The ‘rough sex’ defence was a gross perversion of BDSM, I’m delighted it’s finally been banned

Like most people, I was pleased to hear the news this week that the government plans to ban the “rough sex defence” under new domestic abuse legislation.

As a passionate advocate for conversations that de-stigmatise sex and BDSM, figuring out where to position myself amid this campaign has felt strangely tricky. The team behind the We Can’t Consent To This campaign group, which has worked to put an end to the use of rough sex claims, are absolutely right that people cannot consent to grievous injury or death. But some of the conversations that have taken place around it have gone a step further, suggesting that no one in their right mind would enjoy pain and violence.

Like everyone else, I am horrified by the idea that someone could get off a murder charge by claiming the victim consented to the violence that killed her. Natalie Connelly, Grace Millane, Hannah Dorans – all women who died at the hands of men who claimed it was a “sex game gone wrong”. It’s sickening. And it certainly wouldn’t have helped to muddy the waters by pointing out that some people do actually consent to rough sex. So I – and many of my friends on the kink scene – stayed quiet.

But banning rough sex as a defence against murder is not something the BDSM community have ever stood in opposition to. People can consent to a great many things that might make you or I cringe to imagine, but they can’t consent to being murdered. More crucially, when people play consensually, they do not die.

In a murder case where the rough sex defence is argued, we are asked to concede that if someone is willing to engage in such risky practices, they must take on themselves the possibility that it will go wrong. But in truly consensual sex no one person is ever solely responsible for what happens. Taking responsibility not just for yourself and your own wellbeing, but for the wellbeing of your partners, is the cornerstone of safe BDSM (as it ought to be for all kinds of sex, frankly).

The stories that have been told across dozens of courtrooms with increasing regularity in the last 20 years are a gross perversion of what BDSM actually is. People who engage in consensual kink do not do so with abandon. Careful discussions of boundaries, ongoing check-ins, and close attention to each other’s verbal and non-verbal reactions throughout are fundamental to all types of BDSM but especially at the more hardcore end.

And let’s not forget to mention that the sexual violence we’ve seen in these cases is gendered. A huge number of men enjoy being on the receiving end of pain and degradation in informed, carefully negotiated scenarios. But strangely enough, they are not dying from it. Some of the women who were murdered might have been into rough sex in safer circumstances. But what happened on the day they were killed was not consensual BDSM, it was straight-up violence.

Nobody should ever be able to use rough sex as a defence for murder. Thanks to this change in law, abusers can no longer hide behind the murky stigmatisation of BDSM. The community can now perhaps begin to emerge from the shadow that has hung over it and people who are interested in consensual kink will be able to engage without fear.

For support for sexual violence, visit Rape Crisis in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland