What about MMA, or boxing, where the object is to cause unconciousness?
Well of course the intent was not to choke her unconscious. The intent was to stop just short of that, with the goal of enhancing pleasure. So they screwed up and she blacked out. If they’d screwed up and been unlucky, she might have died, it’s true. Slip and fall on your ass and get unlucky playing hockey and someone might die too. (Cite)
So yeah, from a public policy standpoint, erotic asphyxiation is just about like playing hockey.
Actually, hockey, football, and boxing leave a large percentage of its participants with lifelong disabilities, far more in absolute numbers than sexual choking.
Which is why I have consistently suggested a movement to an affirmative consent standard. But that scares people because of the idea that one should ask someone before fucking them if they actually want to be fucked.
The bottom line is we treat sex differently to other things. In certain other areas, we require affirmative consent to permit actions that would otherwise be assault - contact sports, surgery etc.
But that isn’t the legal case with sex. I’d support a move to an affirmative consent standard in sex generally. But we aren’t there yet. For some reason people push back at treating sex like boxing or surgery - until it comes to a situation where they see certain benefits. So pick one or the other.
So then, to be clear you think that WhyNot is mentally ill?:dubious:
Sorry, but you’re no different than people who think that men who enjoy sucking on penises or enjoy having them shoved in their rectums are mentally ill.
In fact, until a few decades ago, the American Psychiatric Association IIRC, classified being gay as a mental illness.
Anyway, this isn’t Iran, you’re not a Marjah, and you don’t get to tell adults who they can have sexual relations with and how they may engage in it.
Yes, getting beaten up or choked isn’t my cup of tea, but many people, both men and women, really enjoy it.
Intense physical exercise is also extremely painful, but I’m sure you don’t believe that people who run in marathons are mentally ill and that the police should step in to prevent them from running in them.
I don’t understand what absence of non-consent means. Shouldn’t it be presence of non-consent or absence of affirmative consent?
To me absence of non-consent means the woman never said no and never said to stop.
Whynot didn’t say she wants to be choked unconscious, dipshit.
You’re a fucking moron, dude. Choking a person into unconsciousness is not a sexual act. If you think it is, then you’re a sick fuck I want no association with.
What I meant was under (most) current rape laws, sex is considered consensual in the absence of an expression of non-consent.
That assumes an ability to deny consent.
Are you sure on that? I agree it isn’t what he has been convicted of and I’d agree it probably shouldn’t be illegal. But I don’t think you’re right that it isn’t illegal. It certainly would be in many US jurisdictions. Unlikely to be prosecuted, but it could be. Ask the people convicted of assault with a weapon for consensual spanking with wooden spoons (in NY state IIRC).
Which is what I’ve said about 8 times.
Does this means we aren’t friends? 
I just realized I posted this in the GD thread instead of the Pit thread. I thought I was in the Pit thread when I posted it. My apologies to Ibn and to the mods.
Yes, it’s a very unwise practice, but in this case we have her, still alive, quite happily saying that she consented in advance, not just a corpse and someone with an implausible excuse.
No-one gets a sexual thrill from hockey.
She originally lied by saying the post-unconsciousness sex was without consent, but later recanted and the legal judgement by the court says that she now claims she lied as part of a custody dispute. Sex during unconsciousness didn’t form part of her original complaint. “Having a dildo rammed up her ass” while unconscious isn’t something she originally complained about, she said the sex they had after she regained consciousness was against her will, an accusation which she later admitted was a lie.
And his criminal history, he’s a “career criminal”, doesn’t seem to include any actual acts of violence against the person. He has three domestic violence convictions, one for insults, one “trying” to hit someone, one for kicking a door in, according to the article.
I’m in the UK, so my knowledge is much greater about the law here, but in most places BDSM practices are legal as long as they are consensual, and the intent is not to harm (in the sense of permanent physical damage).
My understanding of the choking in this case is that unconsciousness was not the aim, sexual pleasure was, and that the unconsciousness was and accepted but unintended consequence.
The problem with a witness recanting a rape or abuse charge is that quite frequently, it actually WAS rape, but the victim has had pressure put on her to recant. Maybe this particular incident was not rape, but then again, maybe it was and she was just not going to bring charges until the custody issue was a problem. And maybe she’s afraid that his temper is going to flare again, even if he hasn’t been convicted of violence against a person doesn’t mean that he isn’t violent, just that he hasn’t been charged and convicted.
A lot of times, victims of domestic violence DON’T press charges when they should.
Probably nobody really knows what happened in that case, except for the couiple involved, and nobody CAN know, because we don’t have a time machine to go back and watch.
But he had been convicted of domestic violence, and twice against this particular woman, which rather implies that she wasn’t too terrified to go to the police and press charges against him, rather than implying that there may have been proper violence against her person which she was too intimidated to do anything about. And of course she accused him of rape too.
Anyway the recantation was accepted by the court and that’s what’s important for this judgment.