←back to thread

39 points GaryBluto | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.971s | source
Show context
eqvinox ◴[] No.45807023[source]
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.)

replies(5): >>45807136 #>>45807283 #>>45808078 #>>45808916 #>>45809021 #
kelnos ◴[] No.45807283[source]
> 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.

replies(3): >>45807628 #>>45808375 #>>45808388 #
1. somedude895 ◴[] No.45807628[source]
You can already screw over former partners by simply saying that some sex was non-consensual.
replies(1): >>45808084 #
2. tavavex ◴[] No.45808084[source]
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?
replies(1): >>45808420 #
3. dragonwriter ◴[] No.45808420[source]
> 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.

replies(1): >>45813322 #
4. tavavex ◴[] No.45813322{3}[source]
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?