Be sure always to call it please “breath play”
And there’s choking. We’re told it’s “kink”; we’re told not to “shame” people for enjoying it; we’re told it’s “rough sex”; we’re told we must be vanilla. And women die.
A recently married woman turns up dead.
According to Roberts, Vicky’s death had been a terrible accident, a “sex game gone wrong”. In court, he pleaded not guilty to her murder, claiming they had been having sex on the sofa with a bathrobe cord around Vicky’s neck and she had instructed him, three times, to “pull tighter”. When she slumped to the floor, he thought she was joking and waited for her to sit up and say, “Boo!” When he realised his wife was dead, he sat in the corner and cried.
He was lying though.
Fortunately, there was ample evidence to speak for Vicky. The pathology report showed her injuries could not have been inflicted by a dressing gown cord and the force used was excessive. Roberts had snapped a hyoid bone in the front of her neck. He hadn’t called an ambulance. He hid Vicky’s body in the garage and told her family she had left him for another man.
And there’s more, but there isn’t always that level of evidence.
Just one month after the trial, another woman – Michelle Stonall – was found strangled with her dog’s lead in Sheldon Country Park, Birmingham. Her killer used the same “sex game” defence. Less than two months after that, Anna Banks, a 25-year-old classroom assistant, was strangled by her boyfriend of four months. Daniel Lancaster claimed that Banks “enjoyed being throttled during intercourse”. He was not found guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter and given a four-year sentence.
Since December last year, a group of women have attempted to gather “sex games gone wrong” defence killings under one place – the website We Can’t Consent to This. In the decade since Vicky’s murder, such killings have risen by 90%. Two thirds involve strangulation.
Because it’s a “kink.” Because it’s being normalized as “kink” and what did anyone think would happen?
Strangulation – fatal and non-fatal – “squeezing”, “neck compression” or, as some call, it “breath-play” – is highly gendered. On average, one woman in the UK is strangled to death by her partner every two weeks, according to Women’s Aid. It is a frequent feature of non-fatal domestic assault, as well as rape and robbery where women are the victims. It is striking how seldom it is seen in crimes against men.
Striking but not surprising, given the fact that men are stronger than women.
And now, a new defence has been added to the mix – consent. 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.
“People were talking about this defence as if it was one isolated incident and I knew it wasn’t,” says Mackenzie. Although English law does not recognise consent to choking – or any physical harm – in the context of consensual sex, the Labour MP Harriet Harman has just announced her intention to have this underlined again in the forthcoming domestic violence bill. “It needs more emphasis because defence teams are increasingly offering it up, maybe because rough sex has crept into the mainstream,” says Mackenzie. “I’ve had so many women get in touch to say they have been horrified on Tinder dates by partners who have choked them during sex. If you’re dating, it’s expected of you and if you don’t go along with it, you’re boring.”
Here’s an interesting fact: that business of its being expected and being boring if you say no is a major part of the plot of the novel Big Little Lies, but it was completely excised from the tv serial based on the novel, the tv serial that was directed by a man and written by a man. Liane Moriarty, who wrote the novel, is a woman. Funny how that works.
How did strangulation become so widespread? Autoerotic asphyxia – when someone restricts oxygen to their own brain for the purposes of arousal – isn’t new: there have been documented cases since the early 17th century. But, historically, it has been “niche” and an overwhelmingly male pastime. And the serious risks it has always carried can be seen in the two high-profile examples of the deaths of the MP Stephen Milligan and the actor David Carradine.
Now, though, it is women being choked – Mackenzie hasn’t found a single case of a man killed by a woman in an alleged “sex game gone wrong”. And sex surveys, advice forums, social media feeds and women’s magazines show the way the practice has become mainstream. “If blindfolds and role play have veered into vanilla territory, there are still plenty of sex moves … like choking,” suggests Women’s Health. “Breath play, the risque new sex practice gripping millennials,” offers Flare. On elitedaily.com, one sex educator was quoted as saying anyone stuck in a sex rut could read up on “how to choke your partner safely”.
There is no safely. It’s unbelievable and enraging that people are actually advising choking for less vanilla sex. How about just eating a jalapeño or two instead?
Gail Dines, the feminist thinker and CEO of Culture Reframed, believes strangulation has been normalised via two main routes. “For the men, it’s pornography and for the women, it’s in women’s magazines,” she says. “And both of these media genres legitimise it as a form of ‘play’.” She describes choking as a “number one standard act” on porn sites and says women look to porn to “see what men want and they see choking”.
Women’s magazines are telling women to get choked. What is this world.
H/t latsot
Now, I’m not one to pontificate on which kinks should be considered unacceptable, as that path can reasonably lead to a Sorites problem. That said, surely we can say that those that involve risk of injury or death are bad. Right?
Who says we have to call it a “kink”? That’s already framing it in a highly tendentious way.
Once it’s been breathlessly advocated in women’s magazines — ‘5 Sexy Ways to Get Your Partner to Squeeze Your Throat (Oo -La-La!)’ — it’s going to be very hard to classify it as something women just don’t consent to. Perhaps there will eventually need to be some sort of register for people to put their names on, a No Choke List. She’s on it, come up with another defense.
Yeah I’m not one to say there’s no such thing as a masochistic woman and they’re all being forced into it by evil men, or that it’s always horribly dangerous – some women sincerely want to be spanked or hit on the arms etc and that’s no harm done any more than if she had a karate hobby. That said nobody should be pressured into anything and some things are too dangerous and you shouldn’t do them even if someone wants you to, and strangling is definitely one of those.
Sastra:
Pun intended?
I have been reading quite a bit about how young women today believe that the awful things men want to do to them are part of normal sex, because they are being taught that way by internet sites and magazines. WTF?
I haven’t been active in any BDSM scene long enough to be an authority, but in my experience, the people involved were far more thoughtful, conscientious, and focused on safety and consent than I have ever experienced in any other context. The group to which I belonged had regular social events where nobody did anything *except* talk about their interests, their limits, the nature of different kinds of play, and precautions to take when dealing with bondage, blood play, breath play, and other (even more ‘edge-play’) scenarios. And, above all, how to interrogate yourself for what you really wanted, and how to negotiate with your partner(s) to have a mutually enjoyable experience. My group certainly wasn’t perfect, but they were far better than I’d managed to do on my own at that point, even as precocious as I was.
Eliding the particulars out of deference to the audience, it really was a masterclass in actual sexual education, of the kind that is so sorely lacking for adolescents and young adults. I have taken the broader lessons (and some of the particular ones, including the occasional breath play element) forward into all of the sexual relationships I’ve had, with few complaints or regrets beyond the awkward bumbling that obtains now and again when people get their kit off. I remain convinced that workshops around consent, self-discovery, negotiation, and service would be infinitely better for adolescents to participate in than leaving them to their own devices and to take their cues from pornography, but I recognise that such workshops are even more unlikely than legal abolition of pornography, which is itself an impossibility.
The worst thing that can happen to any subculture is to become to mainstream, too quickly. For BDSM, I suspect its snowballing popularity which sprung from 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight, and its adoption by mainstream pornography, has encouraged fools to behave recklessly and malefactors to scapegoat the community. I have no doubt that women (and some men) have been made victims, and some made corpses, by both of the aforementioned. BDSM, especially the SM part, is an exercise in controlled violence, and there will always be risks associated with participating in controlled violence. That makes BDSM a fit subject for heightened cultural scrutiny, and perhaps even a mild general aversion as a barrier to entry to the people most likely to cock it up. I also wouldn’t be surprised if a little knowledge were a dangerous thing, and bored or uninformed magazine writers who know nothing about proper precautions writing punch-up pieces about spicing up one’s sex life may well do far more harm than good.
But BDSM is not purely a vehicle for male domestic violence against women, and nor should it be used as an excuse by scumbag abusers (or scumbag judges, or scumbag juries, or malevolent psychopaths). For one thing, there are an awful lot of men whose fantasies entail *receiving* physical violence at the hands of women, and an awful lot of women who take pleasure in participating in those fantasies. The idea that it is impossible to consent to being harmed is ludicrous, since almost everything you do can harm you in some way, and many quite pleasurable things entail phenomenal risks which people nevertheless have the right to take. It is simply a fact that many people enjoy having their airway restricted, or their flesh impacted by leather implements, or their skin broken; in a similar way, it’s a fact that many people enjoy riding motorcycles or hang-gliding or mountain-climbing.
We can all agree that adolescents (and adults) should not be encouraged to recklessly pursue risky activities, and that pornography is an inappropriate medium of instruction. In my view, a far better solution than social pressure against pornographers and BDSMers would be widely-available education on how one discovers (and, in many cases, wisely develops) their proclivities, and how to navigate satisfying one’s own and one’s comerades’ proclivities in ways that mitigate any attendant risks. That sort of work is difficult, fraught with potential abuses in its own right, and is downright impossible to accomplish in an environment stultified by traditional morality, but I nevertheless posit that it would be far more beneficial for the whole of the world than the alternative.
As I said the the M room, I was trying to angrily explain my fury about this sort of thing, then Julie Bindel wrote:
And that’s exactly the thing, isn’t it? Kink – if we are going to give varied sexual desires a name – has to be shared. Sex is something you do with someone not to them. Intimacy is about breaking down your own barriers, opening yourself to someone else, making yourself vulnerable so that you can share in something better. It is not about imposing a particular kind of behaviour on someone else, especially if you’ve learned that behaviour from porn.
Getting to know a new sexual partner is… well, lovely. It can also be awkward as hell and embarrassing and can take a while. But if what you’re both doing is trying to please each other… well, it’ll either work out or it won’t, no harm done.
But if you’re performing some kind of ritual, ticking off the porn boxes and relying on expectations rather than what the other person wants, you’re doing it very wrong and someone is going to get hurt. And by “someone” I mean women. This article demonstrates that and I still don’t see many people taking it seriously.
50 Shades certainly did a lot to mainstream a range of BDSM and related activities. Some are probably harmless between consenting adults, some potentially dangerous. In the media in NZ I can think of a number of articles over the last 4-5 years discussing concerns around this.
There have been multiple articles by GP’s (family doctors) discussing concerns about a massive increase in genital scarring and genital warts (both associated with the current trend to be shaved bare) and endemic levels of both male and female impotence or painful sex amongst young people. This last is attributed to those people being steeped in porn culture. Young men become hooked, not on sex with their consenting partner, but on the high that comes from edgier and more extreme sex than they have had before. Just like a drug addict, they are ever searching the same unique hit again, pushing boundaries ever further. By pushing boundaries, that inevitably means pushing the girl’s/women’s boundaries. When they can’t reach that new high and the current and lower levels fail to cause the necessary arousal, impotence is the result. For women, the GP’s were saying the effect is more that many of them get pushed into sex with a partner they want to have sex with but acts that they are uncomfortable or even frightened by. The physical pain or discomfort coupled with emotional distress means they not only do not orgasm, but also end up being unable to lubricate or relax their vaginas in future sex, making that even more painful and distressing. An obvious negative cycle begins and is continued in new relationships.
A couple of other articles quoted members of local BDSM groups bemoaning ‘amateurs getting into the act. Aficionados were saying that firstly consent, boundaries and safety (physical and emotional) were critical for mutual enjoyment; but also that some activities (beating and choking were specifically discussed) are downright dangerous and frightening without knowledge and guidance.
Finally, a few months ago, there was an article published in the lifestyle section of Stuff, in which the writer, a 20-something women, frankly discussed how a tinder date part way through sex started choking her. Not only had their been no discussion about this before hand, but she was not into this at all. She described her shock and terror, that fact that pain was caused and that the choking went to far. She was rightfully appalled, her date thought it had been marvellous sex. Her points: Consent, Safety, Consent.
I’m reluctant to start telling consenting adults what they can and can’t do with each other, but I fail to see how the ignorant or uninformed and either grant consent or accept it when offered.
Choking is now considered an aggravating offence in cases of domestic violence. I think if injury or death results from choking during sex play, that should be considered as an aggravating factor also, leading to a statutory presumption of rape/assault/murder as appropriate that overrides any consent previously granted. You want to be edgy, take the consequences.
Rob – But are you so reluctant to start telling consenting adults what they can and can’t do with each other that you wouldn’t even say “you can’t strangle each other/neither of you can strangle the other/men especially can’t strangle women, because of their superior strength”? I mean people don’t generally ask outsiders for permission, but assuming for the sake of argument that some did.
I suppose we’re all reluctant to tell strangers anything about what they can do sexually, but if it’s a matter of general discourse and opinionating…I have no problem saying “don’t do anything that could easily kill the person you do it to.”
And: “Don’t assume that just because you visited an internet site on how to do it safely that you won’t kill the person”.
#4 Anna,
I disagree. Maybe she likes it, but most women don’t, and if she asks for it, her partner will assume it’s OK to do it to other women in future relationships. Imagine that playing out in thousands of bedrooms and you start to see the problem.
#6 Seth,
I’m curious – was this the case in any of *your* BDSM experiences?
I expect you might decline to answer, but I hope you and everyone reading will reflect on most men’s probable reply. Again: “some women like it” is a really, really weak defense in light of what’s actually happening.
Ophelia @9 and iknklast @10, I think my last paragraph makes it pretty clear that my reluctance to tell people what they should do in bed gets overwhelmed by the consideration of deadly force in the name of kink.
Maybe I’m wrong, since I have no desire to choke women, so I haven’t tried it, but…
While I believe I could choke a woman to death, I’m extremely skeptical I could do this accidentally. I call bullshit on all those men who claimed to do so.
Let this be part of your stupid “kink”: If you hurt or kill someone, it’s legally assumed you did it on purpose and you suffer the full consequences. You can continue your “role play” in prison.
Morons.
Cressida,
In principle I have no compunction being forthright about this or any other topic. I declined to provide any personal details because I respect Ophelia and the rest of you, and I well remember the Carrier Incident which occurred around the same time as The Shunning. (Imagine an inconsiderate arsehole writing explicit fanfiction about himself on a thread about pornography and you’ll not be too far astray, in case you don’t recall. I do not wish to be that arsehole.)
Without being too explicit, I’m a bisexual sadomasochist. I have given and received pain, bondage, and restricted breath with both men and women, always under controlled conditions, with either explicit or longstanding consent, regular check-ins, and the ability to revoke that consent at any time, for any reason. I have researched and practiced specific techniques for restricting breath in non-erotic contexts, which would have included subjecting myself to those techniques even if I hadn’t found them enjoyable as a recipient. I have respected partners who had no desire to explore or experience that (or any other) activity.
These considerations are essentially the bare minimum that must be present for people to participate in BDSM activities in a relatively safe and sane manner. They were also not particularly rare amongst BDSM practitioners in the eras before everyone decided they were an expert on kink because they read a Tumblr post or Cosmo article.
I don’t know about you, but I strongly suspect that the world would be a much better place if such discussions and considerations around one’s untreated and limits were a matter of course among sexual partners, so that your hypothetical would play out in a discussion wherein the man asked if his new partner were interested in participating in something his previous partner explored with him, and the new partner could say no, either at once or after a longer discussion or after trying the activity a few times and finding it not to her liking. That sort of environment seems much more laudable than one in which women (and men) refuse to indulge in their own fantasies in solidarity with future hypothetical partners who might not be interested but feel pressured to live up to the expectations they’d set.
Assault is still assault, and murder is still murder. Punching someone in the face is a crime unless that person has donned gloves and stepped into the ring with you, and it remains a crime before and after a boxing match.
More concretely, reading an article about spicing up one’s sex life does not absolve you of the responsibility for research, slow exploration, and consent. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, you should be held more liable for that neglect, not less. The fact that our society hates women so much that it blames them and absolves their murderers so often will not be fixed by ignoring or pathologising the women (and men) who enjoy participating in these kinds of activities.
People participate in controlled violence all the time, from professional and amateur sports to hunting, to body modification, to extreme exercise. Activities in which the risk of injury and death is not zero, and where pain is expected, and at least part of the point. We expect people who participate in these activities to train to mitigate the risks involved, and when accidents happen, we try to determine malfeasance or neglect, and hold people accountable for it when we find it. BDSM is not fundamentally different from these, and its consequences when things go wrong should not be fundamentally different, either.
Skeletor also has the right of it: it is far from trivial to choke someone to death unintentionally, so much so that such cases either involve deception (meaning that it wasn’t so unintentional after all) or a criminal level of neglect. In either case, the perpetrator is more culpable, and should be held more liable by any reasonable legal standard.
Seth, I don’t know what to tell you, dude. I think if you have to marshal several hundred words to defend your position, said position might have questionable validity. Easily defendable positions are easily defendable.
I am personally gobsmacked to find people responding to this thread using the phrase “breath play’ unironically.
Consider my smack fully gobbed to read someone saying that verbosity is itself an impeachment of a discussion, but to each their own, I suppose.
@Cressida
Isn’t that the rule in all cases though – before doing something, communicate. Don’t assume that because one person likes it, everyone likes it etc…
I mean isn’t this the whole key to consent, not just in sex but in everything else?
Which is why ‘consent’ language is seriously misleading. If ‘sex’ is something women permit men to do, rather than something THEY engage in for their own interest, we’re setting up for disaster.
That ‘breath play’ could be so normalized that murderers can try to use it to cover their tracks is outrageous enough. That magazine culture is encouraging women to ‘consent’ to putting themselves in danger is just beyond.
Note how police departments have banned ‘safe’ choke-holds after a steady stream of deaths. In 18th century London, there was a rash of ‘garroting’ robberies; the victims (mostly men) were choked unconscious and robbed. The fad passed…as did quite a few victims.
@Seth,
I’d like to thank you for your many words. Often enough it takes many words to take a nuanced well thought over position. I appreciate you taking your time for expressing your position here.
Rob @ 12 – it does. Sorry about the superfluous questions; I wasn’t doubting you, just…being superfluous.
Axxyaan, thank you.
Ophelia @20, quite alright. Despite both of us ‘being there’ for the whole discussion, these things happen. ;-)
Ahhh, we were there, we were there.
We saw things, man…..we saw things. You weren’t there, you don’t know, we saw things sob
Cressida, working on your logic there, I suppose we can all toss our copies of Darwin’s Origin of the Species in the bin. So many words……
I’ve been away for a few days but I guess I should respond. I don’t think it makes sense to make fun of my response to Seth. I told him his argument in favor of strangulation (that “some women like it”) was weak because it minimizes the danger to women overall as a class, and he wrote a lot of words that never directly addressed my point, and I pointed that out. That’s all.