Ok, so it can cause some brain damage. That's not good.
But does it cause more damage than smoking? Alcohol? Cannabis in young people?
We give people the right to exercise their own judgement in getting hurt for pleasure on those, so if the argument is that this one is not OK it better be an order of magnitude worse than the recreational drugs.
(I guess there's a distinction between the act and a recording of it, but last I checked smoking and alcohol are still legal in media for adults.)
Ed.: the act is apparently illegal too, "Due to these dangers, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021".
And it's really... odd... how the entire article is written as if the practice is solely performed by men on women. (Even though that might be the prevailing pattern, this kind of 'condensing down' is ultimately sexist erasure.)
> And it's really... odd... how the entire article is written as if the practice is solely performed by men on women. (Even though that might be the prevailing pattern, this kind of 'condensing down' is ultimately sexist erasure.)
You can't create a moral panic by having nuance. Why would they care about what people of what genders actually participate in kink play like this? No, if justifying policy is what's needed, instead you have to manufacture a pressing crisis. Just pretend that there's an epidemic of random heterosexual men watching too much porn and starting to nonconsensually strangle their partners out of nowhere. This article already endorses a lesser version of this story - that strangling porn only features women, that it's created solely for men, that its purpose is to degrade women in general through these acts (because surely no one ever is actually into choking, am I right?), and that men are rapidly becoming more misogynistic en masse because of it. Now that slots right in alongside all the societal fears and beliefs we have about protecting women. Every encroachment on NSFW content to come will keep banging the same drums of protecting a group that's seen as needing protection or is marginalized (excluding marginalized groups that the government hates, of course). And most people will probably believe it.
The simplification in the article is because it is mostly men doing this to mostly women.
In the worst outcome, there have been manslaughter charges raised against men who choked their partners to death, where "strangulation kink" has been used in the defence of these men. So it is clearly a problem.
You created an account about half an hour ago and have submitted nearly 1/6 of the comments on this post. You're more or less uncritically parroting the talking points of the special interest groups behind this while dismissing real concerns about liberty, censorship, and sexism.
Why are you so invested in this issue? Why did you create a throwaway account just to post on this topic? What relationship do you have to politicians, civil servants, and NGOs who have been involved in this campaign?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Just reacting to your first sentence: as a man I find it understandable that the protective laws are focused on protecting women and children as it's a simple fact of our reality that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by men, and that women and children have less physical ability to defend themselves. Yes I also want men protected (though that means mostly again from other men) but as a societal aim the women and children part clearly is a higher priority and need.
> It came out of nowhere and seeing the news now in the UK, it sure feels coordinated.
There seems to be a network of NGO who supplies "news" to a lot of EU "news outlets".
Seeing the same, almost out of context, news in two different corners and languages of the continent, is surreal.
It's very out of context and so obviously coordinated.
It is also very strange to see the repeated attempts to import US culture war issues to Sweden. Often completely unrelated to Swedish national issues, just blindly throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks and capture headlines for a few weeks.
The far-right Sverige Demokraterna party does this regularly, but other parties often fall for it too.
A more paranoid person might say it resembles Active Measures operations of a hostile foreign government that wants to distract and sow chaos in western states, but who knows...
The elites are trying to come up with new ways to oppress.
No one voted for this, and the last government was actively voted out for all this sort of bullshit.
However, to give a prime example of two faced ideology, we now have a government that had the position that trans-women are women, but as soon as they were elected switched to a trans-phobic position.
Nothing the current government does is based upon their election campaign, nothing we voted for is being pursued, and nothing happening is what we want. Labour are actively corrupt.
This law was introduced to help deal with what is essentially a public health issue.
Any law can be framed as oppression on the basis that it informs people they're not allowed to do something. Speed limits oppress drivers who want to drive over 70 mph, etc.
Also, it was the Supreme Court who decided on the issue of transwomen being legally interpreted as men in the Equality Act, this was independent of the Government.
It's a public health issue. What people - mostly men - see in pornography, they copy and repeat in the bedroom. There should be no normalisation of strangling one's partner. It's dangerous and harmful.
In a monarchy all justice, authority, and moral order are centered on the person of the monarch, symbolically and legally.
In medieval and early modern English law, the “King’s peace” was the fundamental idea behind criminal justice. The Peace was not an abstract civic order; it was the personal peace of the Sovereign, extended to the realm.
The Crown was the earthly reflection of divine order. To offend that order — whether by sedition or obscenity — was symbolically akin to rebellion against the sovereign.
Pretty cool to think about how different that was, compared to today when people want the law to be based on maximizing the greatest good. What if this was banned simply because it offends the King?
But does it cause more damage than smoking? Alcohol? Cannabis in young people?
We give people the right to exercise their own judgement in getting hurt for pleasure on those, so if the argument is that this one is not OK it better be an order of magnitude worse than the recreational drugs.
(I guess there's a distinction between the act and a recording of it, but last I checked smoking and alcohol are still legal in media for adults.)
Ed.: the act is apparently illegal too, "Due to these dangers, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021".
And it's really... odd... how the entire article is written as if the practice is solely performed by men on women. (Even though that might be the prevailing pattern, this kind of 'condensing down' is ultimately sexist erasure.)
You can't create a moral panic by having nuance. Why would they care about what people of what genders actually participate in kink play like this? No, if justifying policy is what's needed, instead you have to manufacture a pressing crisis. Just pretend that there's an epidemic of random heterosexual men watching too much porn and starting to nonconsensually strangle their partners out of nowhere. This article already endorses a lesser version of this story - that strangling porn only features women, that it's created solely for men, that its purpose is to degrade women in general through these acts (because surely no one ever is actually into choking, am I right?), and that men are rapidly becoming more misogynistic en masse because of it. Now that slots right in alongside all the societal fears and beliefs we have about protecting women. Every encroachment on NSFW content to come will keep banging the same drums of protecting a group that's seen as needing protection or is marginalized (excluding marginalized groups that the government hates, of course). And most people will probably believe it.
In the worst outcome, there have been manslaughter charges raised against men who choked their partners to death, where "strangulation kink" has been used in the defence of these men. So it is clearly a problem.
Why are you so invested in this issue? Why did you create a throwaway account just to post on this topic? What relationship do you have to politicians, civil servants, and NGOs who have been involved in this campaign?
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.
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.
And yes, in domestic violence situation, strangling is pretty consistent predictor of actual murder attempt later on.
It's unsurprising. GB has an unholy trinity of excuses for authoritarian laws:
1. "Think of the women and girls!"
2. "Think of the children!"
3. "This is a sacrifice we have to make to stop terrorism!" (which has taken a backseat to the first two)
How is that possible, they’re categorically opposite?
The Liberal Party (what's in a name, anyway?) are campaigning to make it illegal in Sweden, go figure.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/liberalerna-kriminalisera...
There seems to be a network of NGO who supplies "news" to a lot of EU "news outlets". Seeing the same, almost out of context, news in two different corners and languages of the continent, is surreal.
It is also very strange to see the repeated attempts to import US culture war issues to Sweden. Often completely unrelated to Swedish national issues, just blindly throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks and capture headlines for a few weeks.
The far-right Sverige Demokraterna party does this regularly, but other parties often fall for it too.
A more paranoid person might say it resembles Active Measures operations of a hostile foreign government that wants to distract and sow chaos in western states, but who knows...
No one voted for this, and the last government was actively voted out for all this sort of bullshit. However, to give a prime example of two faced ideology, we now have a government that had the position that trans-women are women, but as soon as they were elected switched to a trans-phobic position.
Nothing the current government does is based upon their election campaign, nothing we voted for is being pursued, and nothing happening is what we want. Labour are actively corrupt.
Any law can be framed as oppression on the basis that it informs people they're not allowed to do something. Speed limits oppress drivers who want to drive over 70 mph, etc.
Also, it was the Supreme Court who decided on the issue of transwomen being legally interpreted as men in the Equality Act, this was independent of the Government.
In medieval and early modern English law, the “King’s peace” was the fundamental idea behind criminal justice. The Peace was not an abstract civic order; it was the personal peace of the Sovereign, extended to the realm.
The Crown was the earthly reflection of divine order. To offend that order — whether by sedition or obscenity — was symbolically akin to rebellion against the sovereign.
Pretty cool to think about how different that was, compared to today when people want the law to be based on maximizing the greatest good. What if this was banned simply because it offends the King?
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthly_Powers