Search results

Rough sex appears to be experiencing a cultural ‘moment’. Depictions of rough sexual behaviours are common in contemporary movies, lifestyle magazines, and mainstream heterosexual pornography. Concerningly, rough sex has also been an aspect of numerous high-profile murder trials around the world where the accused has claimed that the woman’s death was the result of consensual rough sex, prompting this edited collection (see Introduction chapter).

Despite widespread acceptance of the term ‘rough sex’, it lacks definitional and conceptual clarity, which has implications for research, criminal justice, sexual violence prevention, and for understandings about consent between sexual partners. This chapter argues that mainstream heterosexual pornography is a critical site for understanding the development of collective meanings about rough sex. Through an analysis of the definitions of rough sex provided on three popular pornography websites in the MindGeek network – Pornhub, Youporn, and Redtube – this chapter signals how framings of rough sex in pornography provide a reference point for understanding what rough sex is and how it is performed. It argues that the framing of rough sex on pornography websites serves to reinforce wider normative ideas about heterosexual sex, presenting rough sex as something that is done by men, to women, in legitimate pursuit of sexual pleasure. Further, this chapter argues that these framings reinforce wider social messages that position rough sex as popular, common, and desirable. This chapter provides a starting point for developing more comprehensive understandings of what constitutes rough sex, as well as suggesting several avenues for future research agendas.

This chapter critically evaluates the use of the so-called ‘rough sex defence’ in Australian rape cases. We argue that the ‘rough sex defence’ in this context is an example of ‘implied consent’, specifically in that it relies on evidence that the defendant and victim-survivor had engaged in (or had even simply discussed) ‘rough’ sexual activity on a previous occasion(s). This narrative of implied consent to rough sex is used to establish either of two things. The first is that the victim-survivor actually did consent to ‘rough’ sexual activity on the occasion in question. The second is that the defendant mistakenly believed in consent, since roughness had been a feature of previous sexual discussions or activities. We argue that the use of the rough sex defence in rape trials is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the defence allows defendants to rely upon false and harmful ‘rape myths’ to avoid accountability for their actions. Second, a reliance on the rough sex defence also contradicts moves to adopt an affirmative consent standard as part of Australian rape law. We conclude by recommending reforms to the legal framework that would help reduce the reliance on the argument that a rape allegation can be explained away as ‘rough sex gone wrong’.

This chapter will explore the links between coercive control and ‘rough sex’. The chapter will highlight how easily sexual behaviour within a coercively controlling relationship can be presented as consensual. The chapter will explain how coercive control is typically about compelling a partner to comply with traditional gender norms and this makes consent within such a relationship particularly difficult to assess. However, it will be argued that there should be a strong legal presumption that if a relationship is marked by coercive control that sexual behaviour within it is non-consensual. The chapter will also explore in what circumstances rough sex should be regarded as lawful.

Rough sex - or what is referred to in this chapter as ‘consensual aggression and violence during sex’ (CAVS) - has been the focus, in the United Kingdom and internationally, of some attention and also concern. The latter derives especially from criminal justice proceedings relating to incidents where male suspects have seriously or fatally injured another individual, usually female, and then made claims - that are widely believed to be false - that the incident was a ‘sex game gone wrong’. Despite the importance of this subject, there is little or no understanding of the state of knowledge surrounding CAVS. This chapter outlines results from what is believed to be the first scoping (literature) review of CAVS in the general population. The review was based largely on a search, during June and July 2021, of 15 major databases using 18 search terms, which was conducted in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. A total of 74 sources were identified. The research reviewed covered a quite large number and diverse range of areas in respect of CAVS, comprising: conceptualization; attitudes; extent; context, dynamics and nature; explanations; CAVS-related pornography; effects; alleged CAVS; policy and practice responses; methodological weaknesses; and future research needs. Overall, the review highlights two distinct perspectives on CAVS: in the first, individuals chose to take part in CAVS, which they like and enjoy; in the second, individuals, especially women and girls, have experiences of CAVS that are non-consensual or unwanted, and which they find upsetting, frightening or scary.

This introductory chapter will provide the context for the collection, introducing the topic(s) of sex, consent, the law and the wider ongoing debates concerning the use of consensual ‘rough’ sex and/or bondage, discipline, sadism and/or masochism as a defence in homicide cases. An overview of the book will also be provided.

This chapter will seek to add insight on the lived experiences of women subjected to non-fatal, non-consensual violence in sex (NCVS) by men.

The chapter will draw on primary research conducted by the author in the Spring and Summer of 2020, comprising in-depth interviews with eight women and a survey of 84 women, all of whom had experienced NCVS, often from multiple perpetrators. It will summarize the acts to which women were subjected (often life-threatening in nature), the long-term impacts on women, and the ways in which men minimized and re-packaged their violence. It will make the case that NCVS – often dismissed as ‘rough sex gone wrong’ – is a particularly insidious form of violence against women and girls.

The chapter will highlight how women’s sense-making processes around NCVS are often hampered by legal definitions of sexual violence, which left women wondering ‘what category to put it in’. Using Fricker’s (2007) concept on ‘epistemic injustice’, it will emphasize the need for a ‘shared tools of social interpretation’ (p. 6) around NCVS, alongside any legal changes, and the importance of campaigns like We Can’t Consent To This in giving language to women’s often unspoken experiences.

Using original transcripts of cases in which ‘sex games’ have ‘gone wrong’, this chapter examines how the practice of bondage and sado-masochism (BDSM) is figured in legal discourses and the implications this understanding of it has for debates about consent and sexual violence. The premise that consent to sexual violence might act as a defence or mitigating factor in cases which go to trial suggests that something understood as BDSM is recognized as a legitimate sexual practice by the courts. Recognizing the legitimacy of marginalized sexual practices can be understood as a progressive way to recognize individuals’ autonomy and freedom, within the contemporary neoliberal framework in which these cases play out. Campaigners against the judgement of the foundational Brown case make this clear (The Spanner Trust, n.d.). Yet, BDSM practice has also been mobilized to justify or diminish the significance of sexualized violence against women (Harman & Garnier, 2019, July 19).

This chapter navigates the line between these two priorities to interrogate the ways in which courts themselves interpret and understand BDSM. Gaining insight into how courts might be said to ‘operationalise’ BDSM, we can gain some insight into the role that consent plays in understanding sexual violence, including the work that consent has to do to turn an act of sexual violence into one of BDSM.

In order to do this work, I have acquired nine transcripts of crown court cases from 2010 to 2020 in which a ‘rough sex’ defence was used. Conducting a discourse analysis of how BDSM is imagined in these cases, in dialogue with previous I have conducted on consent and BDSM communities (Fanghanel, 2019, 2020), this chapter traces how knowledge about BDSM in created, and how this becomes used to affect justice outcomes.

In a series of high-profile cases, defendants accused of murdering women have tried to mitigate their murder charge on the basis that the killing was not intentional but rather was an accidental outcome of consensual ‘rough sex’. Activists, academics, and the popular press have presented this as a form of victim blaming and calls have been made to ban the so called ‘rough sex defence’. This has led to a promise from the government to include such a prohibition in the Domestic Abuse Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament. In this chapter the overarching problems around trying to define ‘rough sex’ in a sufficiently clear manner to make for an effective law will be explored. This will include a discussion of the inherent physical riskiness and harm of sexual intercourse and associated activities and how this would fit with the current offences against the person legal architecture. It will also consider how the court has struggled to deal with other areas of potentially consensual personal interaction which can lead to harm such as the case law on ‘horseplay’. Finally, it will argue that trying to define ‘rough sex’ within the confines of domestic abuse legislation may limit the scope and effectiveness of the measures. The proposals will also be placed in the context of previous unsuccessful attempts to deal with gendered issues in criminal law offences such as limits on the use of sexual history evidence and the use of sexual infidelity in ‘loss of control’ cases. The chapter will conclude by considering whether a ‘rough sex’ defence ban might meet a similar fate.