and IRL. Ddeciding to punch, strangle etc someone out of the blue isn't BDSM it's just violence. It's not the sex that's 'gone wrong' it's the person doing it.

[Opti]

^^^^^^^^^^
This.

[Theresa May]

I just deleted a post as it didn’t abide by the sensitivity and seriousness expected in this sub-forum.

I like a satire post. I’ve made them myself. But a thread on male sexual violence isn’t the place.

[JQH]

Says here the use of the "Ooops..." defence has risen 10-fold in courts in the UK in recent years.

Here's why I don't get the acceptance of the "rough sex gone wrong" defense:

EVEN IF the victim consented to some BDSM practice surely the bloke would stop choking her when she passed out and try to revive her? To continue choking at that point does rather suggest a desire to kill.

I agree that it most likely comes from p.rn and a misunderstanding of BDSM where everything is consensual and negotiated. The mantra is always safe, sane and consensual. Anyone who does someone serious damage doesn't know what they're doing. Yes, some people male and female like pain and violence but it's always up to the sub (the receiver) to set the limits, determine safe words etc. Quite apart from anything else, not knowing when to stop means someone is totally incompetent. There are plenty of places where you can learn to do it safely both online and IRL. Ddeciding to punch, strangle etc someone out of the blue isn't BDSM it's just violence. It's not the sex that's 'gone wrong' it's the person doing it.

Not disputing that - I'm just saying that the argument even as presented by murderers trying to get off doesn't stack up.

[JellyandJackson]

Good point about the element of surprise.

I’m interested in what people think can be done about the problem. I have teen daughters and a small boy, and in terms of things to talk to (older) kids about, this from Jameela Jamil is nice. https://youtu.be/QDjiPz1vRr8
The sex bit is at 5.45ish. “Tell him that generosity in the bedroom will be reported throughout the land, because we tell each other everything, and his name will be legendary”. I love this idea of creating a positive conversation about sex, and that consent is the lowest of low bars, enthusiastic “yes please” is what they should be aiming for.

[Tessa K]

Says here the use of the "Ooops..." defence has risen 10-fold in courts in the UK in recent years.

Here's why I don't get the acceptance of the "rough sex gone wrong" defense:

EVEN IF the victim consented to some BDSM practice surely the bloke would stop choking her when she passed out and try to revive her? To continue choking at that point does rather suggest a desire to kill.

If you've gone in too hard and heavy and crushed the windpipe, by the time someone passes out it can be too late, especially if the reaction causes heart failure. If the victim is being strangled from behind it can be hard to tell the difference between going limp and passing out. So many many ways it can go wrong.

[greyspoke]

This thread has two different things in it, though they are linked.

- The way non-murderers (well mostly, most people are not murderers) have sex, and

- Things murderers say in their defence.

I am possibly a culprit in not differentiating them enough. The relationship is, the former provides the background against which the "it was an accident" defence will be assessed, and so affects the way a cunning defendant will spin their story.

[GeenDienst]

If you've gone in too hard and heavy and crushed the windpipe, by the time someone passes out it can be too late, especially if the reaction causes heart failure. If the victim is being strangled from behind it can be hard to tell the difference between going limp and passing out. So many many ways it can go wrong.

This is also a lesson still being learned in police cells and elsewhere.

[Tessa K]

This thread has two different things in it, though they are linked.

- The way non-murderers (well mostly, most people are not murderers) have sex, and

- Things murderers say in their defence.

I am possibly a culprit in not differentiating them enough. The relationship is, the former provides the background against which the "it was an accident" defence will be assessed, and so affects the way a cunning defendant will spin their story.

Yes, there's a big difference between murderers making excuses and men who think it's OK to be violent to women, probably because they've watched (vanilla) p.rn where there are no consequences and everyone's fine. I wonder if there has really been an increase in this kind of violence or if it is just being reported more now because, you know, men, violence, not a new thing.

[Tessa K]

This thread has two different things in it, though they are linked.

- The way non-murderers (well mostly, most people are not murderers) have sex, and

- Things murderers say in their defence.

I am possibly a culprit in not differentiating them enough. The relationship is, the former provides the background against which the "it was an accident" defence will be assessed, and so affects the way a cunning defendant will spin their story.

Yes, there's a big difference between murderers making excuses and men who think it's OK to be violent to women, probably because they've watched (vanilla) p.rn where there are no consequences and everyone's fine.

I wonder if there has really been an increase in this kind of violence or if it is just being reported more now because, you know, men, violence, not a new thing.

[Tessa K]

This thread has two different things in it, though they are linked.

- The way non-murderers (well mostly, most people are not murderers) have sex, and

- Things murderers say in their defence.

I am possibly a culprit in not differentiating them enough. The relationship is, the former provides the background against which the "it was an accident" defence will be assessed, and so affects the way a cunning defendant will spin their story.

Yes, there's a big difference between murderers making excuses and men who think it's OK to be violent to women, probably because they've watched (vanilla) p.rn where there are no consequences and everyone's fine.

I wonder if there has really been an increase in this kind of violence or if it is just being reported more now because, you know, men, violence, not a new thing.

[Woodchopper]

Also, choking is exceptionally dangerous. If as a result of pressure applied to the neck the blood flow to the brain is impaired then loss of consciousness occurs in 10 - 15 seconds; death within 3 - 5 minutes.

If the victim doesn’t die, they can still suffer brain damage.