The danger of banning the ‘rough-sex defence’

The new law will merely make it easier to prosecute individuals for engaging in entirely consensual sexual activity.

Andrew Tettenborn


The Conservative government has introduced legislation aimed explicitly at criminalising deviant sexual conduct in private between consenting adults. That is peculiar enough in 2020. Even more oddly, the initiative for all this came not from Tory prudes but from the progressive establishment, with an organisation called We Can’t Consent to This (WCCTT) leading the charge.

The new legislation comes in the form of a government amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is being reported as a ban on the ‘rough sex’ defence. Which is not quite true. Rather, the amendment says that consent, however clear and free, can never justify the crime not only of grievous bodily harm, but also of wounding someone or doing him or her actual bodily harm if this is done for the sexual stimulation of either party (see page eight here). Since actual bodily harm includes bruises and virtually any hurt that interferes with comfort, not just wounds which break of the skin, this measure will mean that if you engage in almost any form of rough sex which leaves marks, and certainly any form of BDSM, you are probably breaking the law.

It is difficult to see anything in favour of this law. It’s not as if existing protections are inadequate. Causing serious injury, such as deliberately breaking someone’s arm or torturing them with burns, has always been illegal whether or not they consent to it as part of sex.

One might have thought that we should only punish people for consensual injury if they caused serious and permanent harm. Indeed, four years ago, the government’s own law-reform body, the Law Commission, suggested exactly this. Instead, we now have a proposal to do the exact opposite and criminalise any injury at all, however minor, provided they arise in the course of sex.

If and when this becomes law, it is probably true that trivial prosecutions will be rare. Though even then we shouldn’t underestimate the foolishness of prosecutors (in 1995, a man who monogrammed his initials on his wife’s bottom at her enthusiastic request, and without any later complaint, was hauled before Doncaster Crown Court on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm after an officious doctor rang the police).

But whether or not the new legislation leads to prosecutions is beside the point. The law doesn’t belong in the field of minor injuries arising from consensual sexual acts. Moreover, it is a law with possible unintended consequences. For example, a jilted lover could threaten an ex-partner with a criminal record as an abuser by showing the police relatively minor injuries even if she consented to them at the time.

What we have, therefore, is a proposal that changes the law in the wrong way, extending criminal liability to cases where no sane person would want it to apply.

How did it gain government backing? One suspects there are two reasons. The first concerns prosecutors, who are always under pressure to raise the number of abuse convictions. This new law will make life much easier for them. At present, where injuries are pretty minor, it can be awkward to prove lack of consent where it is her word against his. It would be much easier to get a conviction if prosecutors only needed to prove that injuries were inflicted in the course of love-making, regardless of consent.

Secondly, however, this affair tells us a great deal about the new establishment’s approach to women’s issues. It’s pretty clear that the point of this new law is consciousness-raising. WCCTT, an organisation devoted to eliminating violence against women and girls, is less interested in remedying any serious defect in the law than it is in sending an abstract message about the threat of male domestic violence and misogyny.

To this end, WCCTT worryingly downplays the moral relevance of consent. It suggests that any consent to injury should be irrelevant, not only to whether the person inflicting it is guilty of a crime, but also to culpability and sentence as well. Indeed, former Labour minister Harriet Harman, supporting the campaign, went even further and said that if we treated a man who beat his girlfriend at her request any less severely than someone who beat her up willy-nilly, we were guilty of ‘victim blaming’.

It’s not difficult to see why all this is wrong and dangerous. Criminalising the innocuous to make it easier to prosecute the guilty remains unacceptable. And using it as a means to send a message to the rest of us, rather than as a means of punishing those who deserve it, is even more so.

More to the point, it is rather ironic to see consent being devalued by supporters of women’s rights. Far from empowering women, it essentially amounts to denying them their capacity to take decisions about the risk to their own bodies. It says that the state needs to make these decisions for them. It is not hard to see that this is about as demeaning and patronising to women as one can get.

There is an old joke that goes like this: ‘Hit me’, said the masochist; ‘No’, said the sadist. If this proposal goes through, there is a severe danger that, at least in the bedroom, this will morph into a legal requirement. We live, as they say, in very bizarre times.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Lyn Keay

9th July 2020 at 6:52 pm

This is an interesting law indeed. My understanding is that after operation spanner in the late 80’s it was determined that consent was not a valid legal defence for actual bodily harm in Britain. This went to the European Court of Human Rights confirmed this saying that the law was ‘necessary in a democratic society for the protection of health’. So, it appears we are passing a new law to be the same as the existing law.

Andrew Levens

9th July 2020 at 1:50 pm

The proposed law does say it is to prevent ‘serious harm’, ie not trivial harm. So I find it quite reasonable. What I cannot understand is that it specifically excludes intentionally passing on sexually transmitted diseases. This is crazy. Preventing the transmission of STDs would be in the public interest.

James Knight

9th July 2020 at 1:23 pm

But men (and I guess women) can legally consent to go in the boxing ring receive the biggest beating since Rodney King.

Kay Warner

9th July 2020 at 12:59 pm

Unfortunately, the attitude of some of the judiciary have caused this to be required. If judges had used some common sense in cases such as Natalie Connelly and Grace Millaine it would not have been necessary. “Rough sex” should be no defence against murder or serious GBH.

Jonathan Palmer

9th July 2020 at 11:46 am

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

Former…if he were an admissions officer he’d have been fired within an hour of this article going online…sad.

Barry O’Barmy

9th July 2020 at 11:15 am

Conservative MPs won’t like this as so many of them love being whipped—-large numbers seem to indulge in this form of BDSM.

Neil John

9th July 2020 at 11:47 am

Police officers too, the ‘master’ at one formerly well known local dungeon, closed down by the council, was the area local chief inspector!

Warren Alexander

9th July 2020 at 10:50 am

So, if my partner cooks dinner for me and because it is too hot I burn the roof of my mouth, can I call the police and have said partner prosecuted?

Barry O’Barmy

9th July 2020 at 11:16 am

Only if it’s part of fellatio…

steve moxon

9th July 2020 at 8:26 am

It’s simply yet another extension of the ‘identity politics’ backlash by the Left against ‘the workers’ retrospectively stereotyped as male, ‘white’ and heterosexual.
The 2003 Sex Offences Act overturned the principle of innocence until proven guilt by requiring men to have taken steps to ascertain consent, and even including a ‘non-exhaustive list’ of examples! It’s been ever more downhill since.
All of this legislation will have to be challenged and overturned on the grounds that it is direct sex discrimination of the most serious, malicious kind, with the most serious impact on individuals, and fundamentally going against the very principle of law, not least English common law, and any understanding of basic rights.
The authors of all aspects of this legislation also should be pursued and prosecuted.

Neil John

9th July 2020 at 11:48 am

Any people wonder why MGTOW is becoming more popular…

steve moxon

9th July 2020 at 1:14 pm

No wonder at all. Of course, you could argue that nobody should go along with the Left’s efforts to totally destroy society, the family, everything. But you’d have to be mad to share your house with a female partner, never mind to get married; and increasingly even going along with an invite to sex is a minefield — with the explosion of multi-resistant STIs to boot. It’s now approaching madness to accept the offer of a job if there would be female co-workers. The whole nonsense is ripe to blow up.

Stewart Ware

9th July 2020 at 5:41 am

Spammer, please go away.

Spiked, please deal with this spammer.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film