Grace Millane.

[Katman]

No, you just dont understand that there is no difference in trust between asking someone to choke you and someone just doing it anyway.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It is the sheer stupidity of asking a total stranger to choke you that I am questioning.

[Drew]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It is the sheer stupidity of asking a total stranger to choke you that I am questioning.

If someone is hooking up with someone they dont know, there is no difference in trust.

Furthermore. Someone with that goal in mind is likely interested in actually enjoying themselves. At least, I hope so.

[Katman]

If someone is hooking up with someone they dont know, there is no difference in trust.

I'll say this slowly so you can understand it Drew.

It..is..not..wise..to..ask..a..total..stranger..to ..choke..you.

If you can't understand that, then you're beyond help.

[pritch]

It is not wise to ask a total stranger to choke you.

You might think that, and I might think that. Obviously though, some people see it differently.

[sidecar bob]

I'll say this slowly so you can understand it Drew.

It..is..not..wise..to..ask..a..total..stranger..to ..choke..you.

If you can't understand that, then you're beyond help.

Some people seek dangerous, or perceived dangerous activities in order to stimulate their senses, in short, thrill seek.
Is it wise to hang on to the side of a 200hp machine operated by another & race around city streets surrounded by 20 other similar machines, some being operated by complete fuckwits?
I'd say clearly not, but in order to live, some need to look their own mortality in the eye.
I know more people that have been killed street racing sidecars, than strangled to death in the throes of passion.

[Katman]

You might think that, and I might think that.

And furthermore, I'd say it's even less wise for a woman to ask a male, who is a total stranger to her, to choke her.

But yes, clearly there are fucking idiots out there who think differently.

[austingtir]

And furthermore, I'd say it's even less wise for a woman to ask a male, who is a total stranger to her, to choke her.

But yes, clearly there are fucking idiots out there who think differently.

I agree. At some point people need to wake up to reality.

[BMWST?]

Surely you're not suggesting that asking someone you only met that day to choke you while having sex is a "normal" social situation.

Just because you dont think its normal doesnt mean to say it isnt normal for another group.My premise is that just because you are expecting some rough sex doesnt necessarily equate to life tthreatening scenarios

[Katman]

My premise is that just because you are expecting some rough sex doesnt necessarily equate to life tthreatening scenarios

You sound as clueless as Drew.

I'm pointing out that it can hardly be considered wise for a woman to willfully engage in 'rough sex' (that includes choking) with a male she doesn't know from a bar of soap.

If you can't understand that, go sit in the corner with Drew.

[TheDemonLord]

So ... if you can see someone is having a life threatening issue, and you can take measures to prevent loss of life (or injury) ... THEY have to agree to it before you are allowed to do anything .. ??

Responsibility is a double edged sword. A sort of "It's not my problem ... or is it" situation. If it was YOU really needing URGENT help ... would you remember to give "Explicit" permission ... ???

It is not about "Control" over anybody ... but your actions have influence on events you did not initiate ... positively OR negatively.

Simple actions can save a life. For example ... relaxing a grip on your throat ... might save a life ...

So your example isn't correct, given what I said.

If I can see someone having a life threatening issue and I can fix it, there is no obligation that I have to them unless I've explicitly agreed to it.

To that end, my libertarian point of view says that I'd be entirely within my rights to put my feet up, crack open a cold one and watch.

However, to get into the nuance - would I do that? Hell no! I've certainly raced to help people in need previously and I don't forsee that is likely to change - however that is a choice I make for myself, free of any external obligation.

From that point, I would hope that a degree of reciprocation would occur if it was the other way round and I was the one up shit creek, but again - I'm the only one I have direct control over and I have no right to demand someone else do anything.

Circling this back to the issue at hand, Since you are the only person that you can control - putting yourself in a position where you are being choked by someone you don't know and you have no way of getting out of the situation once it starts is not wise. Making someone else responsible for your safety, unless they have explicitly stated so and you've got a reasonable degree of certainty that they will, is also not wise.

Now, this standard of behaviour applies equally, to everyone - As I've stated in this thread, I'm very okay with mutually consenting adults engaging in all sorts of Slap and Tickle, right up to whatever Fetish or deviance takes their fancy - And generally those that partake invest a large amount of time in assessing risk and safety. In this instance, it is an objective statement that certain precautions weren't taken.

This does not mean that this absolves the Killer of anything, nor does it mean that even if the victim had taken all precautions, that they same outcome wouldn't have occurred.

It is simply to say that there were actions that the Victim took which seem to in part have contributed to her fate, and that whilst the world should be in such a way that we don't have to take precautions against the nefarious actions of others, it is reality that we do.

Whether that be a Locked Door, Full Leathers, backing down from a physical confrontation, not taking a shortcut, or forgoing an evening tryst.

[Katman]

To that end, my libertarian point of view says that I'd be entirely within my rights to put my feet up, crack open a cold one and watch.

And that's why we'll never see eye to eye.

Show me a libertarian that has ever given that slightest suggestion.

[TheDemonLord]

And that's why we'll never see eye to eye.

Show me a libertarian that has ever given that slightest suggestion.

It's the logical conclusion of there being no obligation to intervene - If there is an obligation, then in order for it to mean something, it must be enforced - whether that be by the State, Social Stigma etc. etc. The Libertarian position is fundamentally to have the smallest number of obligations and impositions on oneself as possible or reasonable.

I feel I was quite clear to state that whilst I don't believe in any obligation and I definitely wouldn't want the State to intervene for inaction (or conscious non-action) - in all the situations I've come across where someone was in need - I've jumped in, almost instinctively.

Edit:

To perhaps make it clearer: It's not that I wouldn't help, It's that I don't want to be forced to help.

[Katman]

Edit:

To perhaps make it clearer: It's not that I wouldn't help, It's that I don't want to be forced to help.

That doesn't change the fact that your view of Libertarianism is grossly skewed.

[FJRider]

That's quite some fixation you've got going there.

You seemed to have quite a fixation going at the time ...

[FJRider]

So your example isn't correct, given what I said.

Just because you said it (and possibly even believe it) does not make it true.

Obligations exist outside the legal framework.