To think the carotid artery is not a porn prop.

[SmileEachDay]

This from Twitter today.

link to the Tweet

I suppose I’m curious about the attraction because it’s not something I’ve done and I would like to understand what draws people to it ( particularly given how dangerous it is). Perhaps that’s better done on a separate thread on the Sex board though.

See that,right there Divebar

I am the opposite so I cannot conceive of anyone being drawn to something that is always dangerous and kills either at the time or later, and leaves many permanently paralysed, unable to talk, feed themselves or toilet without help.

Help me to understand how this can be in any way appealing (along with all the other risky behaviours that do go wrong and cause harm).

I think there is something else going on when people seek out things ourely because they are different and risky. Like life isn't enough for them. Or a bent for danger.

Well yes I agree.... I don’t understand either. I don’t even like the slightest pressure on my throat. But since lots of people have posted and said they enjoy this I’m interested to understand... not because I want to do it but just because it doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t actually think the people who enjoy this are all damaged but I’m not sure if the pleasure is all physical or whether the danger plays at part. Anyway, I’m not trying to get embroiled into great big explanations here if it’s inappropriate I’m just trying to explain my position.

Divebar my understanding is that physiologically, as a PP has said, partial asphyxiation gives you a head rush, which allegedly heightens orgasm. If that's your bag, personally I'd go out and buy poppers in order to heighten orgasm as they're probably somewhat safer (less likely to die, though you might go blind).

And now the program to make porn more difficlt to access by the young is to be dropped:(

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50073102

That legislation and software implementation would have caused massive privacy issues, opening floodates for scammers and identity thieves from users having to upload their passports to the internet. Theres a regulatory board instead with powers to act against internet porn offenders who do not manage their internet content responsibly.

@AnyMinuteNow people do a tonne of dangerous stuff for fun and thrills. They'll jump off bridges into canyons, throw themselves out of planes, inject themselves with dubious chemicals or take pills, get into a ring and beat each other up for the hell of it, climb up to the top of Everest, perform ridiculous stunts just because. All of these things can, and do, result in death.

None of these interest me, and nor does asphyxiation (self-inflicted or otherwise). But it's very common for people to undertake potentially fatal activities for a rush. I don't get it either, but I understand that for lots of people near-death experiences are apparently fun. So I don't find it so outlandish that some people enjoy asphyxiation and I don't consider it particularly deviant given what we're like as a species!

Please don't make this something else.

Anyone can do want they want, what they can't do is what they want to others and kill them!!

Any person who chooses to enact a dangerous activity on their own has my full blessing. Why do I care if you want to do any of those dangerous things you list, extensively. I don't.

Noone has the right to perform something dangerous on someone else. Its a whole different world apart from what you're saying, obviously.

@AnyMinuteNow I'm not trying to make this anything. In your post of 15.37 you said "Help me understand how this can be in any way appealing", and all I'm doing is pointing out that it's not uncommon for people to enjoy weird and risky behaviours for a thrill. And whilst I personally can't give you particulars on what makes it appealing, it shouldn't be so surprising given what lots of people get up to.

I totally agree noone has the right to do something dangerous to anyone else. But if person A asks person B to strap them to their chest and jump out of a plane and plummet to earth at terminal velocity, or if person A asks person B to restrict their airflow, then that's a different scenario to person B just doing whatever the hell they like to A.

In neither situation is the intent to die. And in both situations I would argue for full prosecution if persons b's actions cause person A to come to harm. I am fully behind the We Can't Consent To This Campaign.

But I do think the pervasive narrative on this thread that women (and men) who seek out things like asphyxiation are "deviant" (which to me heavily implies "not as worthy as us / less respectable") or sick or perverts is incredibly unhelpful and flies in the face of the WCCTT campaign.

For centuries sexual violence against women has been minimised or gone unpunished because the women were prostitutes or "of a certain reputation", or didn't fit the "good person" mould.

Even today it's shocking how the murders of poor women of colour are reported compared to when a naice white woman goes missing.

So I wish we'd stop insulting women who enjoy this kind of thing on this thread, and saying they're deviant or sick in the head. All it does is feed into the overarching narrative within our society that their deaths weren't as bad and leaves them less likely to get justice. Which is the exact opposite of what the campaign wants to achieve.

Accepting that these women are normal and regular human beings worthy of just as much justice as everyone else is not the same as normalising these extreme practices, which is a different issue and not one I would argue for.

Has anyone used the word ‘deviant’? There are a few posters who have made it clear they think kink unhealthy but in the main no-one actually gives a shit. And those posters are as entitled to their beliefs as anyone else.

I‘ve no idea how you got from ‘deviant’ to less ‘worthy’ or ‘respectable’ and suggest that that inference lies strongly with you.

And how did you go from women ‘who enjoy this kind of thing’ to death? Are you suggesting some women enjoy death? Why are you swallowing the male script whole that women who die from ‘sex game gone wrong’ had any interest in kink at all?

@TatianaLarina yes they have. There has also been some other quite horrible language used, most of which has thankfully now been deleted.

I'm not suggesting anyone enjoys death - when I made my post indicating that lots of activities are dangerous and can result in death, I was responding to another poster who was asking why people would undertake such risky activities which can result in death or injury. You either haven't read my post properly or are being disingenuous - nowhere have I implied that "women enjoy death". People may enjoy dangerous activities that can result in death, as they carry high risk, but that is not the same as enjoying death.

And if you can't understand where I get "deviant" implying "less worthy" then I'd suggest reading some feminist and homosexual history. "Sexual deviants" have been persecuted throughout history and the narrative used to excuse the lack of action against their abusers. I feel that implying that women who may enjoy extreme sexual practices are perverted / sick / deviant plays into the narrative that they are somehow "less worthy" of justice and actively hinders what the WCCTT campaign is hoping to achieve.

I don't know if the women who died in the "sex game gone wrong" cases had any interest in kink - IMO whether they had any interest or not is irrelevant and the man should still be prosecuted to the full. Whether they had an interest in kink should not be used as any sort of mitigating or minimising circumstances.

I was merely drawing attention to the inarticulacy inherent in your statements: ‘I wish we'd stop insulting women who enjoy this kind of thing’... ‘All it does is feed into the overarching narrative within our society that their deaths weren’t as bad as ot

To what does ‘this kind of thing’ refer? General kink, strangulation, being killed? If they did actually enjoy choking and ended up dead (for which there has been no hard evidence in any of the cases I have seen) - that’s rather the problem with the practice, hence the concern of the thread. If women don’t enjoy being killed, some men enjoy killing them unfortunately.

But I have seen no evidence at all that the deaths of women in so-called choking cases are seen as ‘less bad’ than any other kind and find the claim bizarre. Within relationships - sexual violence (and death by sexual violence) is usually seen in the context of wider domestic abuse.

I will take your word for the use of the word ‘deviant’ in the thread. I would point out again that posters are entitled to their own opinion even if you don’t like it. Labelling a sexual practice ‘deviant’ that can lead to permanent damage and death is a perfectly valid use of the term.

Conflating the use of ‘deviant’ to condemn homosexuality historically, with the claim from some feminists that man-hater family-bustersp stereotypes also imply sexual deviancy (however they interpret the term), with a life threatening sexual practice strikes me as extremely confused.

Deviant - someone who deviates from the norm.

Deviant - someone who deviates from the norm

Define the Norm?

No

Was waiting for that and you jumped straight in.

It is not, however, in anyway normal to throttle people, and neither should it be promoted as such.

I dont get how there's any argument for the case for throttling people. Its certainly very dubious indeed when some argue for the case of throttling.