UK Man convicted of assault after he bites woman during rough sex

NachoBusiness

Really long article but here's the guts of it:

Woman was bitten by man during rough sex session

A MAN convicted of a physical assault after he bit a woman on the thigh during a rough sex session said he was only trying to turn her on.

Samuel John Price denied a common assault charge ,claiming it was with consent and he said he believed she was enjoying it.

But Price, 24, was convicted of assault and placed on a 12-month community order, under which he must carry out 40 hours unpaid work.

Flintshire Magistrates Court at Mold heard how they had known each other for 18 months, became closer and went out on three dates and there was then a 12 month on-off relationship during which they were intimate.

Prosecutor Rhian Jackson said they got on well and he was never violent towards her. But the relationship came to an end when he broke his leg, although they kept in touch by text message.

On Valentine’s Day they texted each other on a number of occasions – he was at a wedding and she was out with friends in Chester, and she then accepted his invitation to go around late at night because she missed the relationship they had.

When she arrived he kissed her and said he missed her.

She realised he was drunk and kept laughing for no reason and she described herself as tipsy.

They went to the bedroom and she was happy for sexual activity to happen and lay down on the bed.

They kissed on the bed, took their clothes off and the prosecutor said the complainant consented to what occurred.

He started to bite her neck which hurt her and she told him to stop – but he continued to bite her.

“It carried on for a long time and she did not recall how many times he bit her,” Mrs Jackson said.

He started to pull her hair, she believed he knew he was hurting her, and she became tearful, fearing she would be injured.

She accepted that she could have left at any time but was scared that, if she did, he might have got angry.

It was then alleged that he took hold of her by the neck and was choking her.

She could not get him off her, said no and began to cough, and he let her go – but laughed as if it was a joke.

The prosecutor said the woman now wanted to go to sleep but he continued pulling her hair and biting her, but there was no blood.

Upset, she went into the bathroom and cried, he said he did not mean to hurt her and they hugged.

He suggested they go back to bed to go to sleep but once in bed he bit her to the leg and bottom, leaving a mark.

To stop him she wrapped herself in the bed cover and he started to watch a film on his laptop.

When he slept she called a taxi at 4.15 am and left 15 minutes later.

She was upset at what had happened and was crying and reported the matter to the police.

Damian Sabino, defending, said both accepted their relationship was based on sex.

He bit her and pulled her hair, but she could have left at any time.

“Rough and playful sex was part of their relationship,” said Mr Sabino.

My thoughts on this would be that of course people shouldn't be able to just do whatever they like to another person under the banner of 'rough sex'. You genuinely someone for your own sexual gratification, be you man or woman, then you should pay the price for that. However, this girl had had rough sex with the chap many times before. They both knew what turned each other on and so surely she assume some of the responsibility here herself, especially taking in account the following quote:

‘I trusted someone I should not have trusted. He was very drunk, blind drunk. He completely overstepped the mark. I was shocked,’ she said.
Source.

So she went to bed with someone who she knew was "very drunk, blind drunk" and who she had had rough sex with before and yet is treated as if she is a helpless victim in all this when things ultimately went a little further than she had anticipated.

I mean, if I go to bed with a "blind drunk" woman tonight, who I know likes to engage in rough sex and she bites me, isn't that somewhat my fault? Shouldn't I be told to get up the yard if I then saunter into the Gardai at 5am with a bruise on my arse? I think so at least.

What says you..

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

What says you..

If you ask her to stop, and she doesn't, then what say you?

Ficheall

NachoBusiness wrote:

So she went to bed with someone who she knew was "very drunk, blind drunk" and who she had had rough sex with before and yet is treated as if she is a helpless victim in all this when things ultimately went a little further than she had anticipated.

I mean, if I go to bed with a "blind drunk" woman tonight, who I know likes to engage in rough sex and she bites me, isn't that somewhat my fault?

I think that's where you've raped her and deserve a lot worse, you scumbag, etc.

Gumbi

Ficheall wrote: »

I think that's where you've raped her and deserve a lot worse, you scumbag, etc.

Excuse me? I didn't realise it's automatically rape if a woman is drunk. Both of them could be drunk, does that make it rape?

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you ask her to stop, and she doesn't, then what say you?

Well, if I ask her to stop biting my neck and she continues to, I should go home. If I don't and instead choose to get back into bed with the "blind drunk" women and she now bites my thigh and bum instead, then I of course should have to take responsibility for that happening to me. I would feel it ludicrous to think that the DPP should get involved.

NachoBusiness

NachoBusiness wrote: »

However, this girl had had rough sex with the chap many times before. They both knew what turned each other on and so surely she assume some of the responsibility here herself, especially taking in account the following quote...
...she had had rough sex with before and yet is treated as if she is a helpless victim...
...
...I mean, if I go to bed with a "blind drunk" woman tonight, who I know likes to engage in rough sex...

Where does it say they had rough sex before?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I read that they had sex before, they were intimate over a period of a year...but can't see where it was accepted that they engaged in violence or sado-masochism or "rough sex" in that time.

Incidentally OP, here is the case about rough sex and consent to assault...where the parties were convicted even though they all accepted there was consent sought and provided...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown

Ficheall

Gumbi wrote: »

Excuse me? I didn't realise it's automatically rape if a woman is drunk. Both of them could be drunk, does that make it rape?

Isn't it rape if she's too drunk to consent? I thought that was the du jour view on the matter..

Mr. Incognito

EDIT- didnt read the whole article

He started to bite her neck which hurt her and she told him to stop – but he continued to bite her.

“It carried on for a long time and she did not recall how many times he bit her,” Mrs Jackson said.

He started to pull her hair, she believed he knew he was hurting her, and she became tearful, fearing she would be injured.

She accepted that she could have left at any time but was scared that, if she did, he might have got angry.

It was then alleged that he took hold of her by the neck and was choking her.

She could not get him off her, said no and began to cough, and he let her go – but laughed as if it was a joke.

The prosecutor said the woman now wanted to go to sleep but he continued pulling her hair and biting her, but there was no blood.

That's a LOT more than a bite- Misleading headline

smash

See what happens when 50 shades becomes a reality! :pac:

NachoBusiness

Deleted User wrote: »

Where does it say they had rough sex before?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I read that they had sex before, they were intimate over a period of a year...but can't see where it was accepted that they engaged in violence or sado-masochism or "rough sex" in that time.

Here:

“Rough and playful sex was part of their relationship,” said Mr Sabino.

NachoBusiness

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Here:

Um...you do know Mr. Sabino was acting for the defence?

There is no suggestion whatsoever that this was accepted by the victim, or most importantly by the Court. The verdict would suggest it wasn't. But even if it was, it isn't a defence anyway, as the Brown case (a far more objectionable decision) shows.

NachoBusiness

Deleted User wrote: »

Um...you do know Mr. Sabino was acting for the defence?

There is no suggestion whatsoever that this was accepted by the victim, or most importantly by the Court. The verdict would suggest it wasn't. But even if it was, it isn't a defence anyway, as the Brown case (a far more objectionable decision) shows.

I have read most of articles on it online and don't see the prosecution denying that suggestion. In the following article it also maintains:

Both of them had bite marks on their bodies, and even thought hers were worse, there was no blood and none needed treatment.

whiteramekin

surely if she knew he was blind drunk she raped him?

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Well, if I ask her to stop biting my neck and she continues to, I should go home. If I don't and instead choose to get back into bed with the "blind drunk" women and she now bites my thigh and bum instead, then I of course should have to take responsibility for that happening to me. I would feel it ludicrous to think that the DPP should get involved.

The thing is though, that you wouldn't have done anything you could be criminalised for, whereas she would have done, so even though you might choose not to make a complaint, that doesn't negate the fact that you could have made a complaint. Different standards and different circumstances and all that craic.

Like I'd be pretty much the same as yourself, but it'd take a special sort to point out to someone after they've been sexually assaulted that they should bear any responsibility for what happened to them.

I'm reminded of an incident which happened to me a number of years ago now, worked with a guy who was gay, was friends with him for about two years, went up to have my hip done in the Cappagh and he said I could stay with him when I came out (of the hospital!). Long story short, he tried it on, unsuccessfully, and I hobbled out of the gaff, before I realised I hadn't a clue where I was (no maps on phones back then and this was about 3 in the morning, and I'd made a quick exit). I had two choices - either find my way back into the city (with the potential for something else to happen), or head back into his gaff and wait until daylight to get the hell out of there.

I chose not to make a complaint to Gardai then either, but not everyone would have thought to let him get away with it because it would have been his word against mine.

smash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Like I'd be pretty much the same as yourself, but it'd take a special sort to point out to someone after they've been sexually assaulted that they should bear any responsibility for what happened to them.

Is a non-consensual act of aggression or violence, which takes place during a consensual act of sex, still considered sexual assault? Or just assault?

Gongoozler

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm reminded of an incident which happened to me a number of years ago now, worked with a guy who was gay, was friends with him for about two years, went up to have my hip done in the Cappagh and he said I could stay with him when I came out (of the hospital!). Long story short, he tried it on, unsuccessfully, and I hobbled out of the gaff, before I realised I hadn't a clue where I was (no maps on phones back then and this was about 3 in the morning, and I'd made a quick exit). I had two choices - either find my way back into the city (with the potential for something else to happen), or head back into his gaff and wait until daylight to get the hell out of there.

I chose not to make a complaint to Gardai then either, but not everyone would have thought to let him get away with it because it would have been his word against mine.

huh?

One eyed Jack

smash wrote: »

Is a non-consensual act of aggression or violence, which takes place during a consensual act of sex, still considered sexual assault? Or just assault?

Me personally? Once a person says "stop", that's it, end of.

In another thread here recently someone commented that they couldn't get the idea of a safe word, and you weren't that far off the mark with your 50 shades comment (yep, I've recently heard of teenagers drawing up 'contracts', depressing, but I digress). That's why the idea of safe words is handy, because when someone says stop, the other person needs to stop. After that, they could be subject to a complaint being made against them, either for assault or sexual assault, depends on what took place I would say.

dont bother

Gongoozler wrote: »

huh?

i second that...

one eyd jack... why on earth would you have a complaint to make if someone just "tried it on"... hardly that rapey is it?

anyway, back on topic ---- the woman is to blame for this whole mess.

Muckracker

Lads, always get her to sign your official consent form before having sex.

NachoBusiness

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I have read most of articles on it online and don't see the prosecution denying that suggestion.

Ah now, you know how weak that is. Just because the reports you read from the journo(s) who may or may not have been there refer to one line raised by the defence in the course of the case and there is no report in the media of the prosecution specifically addressing that point is a million miles away from suggesting that it was accepted. Court reports in the media gloss over vast chunks of the case all the time. It is not meant to be a transcript.

NachoBusiness

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah now, you know how weak that is. Just because the reports you read from the journo(s) who may or may not have been there refer to one line raised by the defence in the course of the case and there is no report in the media of the prosecution specifically addressing that point is a million miles away from suggesting that it was accepted. Court reports in the media gloss over vast chunks of the case all the time. It is not meant to be a transcript.

I don't accept that at all as by and large whenever a point is raised in court case and it is printed in an article after sentencing, if that point has been disputed, they will say as much.

However, it's not of any great relevance to my contention in any case, as I feel even if they only ever had "normal" sex, she shouldn't have been getting back into bed a with a "blind drunk" man that she claims has just bite her when she didn't want to be bitten and choked when she didn't want to be chocked. Once bitten and all that..

That's not to say the guy should have carte blanche to then do what he likes, but a bite on the thigh and arse is not sufficient to warrant the man being prosecuted, in my view at least.

NachoBusiness

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I don't accept that at all as by and large whenever a point is raised in court case and it is printed in an article after sentencing, if that point has been disputed, they will say as much.

Now I know you're taking the proverbial!

Or at least, I really hope so...

Believe me, the version that ends up in the media is usually a million miles from being anything like a transcript of the evidence or arguments. Reporters (and that is even if there is more than one, very often it's one churning out a few stories) will scribble down the odd line, if they think it's headline grabbing. And in fairness to them that's all they have to do, they do not purport to transcribe the case.

The simple fact is that your thread is based on the premise that they always had rough sex, as an implied consent, I pointed out that this is not suggested in the article. Now you are relying on something said by the defence and reported, where there is no report that it was rebutted, and the accuracy of the print media in capturing all the nuances of the case!

seamus

You know, it seems fair enough. It seems pretty clear that she asked him to stop and he didn't. And that he didn't realise there was anything wrong with his behaviour, at all. Until he found himself in court over it.

It's all well and good to say she should have removed herself from that situation, but she shouldn't have to. If I ask someone to stop hitting me, they should just stop. There isn't and should never be an obligation on me to remove myself from their company. The onus is on them to not injure me, especially if I have told them to stop.

I'm very glad though that this was a straightforward assault conviction. A sexual assault conviction would be massively overstating it, when it was clear that she was consenting to the sexual part of it, just not the biting bit.

smash

seamus wrote: »

It's all well and good to say she should have removed herself from that situation, but she shouldn't have to. If I ask someone to stop hitting me, they should just stop. There isn't and should never be an obligation on me to remove myself from their company. The onus is on them to not injure me, especially if I have told them to stop.

If a drunk person kept falling on you and you asked them to stop, then moved away, then went back to stand beside them and they fell on you again... can you really blame them 100%?

I'm not victim blaming. Just asking the question, given that you'd know what you're getting into by going there.

Gumbi

Ficheall wrote: »

Isn't it rape if she's too drunk to consent? I thought that was the du jour view on the matter..

What if he's too drunk to consent?