4 ms·

Ok, so it can cause some brain damage. That's not good. But does it cause more damage than smoking? Alcohol? Cannabis in young people? We give people the righ

Ok, so it can cause some brain damage. That's not good. But does it cause more damage than smoking? Alcohol? Cannabis in young people? We give people the right to exercise their own judgement in getting hurt for pleasure on those, so if the argument is that this one is not OK it better be an order of magnitude worse than the recreational drugs. (I guess there's a distinction between the act and a recording of it, but last I checked smoking and alcohol are still legal in media for adults.) Ed.: the act is apparently illegal too, "Due to these dangers, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021". And it's really... odd... how the entire article is written as if the practice is solely performed by men on women. (Even though that might be the prevailing pattern, this kind of 'condensing down' is ultimately sexist erasure.)

GaryBluto 1y ago
We even count domestic violence against men under the umbrella of "violence against women and girls" - men don't matter here. It's unsurprising. GB has an unholy trinity of excuses for authoritarian laws: 1. "Think of the women and girls!" 2. "Think of the children!" 3. "This is a sacrifice we have to make to stop terrorism!" (which has taken a backseat to the first two)
- goobatrooba 1y ago
  Just reacting to your first sentence: as a man I find it understandable that the protective laws are focused on protecting women and children as it's a simple fact of our reality that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by men, and that women and children have less physical ability to defend themselves. Yes I also want men protected (though that means mostly again from other men) but as a societal aim the women and children part clearly is a higher priority and need.
- mock-possum 1y ago
  > We even count domestic violence against men under the umbrella of "violence against women and girls" How is that possible, they’re categorically opposite?
  - GaryBluto 1y ago
    https://news.sky.com/story/male-survivors-ignored-as-their-abuse-is-classified-as-violence-against-women-13286615 https://news.sky.com/story/male-survivors-ignored-as-their-a...
kelnos 1y ago
> Due to these dangers, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Wow, this sounds like a great way to get screwed over by a former, disgruntled ex-partner. Partner wants you to choke them a bit during sex, you know (or don't know) it's illegal, but think "eh, it's fine, what we do in the privacy of our own bedroom is our business, and $PARTNER really likes it". Fast-forward to an acrimonious breakup, and your former partner is now accusing you of an illegal act. I 100% get that domestic violence is a real thing, and even aside from that, there are some things that we do try protect people from, even if they consent to it, but I feel like this crosses the line.
- somedude895 1y ago
  You can already screw over former partners by simply saying that some sex was non-consensual.
  - tavavex 1y ago
    Can you? How would that work in practice? Isn't this just "he said/she said" with no way to resolve it, unless you're filming yourself every time?
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Can you? How would that work in practice? Isn't this just "he said/she said" with no way to resolve it Conflicting claims or testimony are common in the legal system, and we do in fact have means of resolving them. They are not, of course, 100% guaranteed to resolve things correctly, but it is simply false to say that there is no way to resolve it.
      - tavavex 1y ago
        You didn't really answer my question, you just assured me that your opinion is right. What could be used here, exactly? Like, suppose I accuse someone. They say they didn't do it. There's no physical evidence or witnesses at this point, so there's no way to deduce anything from impartial evidence. What can be done here to decide who's right with any worthwhile degree of confidence?
tavavex 1y ago
> And it's really... odd... how the entire article is written as if the practice is solely performed by men on women. (Even though that might be the prevailing pattern, this kind of 'condensing down' is ultimately sexist erasure.) You can't create a moral panic by having nuance. Why would they care about what people of what genders actually participate in kink play like this? No, if justifying policy is what's needed, instead you have to manufacture a pressing crisis. Just pretend that there's an epidemic of random heterosexual men watching too much porn and starting to nonconsensually strangle their partners out of nowhere. This article already endorses a lesser version of this story - that strangling porn only features women, that it's created solely for men, that its purpose is to degrade women in general through these acts (because surely no one ever is actually into choking, am I right?), and that men are rapidly becoming more misogynistic en masse because of it. Now that slots right in alongside all the societal fears and beliefs we have about protecting women. Every encroachment on NSFW content to come will keep banging the same drums of protecting a group that's seen as needing protection or is marginalized (excluding marginalized groups that the government hates, of course). And most people will probably believe it.
- erdlet 1y ago
  The simplification in the article is because it is mostly men doing this to mostly women. In the worst outcome, there have been manslaughter charges raised against men who choked their partners to death, where "strangulation kink" has been used in the defence of these men. So it is clearly a problem.
  - kyboren 1y ago
    You created an account about half an hour ago and have submitted nearly 1/6 of the comments on this post. You're more or less uncritically parroting the talking points of the special interest groups behind this while dismissing real concerns about liberty, censorship, and sexism. Why are you so invested in this issue? Why did you create a throwaway account just to post on this topic? What relationship do you have to politicians, civil servants, and NGOs who have been involved in this campaign?
  - tavavex 1y ago
adrian_b 1y ago
The intention behind "non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021" might be good, but I do not see how this can be implemented in practice, because domestic abuse seldom has witnesses, and as noted in TFA "non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation" frequently leave no marks on the victim, so it is impossible to prove that they have occurred. I assume that in this legal text "suffocation" means the prevention of respiration by other means than compressing the throat, but it should be noted that this is a modern meaning of the word "suffocation". To "strangle" comes from Ancient Greek, through its borrowing in Latin, while to "suffocate" is the native Latin synonym of "strangle", so originally the two words were completely synonymous. ("suffocate" is derived from "sub", i.e. under, and "fauces", i.e. throat)
- anakaine 1y ago
  The entire writing of the legislation as is also ignores the fact that light choking play is exceedingly common in the bedroom and can add significantly to both partners pleasure. We are not talking about full oxygen deprivation, but a single hand on the throat with pressure on the sides for 5 seconds at a time can be particularly erotic. Similarly, if you read almost any smut book at the moment, a genre which has been going through an incredible renaissance and driving massive sales, you will find that the concept of light choking is prevalent throughout. The UK parliament have really invaded the bedroom on this one.
jpfromlondon 1y ago
>Ok, so it can cause some brain damage. Can't believe they'd turn down the opportunity to get more voters.

GaryBluto 1y ago

We even count domestic violence against men under the umbrella of "violence against women and girls" - men don't matter here. It's unsurprising. GB has an unholy trinity of excuses for authoritarian laws: 1. "Think of the women and girls!" 2. "Think of the children!" 3. "This is a sacrifice we have to make to stop terrorism!" (which has taken a backseat to the first two)

goobatrooba 1y ago
Just reacting to your first sentence: as a man I find it understandable that the protective laws are focused on protecting women and children as it's a simple fact of our reality that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by men, and that women and children have less physical ability to defend themselves. Yes I also want men protected (though that means mostly again from other men) but as a societal aim the women and children part clearly is a higher priority and need.
mock-possum 1y ago
> We even count domestic violence against men under the umbrella of "violence against women and girls" How is that possible, they’re categorically opposite?
- GaryBluto 1y ago
  https://news.sky.com/story/male-survivors-ignored-as-their-abuse-is-classified-as-violence-against-women-13286615 https://news.sky.com/story/male-survivors-ignored-as-their-a...

kelnos 1y ago

> Due to these dangers, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Wow, this sounds like a great way to get screwed over by a former, disgruntled ex-partner. Partner wants you to choke them a bit during sex, you know (or don't know) it's illegal, but think "eh, it's fine, what we do in the privacy of our own bedroom is our business, and $PARTNER really likes it". Fast-forward to an acrimonious breakup, and your former partner is now accusing you of an illegal act. I 100% get that domestic violence is a real thing, and even aside from that, there are some things that we do try protect people from, even if they consent to it, but I feel like this crosses the line.

somedude895 1y ago
You can already screw over former partners by simply saying that some sex was non-consensual.
- tavavex 1y ago
  Can you? How would that work in practice? Isn't this just "he said/she said" with no way to resolve it, unless you're filming yourself every time?
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Can you? How would that work in practice? Isn't this just "he said/she said" with no way to resolve it Conflicting claims or testimony are common in the legal system, and we do in fact have means of resolving them. They are not, of course, 100% guaranteed to resolve things correctly, but it is simply false to say that there is no way to resolve it.
    - tavavex 1y ago
      You didn't really answer my question, you just assured me that your opinion is right. What could be used here, exactly? Like, suppose I accuse someone. They say they didn't do it. There's no physical evidence or witnesses at this point, so there's no way to deduce anything from impartial evidence. What can be done here to decide who's right with any worthwhile degree of confidence?

tavavex 1y ago

> And it's really... odd... how the entire article is written as if the practice is solely performed by men on women. (Even though that might be the prevailing pattern, this kind of 'condensing down' is ultimately sexist erasure.) You can't create a moral panic by having nuance. Why would they care about what people of what genders actually participate in kink play like this? No, if justifying policy is what's needed, instead you have to manufacture a pressing crisis. Just pretend that there's an epidemic of random heterosexual men watching too much porn and starting to nonconsensually strangle their partners out of nowhere. This article already endorses a lesser version of this story - that strangling porn only features women, that it's created solely for men, that its purpose is to degrade women in general through these acts (because surely no one ever is actually into choking, am I right?), and that men are rapidly becoming more misogynistic en masse because of it. Now that slots right in alongside all the societal fears and beliefs we have about protecting women. Every encroachment on NSFW content to come will keep banging the same drums of protecting a group that's seen as needing protection or is marginalized (excluding marginalized groups that the government hates, of course). And most people will probably believe it.

erdlet 1y ago
The simplification in the article is because it is mostly men doing this to mostly women. In the worst outcome, there have been manslaughter charges raised against men who choked their partners to death, where "strangulation kink" has been used in the defence of these men. So it is clearly a problem.
- kyboren 1y ago
  You created an account about half an hour ago and have submitted nearly 1/6 of the comments on this post. You're more or less uncritically parroting the talking points of the special interest groups behind this while dismissing real concerns about liberty, censorship, and sexism. Why are you so invested in this issue? Why did you create a throwaway account just to post on this topic? What relationship do you have to politicians, civil servants, and NGOs who have been involved in this campaign?
- tavavex 1y ago

adrian_b 1y ago

The intention behind "non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021" might be good, but I do not see how this can be implemented in practice, because domestic abuse seldom has witnesses, and as noted in TFA "non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation" frequently leave no marks on the victim, so it is impossible to prove that they have occurred. I assume that in this legal text "suffocation" means the prevention of respiration by other means than compressing the throat, but it should be noted that this is a modern meaning of the word "suffocation". To "strangle" comes from Ancient Greek, through its borrowing in Latin, while to "suffocate" is the native Latin synonym of "strangle", so originally the two words were completely synonymous. ("suffocate" is derived from "sub", i.e. under, and "fauces", i.e. throat)

anakaine 1y ago
The entire writing of the legislation as is also ignores the fact that light choking play is exceedingly common in the bedroom and can add significantly to both partners pleasure. We are not talking about full oxygen deprivation, but a single hand on the throat with pressure on the sides for 5 seconds at a time can be particularly erotic. Similarly, if you read almost any smut book at the moment, a genre which has been going through an incredible renaissance and driving massive sales, you will find that the concept of light choking is prevalent throughout. The UK parliament have really invaded the bedroom on this one.

jpfromlondon 1y ago

>Ok, so it can cause some brain damage. Can't believe they'd turn down the opportunity to get more voters.