To think women who enjoy choking during sex should know the risks?

[ImTheGoat]

In a different thread the topic of choking during sex has come up repeatedly. Some women say they enjoy it and it's none of anyone else's business. Others have said it gives abusive men an excuse to hide behind if and when they murder their partners- see here for some tragic stories but bear in mind they're upsetting https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/

My own point of view is that choking during sex is dangerous. Study after study have pointed out that it can cause death or lead to brain damage. It's easy to find this information online but here's an article about it https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-sexual-asphyxiation I do think people should be able to do what they want sexually if it isn't hurting anyone. But I also think people should be aware of the risks. In the other thread people who raised any objection to choking during sex were called "pearl clutchers" or "sex police." AIBU to think no, knock yourself out if that's what you want to do but at least acknowledge it isn't a safe sexual activity?

If it’s obvious - as it usually will be - in cases of death by strangulation that there was lack of consent, the defendant’s argument will fail.

No, it's perfectly possible for it not to be clear either way, or for the one person who could have refuted the "sex game gone wrong" claim to be conveniently dead.

Apologies meant to quote @WhatsTheUseOfWorrying

This!

If you enjoy breath restriction, do it a different way. Sex is not worth risking stroke for.

People are being told to question where their desires come from and what has shaped them. They are being reminded that normalising harmful acts in the bedroom causes harm outside of their bedroom to other people.

That's not the same as being told they are wrong.

So you do think that a defendant shouldn’t be able to give their side of the story?

It’s not a ‘defence’ to give evidence. That’s common sense here or in court.

As far as I know, ‘rough sex defences’ (so-called: they’re not defences) almost always fail anyway.

My concern isn’t with the rights of nasty men, it’s with legal mythology.

And you are totally missing the point, which is that if he hadn't put his hands around her neck in the first place, she wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't be in court.

No matter what the intent is, choking kills and causes strokes and no man with any decency would do it and he would be horrified if his gf or wife asked him to.

Once more for the slow readers here: the problem is what men do and are willing to do, not what women are agreeing to.

the problem is what men do and are willing to do, not what women are agreeing to.

Literally this.

I have committed the absolute Mumsnet sin of not reading all the responses, but that is because I have looked at the vote and it is 89% YANBU.

I suspect the people on the thread saying “Yay! Love to be degraded and have my partner want to kill me during sex, if you don’t, you’re a pearl clutching cat bottom mouth bore who will never get a man!” - are either:

1. girls in their twenties who still haven’t learned what they need in bed so go along with what their partner asks;
2. older, experienced women who enjoy this - but wouldn’t let just anyone do it, there would be agreed rules so no risk (I am thinking this is a small proportion but hey, if it floats your boat);
3. those new sort of women (who retain male genitalia) who may have a particular agenda here.

Strangely enough, being choked was never something I had to deal with, and God help the poor girls of today that do. Strange how these “exciting” “edgy” and “new” practices don’t seem to involve anything to do with actual pleasure for the woman. Where are the clips on giving your female partner super skilled oral sex? Or wonderful new finger techniques to make your partner come in a whole new way? The whole nonsense is made by pathetic men who are dreadful in bed, to make sure another generation of milksop “men” can be bad in bed as well.

And you are totally missing the point, which is that if he hadn't put his hands around her neck in the first place, she wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't be in court.

Exactly.

How can anyone argue with the idea that people should know the risks before engaging in unsafe sexual practices? Or anything at all that carries significant risk of harm?

Of course no one would encourage that, but also would not encourage climbing mountains, riding motorcycles, skydiving etc or any risky activity, but adults will take their decisions and their own risks...

the problem is what men do and are willing to do, not what women are agreeing to.

Think this bears repeating a few more times. The healthy response of a decent man, on finding that doing something could result in the death of his partner, is to say “no thanks, it’s not worth risking that, it’s absolutely unconscionable”. Not “ok, just let me know if you feel yourself losing consciousness and hopefully I can stop in time”.

W

I don't think we should assume all young people are so naive as to think this is normal. Obviously some will experiment but l do think to make the assumption that young men and women think anal and choking and spitting is normal part of sex undermines their intelligence. It's like saying all young men who play computer games involving shooting will become gun criminals.
I personally couldn't think of anything worse, my boundaries are extremely high when it comes to personal safety, but if others are happy to engage so be it.

My comments are about how the law is, not what anyone thinks it should be.

For the really slow of thought and reading, that’s not how the law works, nor should it ever. If you don’t have intent to kill (or cause serious injury) you’re not a murderer. Though you may well, and almost certainly in a sex case will be, guilty of manslaughter.

My comments reflect the fact that no court verdict, no matter the charge, can bring a woman back from the dead.

A drink-driving conviction isn't a murder conviction either, yet we still treat drunk drivers with the utter contempt that they deserve. Men who choke women deserve the same contempt as drunk drivers.

The societal messaging needs to be one of "only losers choke women, it's pathetic and dangerous", not "hey, it's fine".

We can discuss issues without calling people slow readers and slow of thought. If you have explained something and people are still not getting it, move on.

They are quite clearly refusing to get it. This is a refusal to understand, not a failure to understand.

absolutely no vanilla shaming from me.. i get as much enjoyment out of vanilla sex as i do sex when there is kink involved.

I just really wish people would stop asserting that women don't enjoy it.. some of us do.

As to the why, i could explain why i enjoy it having examined it thoroughly, but my reasons are not going to be the same as another persons.

All our likes/dislikes are coloured by our life experiences and personal preferences.

I will say i have never slept with anyone without having a full and frank discussion on turn on's, turn off's, hard no's and boundaries.. and i think anyone who does jump into bed with someone they haven't spent time getting to know, and learning what they like/dislike is an idiot.

My comments are about how the law is, not what anyone thinks it should be.

Then you're at cross purposes with what the people disagreeing with you are saying. I believe strangulation should be criminalised in and of itself. Men should not be able to kill women by an act of violence and claim that it was just a bit of consensual fun that went wrong. And men have walked free from court on that claim, or got absolutely risible sentences.

@YuleDragon

This kind of off topic, but I think this is interesting that you say:
"I will say i have never slept with anyone without having a full and frank discussion on turn on's, turn off's, hard no's and boundaries.. and i think anyone who does jump into bed with someone they haven't spent time getting to know, and learning what they like/dislike is an idiot."

I came of age at a time when jumping into bed with strangers was a huge amount of fun and carried very little risk if you used protection. Sex wasn't something you needed to negotiate the rules for -- being spontaneous was the thrill. This might be your ideal, but it's not everyone's and it shouldn't mean you're an idiot, unless you view every partner as a potential abuser?

@Ereshkigalangcleg That should no longer be possible under the Domestic Abuse Act.

I would say any injury inflicted via violent sex should be subject to assault charges and criminalised - and men that engage in acts where this is a possible result should know the risk of that. (And women where they inflict an injury on their partner - however as a % I expect that is vanishingly small)

I'm not sure that "sex games" are counted as domestic abuse, so are unlikely to be covered under the Act absent other elements of domestic abuse.

I agree.