Non fatal strangulation and choking during sex

[ArabellaScott]

Grim read.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zwy0nex0o

That's why a safesignal can't mitigate strangulation's risks the way it can mitigate other risks. If you're holding your breath, you decide to breath again. If he's holding your nose, there's a build-up of "breath hunger" before you black out during which you can ring the bell.

Put it this way, people can swim under water holding their breath but they cannot swim with a noose tightened around their neck.

Strangulation cannot ever be safe, sane, and consensual. It can only ever be dangerous and abusive.

FWIW, the person earning the most from Onlyfans is the man who owns it. 500 mill in 21-22, and he didn't have to take his pants off once. None of the women working on the site earned anything even close to that.

Just in case anyone is still wondering who really benefits from telling women that selling sex to men is empowering.

This isn’t representative of how women are used in porn any more than the “happy hooker” trope is representative of prostitution.

More pertinently, how many men have been killed by their female partner during “rough sex”?

There's five words in your post that inadvertently give the game away for me.

given you relax first, ofc

When I was still regularly consenting to anal (before I got my feminist consciousness and learned to stand up for my own comfort, safety and pleasure), I found it almost impossible to achieve the necessary relaxation of the rectum/sphincter without some outside agent. Which was mostly poppers, E and/or booze, for me, this was decades ago and I'm sure drugs have changed now, MDMA and Ket have probably replaced E. (Ket especially because it would relax you and also enable you to dissociate.) Also of course lots and lots of anal lube. LOADS of anal lube! Then towels, warm water, vaseline, codeine in the days following for the pain...

The need for a whole variety of assisting substances to enable anal sex to be enjoyable is the norm not the exception.

I stopped doing it because I realised that if you can't enjoy or even physically manage an activity without a whole heap of assistive and dissociative agents, then it's probably not an activity that is in itself fun, pleasurable or safe.

calling it “breath play” is downplaying it. If you enjoy, all well and good, but own it and call it what it is.

As a society we seem to be infantilising acts that may (at best) have long lasting health implications of (at worst) may result in death.

This is all part of rape culture. Consent to sex is being given and then men push the boundaries once in the act, relying on the unfair power dynamic to stop protest so they can claim consent was given. Sneaky, vile, misogynistic behaviour reducing women to dehumanised playthings for them to live out their fantasies on. Yet another arena in which women need to be in fear of their lives.

Yup, in the same way that "safe, sane, and consensual" was replaced with "risk-aware consensual kink" to make it easier for abusers to use kink as a smokescreen for abuse.

SSC made it clear that safety was essential and gave women a route to refuse without being called prudes by saying "it's my neck on the line, literally, and I don't think it's safe". "Safe" encourages a line of reasoning that goes "is this safe?" ➡ "no" ➡ "can we make it safe?" ➡ "no" ➡ "then we are not doing it".

RACK took that word "safe" out and relegated risk to being something that you had to merely be "aware" of when consenting, rather than something that you could demand was removed or mitigated against. More importantly, RACK took away the idea that even if everyone consents, you shouldn't do something patently dangerous or batshit crazy. RACK took away the ability for peers to say "I don't care if she consents, you shouldn't do it because it could kill her". This wasn't an unintended consequence: the whole point of replacing SSC with RACK was so that abusive men could use "stop kink-shaming" to silence critics.

It's not a coincidence that this shift happened at about the same time as FetLife became the principal social media for kinksters. FetLife's role in normalising abuse could take up a whole thread.

This is horrific, especially as it sounds like a frequent occurrence.

Do you not realise you risk a tiny amount of brain damage every time he shuts off the supply of oxygen to your brain? The fact that you haven’t yet had a stroke doesn’t mean you haven’t suffered any harm. And these injuries, usually too small to notice at the time, can add up to increase your risk of dementia, and other conditions linked with brain damage, as you get older.

Nothing that constricts the neck or presses on veins, arteries, or the windpipe, can ever be safe.

The only time I ever orgasmed during a sexual encounter without having to do it myself was during a one night stand. He is the only man who has ever touched me the right way, despite many trying. So I disagree that casual sex is never good sex.

This was 25 years ago, before porn showing female degradation was mainstreamed. I wouldn't have casual sex now, simply because men are now not safe to be in bed with.

Oh LORD. That isn’t at all what polyamory is. Polygamy, sure. Polyamory is when they are both free to have relationships outside each other, provided a level of honesty and awareness is maintained. I’ve known a few polyamorous couples and the women have always done far better finding outside partners.

Why are you so adamant on removing women’s own choice and agency here? I find it incredibly insulting and infantilising. Women don’t like or want any of this, they are all being manipulated and controlled to act on men’s wills alone.

That more than anything says it was not right for you, or who you were doing it was not right for you. I have never needed poppers or other drugs to relax enough to enjoy a finger. I have also never suffered pain after, either.

Any kind of sexual activity that requires days worth of codeine afterwards is extremely alarming and concerning…

On paper, it's what you say. In practice, it's one or more of:

• men imposing a "one dick" rule, where he can shag all the women he likes and she can also shag all the women she likes, but heaven forbid that she shags a man.
• the man thinking he will get laid loads, finding that his gf gets laid more than he does, and him getting jealous, with the relationship ending or turning abusive.

Source: personal experience, observation of others.

This is also not what polyamory is. This is an abusive and controlling man using the guise of polyamory to be abusive and controlling.

Real polyamory does not have gender specific criteria like this. All the polyamorous women I know have multiple male partners and their male partners are, in fact, very good friends. There are no issues with them hanging out together at the same events.

It's fine you saying that. The problem is when women are called prudes for not wanting to engage in an activity that hurts them and being called prudes for not wanting to even try it.

Of course that is a problem, and I don’t agree with it. The other problem is women being called liars or that they are “brainwashed into forcing themselves to do things they cannot possibly enjoy just to appease men” simply for enjoying things they do, in fact, enjoy.

I'd be willing to bet rather a lot of money that mere digital penetration is not what most men have in mind when they request anal.

Any situation with multiple partners is "real" polyamory. The definition of polyamory doesn't state "excluding relationship models that MissDoubleU doesn't like".

I’m not talking about men requesting anal. In fact I have repeatedly removed men from the equation entirely. I’m talking about women getting pleasure from it and that being absolutely okay. Women explore these things alone, with other women, or yes - often men too. What men want or why they want it is irrelevant. Women should be allowed to explore these things without being told they are only doing so to appease these male imposed desires.

Women and girls should also have all the confidence and empowerment to say it is not for them. Obviously. But repeatedly on this thread it has been called “for men only” and that no woman would willingly do this for herself. Sorry love, but a lot of women use anal beads or plugs while masturbating completely alone.

Polyamory is a magnet for abusive and toxic men. We’re talking about isolating you from friend groups if you don’t do what they want, huge age gap relationships, unicorn hunting, lying, pressuring you into doing things you don’t want to do, metas trying to remove you from the picture out of jealousy, etc… If you want a polycule, it’s likely going to be taken from you if you break up with anyone from it. Your support group, entirely gone overnight.

People into polyamory have this very stressful lifestyle all based around using people, swinging from one branch to the next for the thrill of it. Thrill-seekers are people who have never touched the ground long enough to appreciate the simple peace of stability. They don't form those secure relationships. They want a thin grasp on several at once instead of a firm grasp on one, because thin grasps and superficiality is all they've ever known.

I'd also add it's almost impossible to do 'ethically' and have room in your life for things such as gainful employment, non-sexual friendships, exercise, hobbies, family, travel etc etc etc

People I know who are still into it have to devote their whole life to it and are constantly in some horrible emotional drama.

Or they trye to remove the emotions from it. And then what are they left with? Emotionally barren, addictive thrill seeking.

Not good, not good, not good.

Nah, informed consent of the other relationships is literally in the dictionary definition.

The two stances can't be considered comparable because men have structural power and women don't.

It's not porn culture, acting to benefit men, that tells women that they should question why they wish to engage in dangerous sex acts. It is women's rights activists, who are aware that consent can be manufactured, asking that. The men saying "you should try it" want to use the woman's body as an orgasm aid whereas women's rights activists want women to be safe.

By contrast, porn culture relies upon manifactured consent, aka "choosy-choice", to even exist.

Because consent can be manufactured, women can "consent" to a one-dick rule.

The man becoming jealous because he has less sex than his gf doesn't mean that he didn't give informed consent.

But they’re “consenting” to abuse.

When I worked with victims of domestic violence, there were a few who confided that part of them enjoyed the dynamic of the relationship. They enjoyed the “passion” the extreme terror followed by the extreme atonement. They enjoyed the excitement. They enjoyed the tenderness after the violence. They thought they would be bored in a relationship without it.

These women still could not consent to being violently assaulted. We still provided them with support to see that their perceived consent posed a real risk to their life.

I feel the exact same way about strangulation during sex. Just because some women claim to enjoy it, it should not be normalised or accepted as a part of a healthy relationship.You can’t consent to abuse.