Scrutable

Tessa K wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:33 pm I wonder if there has really been an increase in this kind of violence or if it is just being reported more now because, you know, men, violence, not a new thing.

If Tom's theory on p.rn being a contributing factor is correct (and it sounds plausible) then given the easy availability of internet p.rn then there likely has been a real increase.

Hopefully, researchers will quantify the absolute scale of the problem in due course. Meanwhile, whether an increased top line figure relates to a real increase in prevalence or better reporting, it will serve to focus the attention needed to suppress this activity.

We talk a lot in places like this about absolute and relative risk. If it is true that this [phenomenon, reported or actual cases] has increased "ten fold" over some recent time period (Guardian, cited above), then this looks like an absolute minimum of ten cases of an allegedly pointless and avoidable death. I would argue that that is plenty of absolute risk to address for now.

GeenDienst wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:37 pm Hopefully, researchers will quantify the absolute scale of the problem in due course. Meanwhile, whether an increased top line figure relates to a real increase in prevalence or better reporting, it will serve to focus the attention needed to suppress this activity.

We talk a lot in places like this about absolute and relative risk. If it is true that this [phenomenon, reported or actual cases] has increased "ten fold" over some recent time period (Guardian, cited above), then this looks like an absolute minimum of ten cases of an allegedly pointless and avoidable death. I would argue that that is plenty of absolute risk to address for now.

The source of the ten fold increase figure themselves say that they are not clear if it is an increase in prevalence or an increase in reporting of the attempt to use rough sex as a defence. It is also not, according to their documentation, in ten fold increase in deaths, but deaths and serious injury (obviously still awful, but accuracy is worth noting).

As greyspoke I think indicates, even increasing attempted use of the defence does not necessarily mean there's an increase in deaths or serious injury. Hypothetically there could be a reduction in such deaths but an increase in the use of that defence, for example. Police records over time would probably be a better indicator of that

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:24 pm Also, choking is exceptionally dangerous. If as a result of pressure applied to the neck the blood flow to the brain is impaired then loss of consciousness occurs in 10 - 15 seconds; death within 3 - 5 minutes.

If the victim doesn’t die, they can still suffer brain damage.

Choking isn't exceptionally dangerous. It takes a long time to do serious damage to someone with even a properly applied strangle. It becomes obvious that someone is unconscious long before damage is done (freak injuries like arterial dissection excepted). Someone who holds onto a strangle long enough to cause someone brain damage is absolutely not doing it accidentally*, and that goes double for poorly applied non-technical chokes with the fingers. I suppose you could do someone a serious injury, or even kill them, by squeezing really hard for a short time, but again this isn't something someone does by accident. Of course, strangling people without consent is assault, and potentially extremely upsetting for the other person, and shouldn't be done, danger issues aside.

*Again excepting freak injuries, which in any case tend to manifest some time after the event.

secret squirrel wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:28 am

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:24 pm Also, choking is exceptionally dangerous. If as a result of pressure applied to the neck the blood flow to the brain is impaired then loss of consciousness occurs in 10 - 15 seconds; death within 3 - 5 minutes.

If the victim doesn’t die, they can still suffer brain damage.

Choking isn't exceptionally dangerous. It takes a long time to do serious damage to someone with even a properly applied strangle. It becomes obvious that someone is unconscious long before damage is done (freak injuries like arterial dissection excepted). Someone who holds onto a strangle long enough to cause someone brain damage is absolutely not doing it accidentally*, and that goes double for poorly applied non-technical chokes with the fingers. I suppose you could do someone a serious injury, or even kill them, by squeezing really hard for a short time, but again this isn't something someone does by accident. Of course, strangling people without consent is assault, and potentially extremely upsetting for the other person, and shouldn't be done, danger issues aside.

*Again excepting freak injuries, which in any case tend to manifest some time after the event.

The 'exceptionally' was in the context of the other acts described in the thread, or other BDSM activities. There's basically a zero risk of unconsciousness, brain damage or death from slapping, spitting or spitting, or from spanking, whipping etc.

Gagging does involve a risk of asphyxia, but that would take minutes, and the the victim wouldn't be unconscious after a few seconds.

secret squirrel wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:28 am Someone who holds onto a strangle long enough to cause someone brain damage is absolutely not doing it accidentally*, and that goes double for poorly applied non-technical chokes with the fingers. I suppose you could do someone a serious injury, or even kill them, by squeezing really hard for a short time, but again this isn't something someone does by accident. Of course, strangling people without consent is assault, and potentially extremely upsetting for the other person, and shouldn't be done, danger issues aside.

*Again excepting freak injuries, which in any case tend to manifest some time after the event.

There are though cases of apparent accidental death due to pressure applied to the neck x.

For example by chiropractors manipulating the neck.

You refer to manual pressure with the hands. What if some idiot decides it would be fun to tie something round someone else's neck?

Woodchopper wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:09 am There are though cases of apparent accidental death due to pressure applied to the neck x.

For example by chiropractors manipulating the neck.

You refer to manual pressure with the hands. What if some idiot decides it would be fun to tie something round someone else's neck?

Fair point in the previous post regarding 'exceptional'. As for chiropractic, well, those manipulations are quite dramatic aren't they? I mean, they're trying to click the neck. Not really the same as choking. Regarding choking with things other than hands, the main point that it takes a relatively long time to cause serious harm (barring freak injuries or large amounts of force) still stands. In any case, this is moving the goalposts a bit. We can all imagine potentially unsafe sexual practices thematically related to choking. I'm assuming the discussion here is about choking as it's normally understood.

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:24 pm Also, choking is exceptionally dangerous. If as a result of pressure applied to the neck the blood flow to the brain is impaired then loss of consciousness occurs in 10 - 15 seconds; death within 3 - 5 minutes.

If the victim doesn’t die, they can still suffer brain damage.

That's alarmist. I've been choked often during sex, it's usually finger pressure on the vessels in the neck and gives a warm fuzzy feeling.
Choking someone violently is difficult to do and requires strength and practice.

10-15 seconds of sexual choking will not lead to lack of consciousness.

...Your Honour.

I'm sure everyone can agree that choking is at least risky, and that the risk is affected by the skill and intents of the choker as well as chance.

Looking at a few of the cases (as summarised by We cannot consent to this the homicides are not all caused by choking, some are blunt force trauma and some are from sharp instruments. There is a high conviction rate; I would guess* that this is because an attempted 'rough sex' defence admits the act**, so manslaughter is the likely minimum conviction. It certainly reads as though some of the killings are obvious rape-murders and some seem fall into a pattern of long term abuse.

Superficially I would think that the convictions suggests that these specific activities' results obviously go beyond consent and this law goes back at least to the R v Donovan case.

I don't think the campaign's focus on R v Brown; most of the criminal law tutors I was taught by were of the opinion this was a bad, illiberal and homophobic decision.

Clearly better research needs to be done on the wider social stuff, as has been pointed out the survey does not tell us much.

*because I haven't looked for the court reports, so I'm reading a campaigning organisation's précise of media coverage
** At best a partial defence to murder in other words

plebian wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:04 am

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:24 pm Also, choking is exceptionally dangerous. If as a result of pressure applied to the neck the blood flow to the brain is impaired then loss of consciousness occurs in 10 - 15 seconds; death within 3 - 5 minutes.

If the victim doesn’t die, they can still suffer brain damage.

That's alarmist. I've been choked often during sex, it's usually finger pressure on the vessels in the neck and gives a warm fuzzy feeling.
Choking someone violently is difficult to do and requires strength and practice.

10-15 seconds of sexual choking will not lead to lack of consciousness.

As others have said, it's perhaps partly a training issue. It is possible to achieve the desired sensation by restricting blood flow to the head via a surprising gentle application of pressure in the right place.

However, if something is done on the spur of the moment, and especially without consent, the choker may well not actually know what they're doing. Applying pressure to the neck, or using some kind of ligature, can and has resulted in some pretty nasty accidents and deaths.

And of course, for the avoidance of doubt, even perfectly-executed, gentle pseudo-choking and the associated tingling feeling could be quite scary if you weren't expecting it and didn't want it to happen.

One dangerous thing about choking is that it is fairly easy to choke someone unconscious, even if actually killing them takes significant time. No problem if it's a genuine accident, because they'll just come round a short time later with no lasting effects. But, if someone strangles you unconscious 'by accident', then you're not in any position to resist if it turns out they actually intend to kill you. I think something like this happened in the New Zealand case recently. I didn't follow the trial very closely, but one detail I seem to remember was that there wasn't sign of a struggle. Consensual* choking during sex followed up by deliberate murder once the victim was helpless seems to fit the facts there.

*Or at least, not resisted.

Choking the chicken is OK, in the absence of real chickens. And preferably not in Sainsbury's.

Woodchopper wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:52 pm

plebian wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:04 am

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:24 pm Also, choking is exceptionally dangerous. If as a result of pressure applied to the neck the blood flow to the brain is impaired then loss of consciousness occurs in 10 - 15 seconds; death within 3 - 5 minutes.

If the victim doesn’t die, they can still suffer brain damage.

That's alarmist. I've been choked often during sex, it's usually finger pressure on the vessels in the neck and gives a warm fuzzy feeling.
Choking someone violently is difficult to do and requires strength and practice.

10-15 seconds of sexual choking will not lead to lack of consciousness.

I agree.

However, the thread is about women who have been assaulted by men during sex. In that context, an assault by choking is far more dangerous than an assault by a slap etc.

True that some forms of assault are more dangerous than others but any kind of abusive, unwanted activity is part of a pattern of male violence that unsafe p.rn and nonsense like 50 Shades have put more into the public consciousness as acceptable behaviour.

There's also a difference between breath control play or constriction and full-on choking. But some tw.t who's seen some p.rn wouldn't know that.

Tessa K wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:55 pm True that some forms of assault are more dangerous than others but any kind of abusive, unwanted activity is part of a pattern of male violence that unsafe p.rn and nonsense like 50 Shades have put more into the public consciousness as acceptable behaviour.

Certainly.

Tessa K wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:55 pmThere's also a difference between breath control play or constriction and full-on choking. But some tw.t who's seen some p.rn wouldn't know that.

Indeed, for what its worth, the survey used this definition "Choking where a partner places their hands around your neck and applies pressure" (see the earlier link).

username wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:47 am ...I would guess* that this is because an attempted 'rough sex' defence admits the act**, ...

*because I haven't looked for the court reports, so I'm reading a campaigning organisation's précise of media coverage
** At best a partial defence to murder in other words

A defence that only admits to consensual activity of the type that can be consented to, with what actually happened being an accidental consequence of that, would be a runner. It isn't necessary to admit to any kind of offence. Admitting to a lesser (than murder) type of offence might be better tactically, in that a partial defence that is believed will result in a better outcome than a full one that isn't.

Frankly I thunk people who confuse fantasy (p.rn) and reality (actually having sex) are a bit silly, to massively understate it. That people need reminding of the difference is a bit sad...I hope they never get a copy of 120 Days of Sodom.

greyspoke wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:13 pm

username wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:47 am ...I would guess* that this is because an attempted 'rough sex' defence admits the act**, ...

*because I haven't looked for the court reports, so I'm reading a campaigning organisation's précise of media coverage
** At best a partial defence to murder in other words

A defence that only admits to consensual activity of the type that can be consented to, with what actually happened being an accidental consequence of that, would be a runner. It isn't necessary to admit to any kind of offence. Admitting to a lesser (than murder) type of offence might be better tactically, in that a partial defence that is believed will result in a better outcome than a full one that isn't.

Sure, my point wasn't that is admits an offence, just the act (and the unintended consequences). It completely precludes the flat denial is what I was driving at

In one of the defence instances in the UK a guy turned himself in thinking he'd choked his partner to death. The death was in fact caused by a drug overdose (so no charges); if nothing else this kind of occurrence suggests that accidental death during sex is possible. Prohibiting particular defences, which seems to be part of the thrust of the suggested legal changes, might not be a very just progression. Juries might be doing a fairly good, if imperfect, job of distinguishing between the different homicides on a case by case basis. The extreme case where the sentence was only 3 years appears anomalous; I don't know if that judge is a problem.or there were other unreported factors. Hard cases, bad law etc etc

I don't think you really can ban a defence, what you would do would be make the defence useless, for example by providing that in certain particular circumstances consent does not negate the offence*. Or create a new offence along the lines of "causing death or serious injury by negligent sexual conduct" with a suitably limited range of defences. I am not recommending this, it sounds unworkable but maybe with some research and thought something workable would be possible. But as you say @username, hard cases make bad law**.

*In most civil and criminal scenarios, strictly speaking consent is not a defence, but the absence of a required element of the offence, as lack of consent is built in to it. A defence proper is a specific, normally quite closely prescribed, situation defined by law that means the offence is not committed notwithstanding that all the elements of the basic offence or civil wrong are made out. The distinction can matter when it comes to aspects of procedure, evidence, the burden of proof etc., but mostly it doesn't matter much.

** Not that this is the only reason we get bad laws of course.

Cutting the blood supply to your Brianzz is going to make your autonomic nervous system go apeshit. Great way to find out your shagee has undiagnosed long QT, cardiomyopathy or some other long odds sh.t.
.

I'd like to remind people of Rule 12, which you've of course all read, which makes it clear that that type of dismissal isn't allowed when it comes to discussions of this nature, and nor is quibbling over the quality of evidence and neglecting the general discussion of the overall narrative.

Where's the split off bit gone?

Here, as a first pass. It may get moved to somewhere else at some point.

Thanks. Seems a suitable location.