Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 16 2021 08:00am)

The argument you originally made had to do with sexual preference and activity. There's no criminal code or criminal intent behind "alternative lifestyles". If your consideration regarding "the bad thing" is autoerotic asphyxiation, you don't seek to legislate the bedroom to prevent it. If you wish to propose introducing the risk of such things into sexual education courses? Let's have a conversation.

The "gray area" in such a case isn't whether or not they should have moderated their sex play. Instead it's whether or not their life insurance company can refuse to pay out to their family due to the "suicide" status of the nature of death. And in most recent cases that I've seen, special circumstance DID play a hand given there was no intent to suicide, but the insurance companies were also provided consideration, as the person did not disclose this potentially dangerous habit.

Regardless, the person still consents to the autoerotic asphyxiation. They made a choice. There may well be consequences to that choice, not the least of which is death, but other consequences as well. Since they consented, the "case by case" nature of justice says we deal with the "bad thing" after it happens.

Consent IS consent, and guilt IS guilt. Related circumstance is what moderates sentencing.

Quote (thesnipa @ 16 Feb 2021 06:09)

but again, this doesnt have to do with legislation, its about societal attitude towards kinks. laissez faire versus a more studied approach. recognizing that people doing this may be hurting, and that their consent could be tainted.

to make it personal, you sleep with 2 women on back to back nights, both ask you to choke them fairly roughly. again, for arguments sake, you agree in both cases. over the next few days u find out one was abused as a child, and the other is simply into it in a pure kink way. u then sleep with both women again, both ask to be choked. do u choke the child abuse victim again?

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 16 2021 09:07am)

I'm not arguing that some kinks come with baggage. I've not addressed that point and refuse to do so. From that perspective, I simply refuse to read intent prior to an act in fact being perpetrated. Fair enough? Like, I don't judge motivations, I judge actions.

As to the second point, it's an odd question, and removes my right to consent. Likely, I'd refuse them both, and possibly the abused one would "tolerate" sleeping with me, and the other one would get up and go. My own nature might help to save the "victim" in this case. But to play the game... If both wanted choked, and I choked them, and I found out they had different reasons for wanting choked, and the next week I was asked to choke them both again? I probably would. It's not about me, it's about them. And if that's their kink, that's their kink. It doesn't matter how they got their kink, only the fact that it is there kink. And being a responsible person, I'm 100% sure I could exercise the restraint to prevent real harm. The next guy may not be so oriented.

This is a strange discussion though, mate. I'm true vanilla, as is my wife, and I'm the loyalty first type. So even putting my feet in these shoes makes me feel dirty. :(

Quote (thesnipa @ 16 Feb 2021 07:16)

it doesnt matter that abuse creates a kink, but does matter that abuse creates a murder? one by your own post requires lower sentencing, but the other requires equal choking?

i agree tho, im rather vanilla as well and my interest in kink related stuff is purely scholarly and stems from a further vocational interest in child abuse and prevention stemming from my work in both juvenile and adult corrections.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 16 2021 09:22am)

In my example, where's the murder? Hell, in any example, where's the murder? She wants to be choked harder and begs for it, and he does, and the moment she stops breathing, he stops, and applies CPR, but she had a clogged artery, suffered a heart attack/stroke, and died. Was it murder?

Like, it's truly case by case. This was my point in this topic. It MUST be case by case. There's potentially a case you could run by me that I'd be 100% in agreement with. But as stated, it sounds as though you're merely attempting to criminalize alternative lifestyle. I think that's an overreach. You have no right to reach into other people's bedrooms.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 16 2021 07:21am)

There's very little gray here. To alter the scenario slightly, if a child is abused, has half the bones in their body broken and rebroken, and barely survives their childhood, then, 20 years later, murders somebody in cold blood, they're still guilty of murder. However, should they receive capital punishment or a life sentence? Or is it possible to give them 10 years hard time with 10 years parole based on their circumstances, based on good behavior and them consenting to go through intense psychological counseling to work out their childhood issues?

If you commit a crime or commit suicide or do any of a number of things, as a self-owning adult, you're still responsible for your own actions and decisions. The only thing, from a societal stance, that changes is the harshness of the sentence.

Quote (thesnipa @ 16 Feb 2021 07:23)

there is the murder

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 16 2021 09:28am)

Okay, not sure how that relates to the choking scenario. But since you quoted my post, in it's entirety, let's analyze, yes? In one, a person is utilizing informed consent to ask for something we both appear to agree is... Gross. To give it a word. In the other, somebody is acting out of some form of ptsd, or whatever you'd call it. They're different scenarios, aye?

Quote (thesnipa @ 16 Feb 2021 07:29)

how is asking to be choked to alleviate the pain of trauma from childhood beatings, and get off on it no less, not also acting out of PTSD or some similar?

you originally posted the murder example to show how they're the same, then not that i agree, you say theyre not. much confuse.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Feb 16 2021 09:35am)

To be fair, if you can get an orgasm off childhood trauma, good on you. Who am I to judge? Why is that wrong? What's bad about this? Please expand. I remember what it was like to be an abused child. I don't get off on it. I'd fight to the death to prevent any other person to go through it. But if somebody has a kink from it? That's on them. I'll defend them from being the victim, never from their own urge to experience orgasm.

They're clearly not the same though, are they? It's a false equivalency, in it's purest form. The girl I'm supposedly banging who wants to be choked is asking for something to be done to her. She, as owner of herself, is consenting. The murderer is killing someone else, removing their ability to consent to anything ever again. It's a world's worth of difference, no? My point was that the result of the "bad thing" has to be taken on a case by case basis. Nothing to do with equating the two scenarios. This is a bad argument. Especially from you. Feeling tired or something mate? :)