Grace Millane.

[MarkH]

Except I've already covered that.

Except that you haven't. I have re-read every post you have made in this thread and in not one single one have you covered that.

You keep on like a broken record about how it isn't sensible, but not once have you provided any details about how likely it is that a person would die doing it. People do dangerous stuff all the time without anyone questioning the wisdom of doing whatever - crossing the road, riding motorcycles, driving a car, going into a bar full of drunk strangers, swimming, etc.

Riding a motorcycle is much more dangerous than not riding a motorcycle, maybe riding a motorcycle is not sensible or normal. Why would you travel on a road with people that you have NEVER met while on a vehicle that offers close to zero protection from collisions. Maybe everyone of us that rides motorcycles should be vilified for not switching to vehicles with much more protection.

In Grace Millane's case she DID take some sensible steps to mitigate the risks. She met the person in a public place, there were people that knew she was meeting him, her encounter was well documented by a large number of security cameras. All would have been fine except for the homicidal nature of the guilty party. No one is going to continue to choke someone after they have gone limp (clearly lost consciousness) unless they have murderous tendencies. Drunk strangers are safe enough, murderers are a whole different kettle of fish.

I stand by my statement that you are a fucking idiot.

[Katman]

Except that you haven't. I have re-read every post you have made in this thread and in not one single one have you covered that.

Try reading post #175 again.

[mashman]

If you think allowing a pissed stranger to choke you is 'sensible', then you're perfectly at liberty to hold that opinion.

Just as I'm at liberty to hold an opposing opinion.

And that was how the question was answered.

I shouldn't be having to explain that to you, of all people.

(And btw, you're the only one who has used the word 'perversion').

Yet you felt the need to point it out as if I had somehow told you otherwise. Aha.

(I used "perversion", because some enjoy some thing as a perversion and some enjoy it as a matter of course... thought that much might have been obvious. Sober up dude )

[Katman]

(I used "perversion", because some enjoy some thing as a perversion and some enjoy it as a matter of course... thought that much might have been obvious. Sober up dude )

And I haven't used the word perversion because I'm not making any judgement based on the sexual nature of the case.

I'm commenting solely on the common sense aspect (or lack thereof) of it.

[MarkH]

Try reading post #175 again.

OK, I've done that. It still doesn't address the question. Maybe it is just that you are too fucking stupid to understand what I'm saying (and what many others on this thread are saying). Maybe you just don't have any interest in opinions other than your own. Maybe it's both.

[Katman]

OK, I've done that. It still doesn't address the question.

Yes it does. It addresses the issue you raised perfectly consisely and to the point.

Maybe you just don't have any interest in opinions other than your own.

But you do?

[tigertim20]

The difference being when someone willingly allows another person to choke them.

A person they only met a few hours earlier.

Your martial arts example is hardly in the same category.

How is it not? at the Gym I frequently choke people I have literally known only for minutes.

You seem to think the act of choking someone is inherently dangerous - it really isnt.
what is dangerous is a homicidal person.

whether she asked him to choke her or not, chances are this guy was going to kill her, or someone else sooner or later.


Its no different than if she asked to be spanked, and he went too far and bashed her violently to death.

choking and killing are very different as are spanking and bashing.

[Katman]

How is it not? at the Gym I frequently choke people I have literally known only for minutes.

You seem to think the act of choking someone is inherently dangerous - it really isnt.
what is dangerous is a homicidal person.

whether she asked him to choke her or not, chances are this guy was going to kill her, or someone else sooner or later.


Its no different than if she asked to be spanked, and he went too far and bashed her violently to death.

choking and killing are very different as are spanking and bashing.

Really?

How often in your gym would a male and female, who are virtual strangers to each other, be alone and engaging in choking procedures after having been on the piss for a few hours?

If your instructor would happily encourage that sort of scenario, you should name him. There would probably be a few governing bodies that would want to take a closer look at his suitability to act as a martial arts instructor.

[Katman]

You seem to think the act of choking someone is inherently dangerous - it really isnt.

It does carry inherent risk though and people need to know what might be required if someone is struggling to regain consciousness.

It isn't just a matter of letting them 'sleep it off'.

[mashman]

And I haven't used the word perversion because I'm not making any judgement based on the sexual nature of the case.

Which is why I said that I said it. You get why the post was split in two yet? If not:

I'm commenting solely on the common sense aspect (or lack thereof) of it.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it or how you phrase it, I get what you're saying.

If that isn't clear enough, then by all means state so exceptionally clearly so that I can add you onto the list of wilfully ignorant morons. And just to be clear again and to show that I Am aware of "who you are", I fully realise that you don't give a shit whether you're on that list or not.

[husaberg]

Fiona Mackenzie, an actuary, set up We Can’t Consent to This following the outcry over the so-called “rough sex killing” of Natalie Connolly, 26, by her millionaire partner John Broadhurst, 40. Despite the victim having 40 separate injuries, including serious internal trauma, a fractured eye socket and bleach on her face, Broadhurst received a sentence of three years, eight months for manslaughter.
Mackenzie hasn’t found a single case of a man killed by a woman in an alleged “sex game gone wrong”.
https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/
It is believed only 20 UK women have died in the sex game gone wrong in the past 10 years. Judge Hyman
in the UK nearly 200 woment die from domestic violence each year.
So a woman is at least 100 times more likely to be murdered by their partner than "accidentally killed" by their partner.
or more telling the same number of people get killed by lightning strikes as die during erotic asphyxiation each year in the UK

[MarkH]

Yes it does. It addresses the issue you raised perfectly consisely and to the point.

It in no way addresses the issue and the fact that you think it does suggests that you don't understand the issue. Really this is my point - you don't have a clue about how risky the behaviour is, but because it is something you wouldn't do, you think it is automatically an unwise thing to do. You can't understand how similar it is to a person suggesting that anyone riding a motorcycle is similarly doing an unwise thing. When you ride a motorcycle on a public road you not only are sharing a road with someone you only met that day, but many people that you have never met. You are possibly sharing the road with drunk strangers while riding a motorcycle - how is that not more foolish than what Grace did?

In fact, riding a motorcycle is much more foolish. You are not only at risk of being killed by murderous motorists, but you are at risk of being killed by simple accidents. You SHOULD mitigate the risks by only ever driving on public roads in a car that has a 5-star ancap rating, anything less is reckless.

Now, let's say that Grace's behaviour is LESS dangerous than riding on a public road on a motorcycle, and you have provided no evidence that this isn't true. Then surely it is rather hypocritical for us to say that she was foolish for her actions.

[Katman]

Then surely it is rather hypocritical for us to say that she was foolish for her actions.

Not at all.

As I have repeatedly said, as a motorcyclist I try to mitigate the risks that I might be likely to face.

I don't see any reflection of that in Grace Millane's actions whatsoever.

[Katman]

Which is why I said that I said it. You get why the post was split in two yet? If not:

Well then I still don't understand why you felt the need to use the word perversion.

'Perversion' has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this thread.

[Katman]

It in no way addresses the issue and the fact that you think it does suggests that you don't understand the issue.

Read it again.

This time get someone who can actually understand English to help you.