Search results

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 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.

The prevalence of diabetes among 915 sexual, violent, and non‐violent non‐sex offenders was found to be more than twice the prevalence in the general population. Diabetes was most common among violent offenders and among sex offenders who victimized children. The older diabetics presented significantly more often with cognitive impairment and younger diabetics more often with manic and psychotic symptoms. Younger diabetics were significantly more likely to use force and a weapon in their offenses and were most likely to injure their victims when compared to older diabetics and younger and older non‐diabetic offenders. In more than one in four cases, the diabetes was undiagnosed at the time of their offenses prior to clinical assessment, suggesting that undiagnosed diabetes may be a possible mitigating factor in some sexual and violent offenses. Results indicate that a routine endocrine evaluation with blood tests would be a valuable addition to the assessment of violent and sexual offenders.

Distinguishing between physical and social aggression, this study aimed to examine whether the predictive effect of aggression on resource control is moderated by prosocial behavior and corresponds to a linear or a curvilinear trend. Moderating effects of children's social preference among peers and child sex in this context were also tested.

Based on a sample of 682 kindergarten children (348 girls; average age 72.7 months, 3.6 SD), multilevel regressions revealed additive linear effects of social preference and prosociality on resource control.

Moderate (but not high) levels of social aggression also facilitated resource control for disliked children. There was no such threshold effect for well‐liked children, who increasingly controlled the resource the more socially aggressive they were. In contrast, physical aggression hampered resource control unless used very modestly.

The present study has a number of positive features. First, the distinction between physical and social aggression improves our understanding of the relation between aggression and social competence and sketches a more differentiated picture of the role of different forms of aggression in resource control. Second, this study combines the concept of resource control with the concept of social preference and investigates curvilinear effects of aggression. Third, the direct observation of resource control in the Movie Viewer increases the internal validity of this study.

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.

In this chapter, I use the term “biopolitics” to mean evolutionarily informed political science. Politics has been characterized as “Who gets what, when, and how” (Lasswell, 1936), but rather than about material possessions, politics is understood to be about power, more specifically about collective power, especially differential group power competition, hierarchy and stratification in power distribution, and the universal struggle to enhance power, and to maintain or challenge/destroy this status quo. Politics “should be found in any system of nature in which conflicts of interest exist among cooperating organic units” (Johnson, 1995, p. 279). My main focus will be competitive intergroup relations in monkeys and apes, or as I (van der Dennen, 1995) called it “intergroup agonistic behavior” (IAB). I also briefly treat interindividual and intercoalitionary agonistic behavior when relevant.

Purpose – This chapter contributes to comparative biopolitics and reviews primatological literature, especially about our nearest relatives, the Great Apes.

Design/methodology/approach – Biopolitics in this chapter means evolutionarily informed political science, with emphasis on power relations. I review the literature on intrasexual and intersexual dominance interactions among individuals and competitive and/or agonistic interactions among groups in the Great Apes (Hominidae, formerly Pongidae): orangutan (Pongo with two species and three subspecies), gorilla (Gorilla with four subspecies), bonobo (Pan paniscus), and common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes with four subspecies). In the final section I present some (speculative) thoughts on Pan prior or the modern human ancestor.

Findings – Not only Man is a political animal.

Originality/value – Impartial, objective, and as complete as possible review of the literature for the students of (comparative) politics, ethology, and psychology.

In my preliminary thesis studies of social media, in the wake of the killings of women such as Natalie Connolly, there was a seeming widespread agreement, that if a man could get a relatively minor sentence for ending the life of a woman, using the purportedly ‘erotic’ context of the death as a legal means, then something in the judiciary was going wrong. Traditional feminists and many sex freedomists appeared to concur, in a rare moment of overlap on contemporary sexual ethics from these often scrummaging political groups. However, this ostensible concurring mystifies a more fundamental set of antagonisms that has plagued what we occasionally understand as the rhizomes of the ‘progressive left’, not least in the difficult relationship between political feminism and the sexual freedom movement, or indeed ‘sex positive feminism’. This latter ‘choice’ feminism seemingly elided with sexual freedom and jettisoned the hang ups of radical, Marxist and some branches of equality feminism, still persisting but indicative of what we broadly call ‘the second wave’. This elision between feminism and sexual freedom situates women as individuals with identities that signify an inexhaustible will, not as a casted and economized subjectivity embedded in a historical moment. This move sought to overcome the stalemate between sexual liberation, and women’s liberation. But did it? If we ask questions such as: what should legal practice and policy privilege in its functioning, the protection of individual sexual choices, or defence of the physical safety of women made vulnerable to violence by sexually oppressive cultures? – we may uncover the more profound ethical and epistemological contentions at stake. I want to frame the disputes between sexual freedomists and feminists that still persist, despite our contemporary liberal feminist vernacular, in relation to this theoretical shift in what is understood as ‘choice’, using the issues that satellite ‘the rough sex defence’ (BDSM, porn, violence, consent) in order to illuminate this tension. I want to use a materialist feminist analysis that retraces the concept of ‘choice’ in the feminist canon in order to analyse this elision in the context of the antagonisms between women’s liberation and sexual liberation. In tracing this ethical history I hope to contribute to an untangling of these unwieldy political notions in order to better confront the crystallized divisions in progressive sexual politics that contextualize the underlying disputes that frame the ‘the rough sex defence’. Doing so is necessary if we are to manage a more open, lucid conversation about what the role of the law is, or should be, in dealing with sex and violence in twenty-first century Britain.