Choking is not my thing but for some reason I wasn't repulsed by it in Who's Your Daddy?. I'm not sure but it actually seemed like some of the girls liked Mark's choking tecnique. A half dazed smile appeared as he let go in the same manner a good drag on a ballon filled with nitrous oxide provides.

I didn't watch the whole thing. The only moment that I saw where it looked like someone wasn't enjoying themselves was in the final scene with Taylor Rain. Davis and Myne are DPing her in this scene. (Strangely, she appears to enjoy herself.) But then for the pop shot Myne pulls right out of her ass and sticks his dick in Taylor's mouth. The look on her face was "whoa there buddy! I didn't sign up for A2M!" and she genetly pushed him away. He was quite insistent and kept sticking it back in her face even though she was noticable not happy. Ruined an otherwise hot scene for me.

[Link]

Someone has to grow some balls and stop this crap.

Edited by - dumblonde on 3/21/2003 1:42:31 AM

[Link]

Den

[Link]

I realize that it's a fetish that's all the rage in Porno World, and perhaps the females DO enjoy it, but I don't think you realize how horrifying it makes you seem to many people.

You're just asking for trouble, and playing fast and loose not only with people's lives but with porn as a whole.

Perhaps people should read an essay by someone who knows something about the practice. Please comment again after you've read this -

Jay Wiseman is a long-time member of the S&M community, the author of SM101, a former member of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a former American Heart Association instructor in Advanced Cardiac Life Support. He has been an instructor in first aid, CPR, and various advanced emergency care techniques for over sixteen years.

From Jay Wiseman's
"The Medical Realities of Breath Control Play"

For some time now, I have felt that the practices of suffocation and/or strangulation done in an erotic context (generically known as breath control play; more properly known as asphyxiophilia) were in fact far more dangerous than they are generally perceived to be.

As a person with years of medical education and experience, I know of no way whatsoever that either suffocation or strangulation can be done in a way that does not intrinsically put the recipient at risk of cardiac arrest. (There are also numerous additional risks; more on them later.)

Furthermore, and my *biggest* concern, I know of no reliable way to determine when such a cardiac arrest has become imminent.

Often the first detectable sign that an arrest is approaching is the arrest itself. Furthermore, if the recipient does arrest, the probability of resuscitating them, even with optimal CPR, is distinctly small. Thus the recipient is dead and their partner, if any, is in a very perilous legal situation. (The authorities could consider such deaths first-degree murders until proven otherwise, with the burden of such proof being on the defendant). There are also the real and major concerns of the surviving partner's own life-long remorse to having caused such a death, and the trauma to the friends and family members of both parties.

Some breath control fans say that what they do is acceptably safe because they do not take what they do up to the point of unconsciousness. I find this statement worrisome for two reasons:

(1) You can't really know when a person is about to go unconscious until they actually do so, thus it's extremely difficult to know where the actual point of unconsciousness is until you actually reach it.

(2) More importantly, unconsciousness is a *symptom*, not a condition in and of itself. It has numerous underlying causes ranging from simple fainting to cardiac arrest, and which of these will cause the unconsciousness cannot be known in advance.

I have discussed my concerns regarding breath control with well over a dozen SM-positive physicians, and with numerous other SM-positive health professionals, and all share my concerns. We have discussed how breath control might be done in a way that is not life-threatening, and come up blank. We have discussed how the risk might be significantly reduced, and come up blank. We have discussed how it might be determined that an arrest is imminent, and come up blank.

INDEED, SO FAR NOT ONE (REPEAT, NOT ONE) SINGLE PHYSICIAN, NURSE, PARAMEDIC, CHIROPRACTOR, PHYSIOLOGIST, OR OTHER PERSON WITH SUBSTANTIAL TRAINING IN HOW A HUMAN BODY WORKS HAS BEEN WILLING TO STEP FORTH AND TEACH A FORM OF BREATH CONTROL PLAY THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO ASSERT IS ACCEPTABLY SAFE -- I.E., DOES NOT PUT THE RECIPIENT AT IMMINENT, UNPREDICTABLE RISK OF DYING. I BELIEVE THIS FACT MAKES A MAJOR STATEMENT.

Other "edge play" topics such as suspension bondage, electricity play, cutting, piercing, branding, enemas, water sports, and scat play can and have been taught with reasonable safety, but not breath control play. Indeed, it seems that the more somebody knows about how a human body works, the more likely they are to caution people about how dangerous breath control is, and about how little can be done to reduce the degree of risk.

In many ways, oxygen is to the human body, and particularly to the heart and brain, what oil is to a car's engine. Indeed, there's a medical adage that goes "hypoxia (becoming dangerously low on oxygen) not only stops the motor, but also wrecks the engine." Therefore, asking how one can play safely with breath control is very similar to asking how one can drive a car safely while draining it of oil.

The rest of his essay can be read HERE, if anyone's interested

[Link]

Greg--welcome to the forum. We're thrilled to have you, and I hope you stay around and participate further in our discussions. I wish you would consider eliminating choking from your movies, however. The way I see it, the "benefits" simply aren't enough to justify the risk.

Mike L.

[Link]

I think real choking is dangerous and would not do it nor would I wish to watch it. Where I disagree is that I would not wish to see it banned.

I just feel there is a real dual standard going on where a dangerous sexual act is treated out of all proportion to a dangerous non-sexual act. In the UK this duality is so gross that a scene from a Private film with a dildo on a broomhandle was banned (the operator was deemed to be too distant from the inserted dildo to ensure safe penetration) whereas kids across the country can watch and emulate Jackass every single day.

[Link]

However, I find the notion of the girls calling their partners "daddy" to be a far more disturbing thing than I'd ever find the choking.

[Link]

you wish

The more I hear about this, it sounds disturbing on several levels.

[Link]

In terms of health risks, I think the aggressive deep-throating that dominates the industry would cause more of an uproar, and be more damaging to the actresses.

Edited by - skronker on 3/21/2003 3:16:59 PM

[Link]

See List

The approach we are taking in Dayton is if the movie
contains too much rough sex/choking, it is returned
to the distributor for a full refund.

Den

[Link]

The post comparing this to dangerous extreme sports such as mountainclimbing, boxing, etc, is falling back on the usual fatuous, faux-libertatian argument that one can't condemn/outlaw self-destructive behavior. Wrong. Attempted suicide is actually illegal, and so is homicide, or, as it may or not be argued down to when some sad girl ends up dead, 1st or 2nd degree manslaughter.

I am hardly against extreme sex. I am against irresponsible and dangerous acts performed for the sake of selling a few more DVDs than the next guy. This shit is SNUFF FOREPLAY PORN, plain and simple. Firm hands on the neck are one thing, but actual crushing of the windpipe is quite another.

David Aaron Clark

David Aaron Clark
Serious Mirror Productions

[Link]

He's in the XXX Hall of Fame right?

P.S. There's nothing wrong with a little
choking, slapping, spitting, hair-pulling,
spanking, etc.

It's all in Fun right? hehe

[Link]

If that's really NOT the case, then it does bother me. But like so many other things in porn, how do you really know? And why is this different than those WWF "sleeper holds"?

Edited by - skronker on 3/21/2003 6:01:25 PM

[Link]

I am hardly against extreme sex. I am against irresponsible and dangerous acts performed for the sake of selling a few more DVDs than the next guy. This shit is SNUFF FOREPLAY PORN, plain and simple.

Den writes:
"The approach we are taking in Dayton is if the movie contains too much rough sex/choking, it is returned to the distributor for a full refund. "

That's a great approach, Den. Nothing speaks louder than the bottom line, so I'd like to see others following your example.

As for Mark Davis, he used to be okay, but now I can't stand the sight of him. He has degenerated into an idiotic sex offender as far as I'm concerned. It's just sad to see others going down the same road, but hopefully they won't drag the whole industry down with them.

[Link]

And yes, I now shoot for Zero Tolerance Entertainment but even when I didn't, Davis was always my top guy.

Questions and comments are always welcome.

Xanax and creative martinis are even more welcome.

[Link]

The fact that attempting suicide is illegal is just a silly religious hangover. The fact that such a law could be applied to people outside the strictures of religion is a debatable issue in itself and the illegality of suicide is hardly a rational precedent on which to base future legislation.

[Link]

I can't wait for his retirement.

[Link]

Mod Note: This thread was not originally about Mark Davis... but people don't seem to want to leave him out of what might otherwise be a worthwhile discussion. If anyone has anything else worthwhile to say about choking in porn, please start a new thread with the appropriate subject. I don't see much more to be gained by continuing down the (in some cases well worn) Mark Davis track, though...

Mike L.

[Link]