Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

You can already screw over former partners by simply saying that some sex was non-consensual.

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?

> 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.

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?

> You didn't really answer my question, you just assured me that your opinion is right.

Its not an opinion; whether we have a method of resolution is a verifiable question of fact, and the answer is yes, we do.

Juries make decisions where the key evidence is conflicting testimony of two witnesses all the time, where the other evidence, if any, isn't directly on the primary question but the reliability of the witnesses.

Usually, this will resolve against the accuser where the US criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) applies, and have more mixed results where lower standards, like the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence standards used for various purposes (e.g., usual judgements and permanent restraining orders, respectively) in the US civil justice system, apply.

Whether this resolution mechanism has satisfactory results is, of course, a subjective question.

I would start with assumption that strangling, cutting or beating someone is likely to be illegal. There are not that many countries with bdsm exception to those. And strangling is literally the most dangerous of all those. If you are strangling someome under assumptiom that of course it must be legal, you are likely breaking the law in all kinds of unaware and dangerous ways.

And yes, in domestic violence situation, strangling is pretty consistent predictor of actual murder attempt later on.

If your partner asked you to stab them in the belly as a sexual kink, would you do so? I would hope not. Same principle applies to strangulation. You don't have to inflict harm just because you're being asked to.

What kind of nonsense argument is this?

In no way is being stabbed pleasurable. Your average person knows that this results in death, charges, jail, etc.

Light choking is quite common amongst sexual partners. It can be incredibly arousing for many. Its is, generally speaking, not at all dangerous when both parties have a very basic understanding of how to do the act safely. It is certainly possible for something to go terribly wrong, even if incredibly rarely.

There is a massive difference between domestic abuse choking and sexual pleasure choking, and tour argument is a fantastic example of how being incredibly reductive is damaging to the argument youre trying to make.

Please read this paper and reconsider your perspective, it's a systematic review from medical professionals that discusses the harms of strangulation: https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2020.1868537

> […] outcomes of non-fatal strangulation in domestic and sexual violence.

> […] However, no studies used formal neuropsychological assessment: the majority were medical case studies or based on self-report. Furthermore, few authors were able to control for possible confounds, including other physical violence and existing psychosocial difficulties.

So, not only is this not about consensual sex, but rather violence — and therefore inapplicable to consensual activities — but also built on very shaky grounds. The latter might be unavoidable in researching domestic/sexual violence cases, but the former just makes this paper completely useless in discussing consensual activities.

> If your partner asked you to stab them in the belly as a sexual kink, would you do so?

If they could reasonably argue that it were a safe practice, of course I would. Why wouldn't I? Except that argument can't be reasonably made. But it can be made for limited levels of sexual choking play. I specifically asked:

"But does it cause more damage than smoking? Alcohol? Cannabis in young people?"

And without a quantitative answer to this, the entire discussion is hot air and prejudice.

And I cannot help but noting that your way of argument is literally item #1 of Eristic Dialectic: The Extension. These methods are neither productive nor welcome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com