Talk:Breath control: Safety

Revision as of 18:41, 25 January 2012 by Breathplayfan (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To beginn with I would like to state that I agree with some of the provided information in the article and disagree with a lot. In general I have the feeling the article would like to make the impression to be a scientific based text. To make it short: it is not!

It makes the impression on me that the "cardiac arrest" that is made a topic in the frist two paragraphs is already related to the condition described in "Quick pathophysiology lesson # 1" as it would explain why the author refers to a cardiac arrest which becomes imminent without a warning. That should be clarified to prevent misunderstandings.

Paragraph #3 Line 3 "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 am absolutely sure because of the extended experience of the Author in EMS that he is aware of the fact that a cardiac arrest and the state of unconsciousness is and never can be the same. Therefore a cardiac arrest technically never can be the cause of unconsciousness. The Author will hopefully agree that one should never mix up those terms especially in an educational environment as the first aid actions to be taken differ regarding those states. Therefore it should be clarified!

Paragraph #4 "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." This again seems to refer to the very special theoretical risk stated in "Quick pathophysiology lesson # 1" as PVC's. If so it should be clarified. If not there is a even greater need of clarification.

Paragraph #12 "Sometimes even one minute of suffocation can cause this; sometimes even less." in such a hard allegation there should absolutely be a SCIENTIFIC!* source

"there are documented cases in which the recipient appeared to fully recover but was found dead several hours later." Never heard about a single one described like that. Stating that without a source is not appropriate.

  • I hope there is no need to say that especially in medical fields "Scientific" in common sense means a medical study within the regulations of a medical university giving numbers of cases looked on, percentages of observed results, .... .

My personal bits: "I am going to state that there is a great deal of ignorance regarding what actually happens to a body when it's suffocated or strangled, and that the actual degree of risk associated with these practices is far greater than most people believe." It has to be feared that it is true the a to big group of people is not well informed about the physiological happenings within the human body during hypoxia or lack of blood circulation due to pressure on the blood vessel embedded within the neck (also two different things that should never be mixed up)

I think I have never read an "educational" Article about breathcontrol fetish before that is so concerned with a cause of death during breathcontrol play like PVC's which can not even be measured in a scientific way and at the same time ignored obvious causes of death during breathcontrol play like

-leaving your partner alone even for short moments
-blocking the partners airway in a way that can not easily be removed

My concern is that a majority of fans of breathcontrol play will react with ignorance about this, to be honest to my opinion very inaccurate and bad researched article which should never be linked to as a form of education at any time. A less fundamental, better researched, fact based article would most likely save way more souls of potential breathcontrol players! Non professional articles like this one are actually a safety hazard to uneducated breathcontrol fetish players which turn away from maybe life saving professional information and should to my opinion not be published in such a way. -- 19:25, 24 January 2012 User:Breathplayfan

It's a cautionary essay, by one person. We could add more info, but I don't think we're going to edit the words of Jay Wiseman, because that would make him seem to say things which he did not say... AnonMoos 07:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It would not be sensible to alter the words of an acknowledged expert on bondage. However, if Breathplayfan wishes to add a second article, cross-referenced to this one and providing links to further reading, that would be extremely helpful.--Ropeuser 12:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand that the article will not be edited that would most likely even violate copyrights. I am grateful for the offer to add my own article which I thankfully decline. I am not gaining my ego nor my money out of writing and already stated my concerns with the article above. I am glad that there are people reading this with great concern about its content and would be happy if a link to this discussion could be permanently placed right at the articles page (having the discussion button in the navigation does not let you know there is already one going on about it) Being open minded also means to read content we do not agree with so I do not really wish for the article to be removed. But as breathcontrol fetish itself also this article should be read with a careful mind as stated above it could lead to further ignorance of the reading practicing fetishist.--Breathplayfan 22:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools