Today, an inquest found that TV presenter Kristian Digby suffered “death by misadventure” as a result of auto-erotic asphyxiation gone bad. Meanwhile in Canada, a court case ponders whether a person can consent, in advance, to the consequences of breath-play. Here’s part of the article from the Ottawa Citizen:

‘…The Ontario Crown is bringing the appeal to the Supreme Court after the province’s appeal court ruled earlier this year that a man, identified only as J.A., was not committing sexual assault when he and his on-again, off-again partner of seven years engaged in “erotic asphyxiation” one night in May 2007…

…The case reaches the Supreme Court more than a decade after it ruled that there is no such thing as implied consent.

In written legal arguments, J.A.’s lawyer invokes the words of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who in 1968 famously declared that “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation … what is done in private between adults doesn’t concern the Criminal Code.”

The woman took her complaint to Ottawa police two months after the alleged assault, when she was seeking custody of the couple’s toddler.

At trial, she testified that she agreed to be choked unconscious to “spice up” their sex life. After being knocked out for about three minutes, she came to and discovered J.A. had inserted a dildo in her anus, an act she said she had not agreed to in advance. She later recanted her testimony.

J.A. was originally sentenced to 18 months after an Ottawa judge said it was against the law to have sex with an unconscious person.

Restoring his conviction would effectively render “every touching of a sexual nature that occurs while a person is sleeping or unconscious a criminal act, notwithstanding the consent of the supposed victim,” J.A.’s lawyer, Howard Krongold, argues in his court submission…’

Full article here.

Here’s a snippet from a great Indy article by Sarah Boyes on the shallow and superficial nature of morality and female role models in the 21st Century:

‘…Imposing “better” role models on society is seen as a quick fix to correct the “wrong” dreams of schoolchildren and “uncouth” behaviour of grown women. Both are seen as private people with personal problems rather than potentially public individuals who could achieve great things. The notion women might become more liberated and flourish through living their lives the way they choose runs counter to a culture which doesn’t always recognise genuine achievement, intelligence and a desire to be more free.

In this way, the discussion stays frustratingly at the level of appearance, as if dressing and behaving in a more ‘correct’ manner is all that’s needed. This both refuses to address the often complex relationship between personal appearance and deeper moral beliefs, whilst simultaneously serving to fetishise how women look and dress. The discussion takes the form of a faux-choice between burqas, bikinis or flat brown shoes: “conservative and religious”, “fun and sexually liberated” or “middle-class and sensible”…’

Full article here.

Here’s the introduction to a brilliant post from Jane Fae Ozimek’s Sex Matters blog, concerning her complaint to the PCC about an absolutely terrible Daily Star article:

“Please find below a complaint in respect of a piece published by the Daily Star, under the heading “Prisons: female guards may be forced to search male trannies” on 12 September 2010.”

The Daily Star’s article is every kind of offensive, from the photo of a blue-wigged drag queen to the multitude of misleading legal claims, yet at least we can take comfort from the web designer’s surprisingly honest use of inverted commas: