Neither trifling nor transient (27)

27 Jul 08, 8:10 PM
mrandy
UK(SS), 15 mths
Boxing is legal in Britain, a sport which has resulted in brain damage or death to a number of boxers ie Michael Watson. How many of us kinky people have suffered brain damage from play?

28 Jul 08, 12:19 AM
Esinem
UK, 9 yrs

mrandy wrote:
Boxing is legal in B Mritain, a sport which has resulted in brain damage or death to a number of boxers ie Michael Watson. How many of us kinky people have suffered brain damage from play?
I don't know about brain damage but there have been a few asphxiation deaths. I had a friend who is no longer with us after some over-enthusiatic breath play. Michael Hutchins. Stephen Milligan.
You are as safe as you want to be...but no safer
Edited 28 Jul 08, 12:21 AM by Esinem

28 Jul 08, 6:13 PM
LadyAlpha
UK, 2 yrs£

Esinem wrote:

mrandy wrote:
Boxing is legal in B Mritain, a sport which has resulted in brain damage or death to a number of boxers ie Michael Watson. How many of us kinky people have suffered brain damage from play?
I don't know about brain damage but there have been a few asphxiation deaths. I had a friend who is no longer with us after some over-enthusiatic breath play. Michael Hutchins. Stephen Milligan.

Are there any demographics available for deaths and injuries in various lifestyles? My impression is that there are more deaths in hill walking and mountaineering than there are in bdsm.
I am aware that we are a smaller population. But we also have a greater exposure: another walker tumbling of Crib Goch doesn't make the headlines, another MP asphyxiated does.
One of the issues clouding is that 'other' activities don't deliberately cause injury, so any injuries received are clearly accidental. It's harder for outsiders to understand that although some of our injuries start out being deliberately created, accidents happen to us too, and death wasn't the desired outcome from the breath play anymore than it was the desired outcome of the trip to Snowden.
If you stick a bag over someone's head, you are creating the hazard of asphyxiation, and if you don't have enough safeguards in place, you then create a risk. Get careless or unlucky enough once you have started down the path of risk creation and you'll end up in trouble.
It's a very obvious route to trouble, and it's easy for others to then point fingers and shout out 'Stick a bag over someone's head, they suffocate, what did you expect?' The censure follows.
It's less easy to see that setting out for a nice day's walking on the coast path equally created hazard. If you go on the coast path, you create the hazard of falling down a cliff. Hazard creation, because if you had stayed at home, you couldn't possible fall down a cliff, but if you venture out onto the coast path, you can. If you don't have enough safeguards in place, knowledge, experience, suitable footwear, awareness of possible weather conditions, a risk is consequently created, and then someone ends up taking a free flying lesson.
Rarely are they censured for this, far less so hauled up in court and perhaps sent to jail, assuming they survived the fall. Why not? Because as humans we are very bad at analysing risk in any sensible way, and we apply judgement instead. That's why we don't 'see' the risk of road travel: we don't want to. We don't want to lose the freedom of the car or the train, so we turn a bind eye to the risk involved. A judgement, not an analysis.
We don't see the risk of a day's ramble going wrong, and when it does, we'll talk about bad luck, shame the weather turned, the path should have been better maintained. This gives us permission to keep on taking that risk, because we want to. But we also want in a very general way to minimise the risks in life, so the moment we see a risk associated with something we don't like, we jump and down and shout 'that's dangerous'. Getting rid of it makes the world a safer place, we feel easier, and we can still drive our cars and go walkies. But no more plastic bags over heads please, we're British.
Lady Alpha

Intelligent domination and disciplinary coaching Life coaching and therapy Kinky Cottage: Play and guest room for hire Kinkdom

28 Jul 08, 6:19 PM
Dark_Energy
UK, 5 mths

LadyAlpha wrote:
Are there any demographics available for deaths and injuries in various lifestyles? My impression is that there are more deaths in hill walking and mountaineering than there are in bdsm.

see http://www.nyssf.org/statistics1998.html
I doubt it has changed much, so keep your hands off that baseball bat.

Edited 28 Jul 08, 6:23 PM by Dark_Energy

1 Aug 08, 2:45 AM
shoutybloke
UK, 4 mths The reason Sport is exemped from the laws is twofold
1: People in power enjoy boxing, football ect. The people who make the laws are always very careful to write them full of little loopholes that rich people with legal knowledge such as themselves can exploit to do whatever they want. Laws are for the little people, not lawmakers.
2: Any government that attempted to ban, say, football in this country would quickly find itelf referred to as the former government. There'd be riots.
What they are counting on is that the social stigma of outing oneself will stop people from speaking up. This is the same sort of process that results in ridiculus laws like prohibition and the handgun ban. Politicians make big, bold statements against something that is generally regarded as bad. People are reluctant to speak up against it for gfear of looking like perverts, or degenerate alcoholics, or gun-weilding maniacs or whatever. Laws are passed, politicien looks good, and hundreds of people who were law abiding become criminals overnight

1 Aug 08, 3:18 AM
LadyAlpha
UK, 2 yrs£

shoutybloke wrote:
The reason Sport is exemped from the laws is twofold
1: People in power enjoy boxing, football ect. The people who make the laws are always very careful to write them full of little loopholes that rich people with legal knowledge such as themselves can exploit to do whatever they want. Laws are for the little people, not lawmakers.
2: Any government that attempted to ban, say, football in this country would quickly find itelf referred to as the former government. There'd be riots.
Good points

What they are counting on is that the social stigma of outing oneself will stop people from speaking up.
Hmm, a sore point... http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/generalb...
Lady Alpha

Intelligent domination and disciplinary coaching Life coaching and therapy Kinkdom

2 Aug 08, 2:35 PM
Tied_and_Tickled
UK, 2 yrs
LadyAlpha wrote:
I've tried to show that the pursuit of endorphins in sport is both valid as a human quality, and socially extremely acceptable. I've tried to show that the pursuit of endorphins in bdsm is a very similar activity, but which lacks the social acceptability of sport.
This is presumably because it's unknown and therefore frightening, because it's to do with sex, and, not least, because it's seen as hedonistic, always frowned on from afar, whereas sporting endeavour is seen as chivalrous, 'for the team', or county, or school. Even sporting endurance or record setting is seen as something of value to mankind rather than the individual, although, surely, it is an individual desire driving that quest as much as it drives ours.
I've also tried to show that if injury or the risk of injury in sport was limited to 'trifling and transient', the heart, soul and meaning of it would be lost.
I've asked if there is any valid reason why the pursuit of endorphins through sporting activity should be viewed in any significantly different way from the pursuit of endorphins in bdsm. I've examined the origins of sport and it's acceptance, and while I can see it has been of vital importance, I can't see how in this day and age that would confer a greater acceptability of risk and injury upon it.
Moving on from that, I can't see that bdsm produces greater injury rates or involves greater risk than sport, either as a gross total or per head of the participant cohort. As far as I'm aware from my own extensive knowledge of the scene, the threat of criminalisation of those indulging in more than 'trifling and transient' does not have a significant effect on level of play, for two reasons.
The first, to 'comply' would be, as highlighted above, to remove the essence of the activity, therefore anyone concerned about criminalisation would simply not play. I'm not aware of people being 'frightened' from the scene by this.
Secondly, even those who would seek staunchly to remain within the law have difficulty with the realistic interpretation of this law, and by necessity, have to just pretend it's not there.
I can confidently conclude that were the term 'trifling and transient' to be equalised in its practical interpretation to the levels of risk and injury seen in sport, there would be no significant increase in levels of risk and injury, already within very acceptable levels.

I agree with this conclusion. BDSM has no more risk than many sports.

LadyAlpha wrote:
Now I would like to examine sport in a slightly different way. In my contemplation so far, I have seen sport in its original role as a way of achieving competitiveness, teamwork and physical fitness in an elite group, who were of great significance to the wider community. Today that significance is still felt by many, but its connection has been lost: when we have to fight a war or a common foe in order to eat and put a roof our heads, we don't look towards Leeds United to sort it out for us.
So if that connection has been lost, we seem to be left with sport in its role simply as a provider of endorphins. But, it does have a new role.
As the connection with food and a roof has been lost with sport, it has also been lost with much of our population. Work is now often separated from the sense of fulfilment and essential survival, from the soul, and a substitute is sought by many. This can be provided by sporting activity, but frequently in its wider role: mountaineering, sailing, hill walking, fishing, cycling.
Such activities, therefore, have passed into lifestyle choices: the mountaineer seeks not to beat the elements but to find himself, the cyclist seeks not to win races but to get a sense of space, the sailor looks for freedom from a crowded world. And this lifestyle choice is afforded that same risk and injury potential that competitive, hallowed sport is, without a murmur of dissent.
In this context, bdsm is very much a lifestyle choice and moves very much closer to thsoe wider sporting activities in intent and benefit.
And under the European Convention of Human Rights, lifestyle choices are protected. We should be free to pursue our lifestyle choice as a basic human right. To deny that choice needs good justification. 'Trifling and transient' does deny the fulfilment of bdsm lifestyle, and I don't see a good justification. Certainly not risk and injury potential, and there's no evidence to say it causes sex crime, quite the opposite.
So, does 'trifling and transient' conflict with the European Convention, or the least, does its realistic interpretation have to take that into account?
This may simply be, as someone pointed out on this thread, by equating 'trifling' injury with the already established 'minor' injury. This would give all the most extreme players the leeway they needed and the chance to actually respect and work with the law.
Lady Alpha

It would be very useful to get legal advice on the effect of the European Convention protection of lifestyle choices with regard to BDSM. Perhaps CAAN or Backlash can get a legal opinion?
I also think that the BDSM community could campaign for a UK law giving the right to citizens to enjoy consensual dangerous activities when reasonable precautions are taken to avoid harm to other people.
T&T
Edited 2 Aug 08, 8:00 PM by Tied_and_Tickled


	©1997-2008 Informed Consent