If they could reasonably argue that it were a safe practice, of course I would. Why wouldn't I? Except that argument can't be reasonably made. But it can be made for limited levels of sexual choking play. I specifically asked:

"But does it cause more damage than smoking? Alcohol? Cannabis in young people?"

And without a quantitative answer to this, the entire discussion is hot air and prejudice.

And I cannot help but noting that your way of argument is literally item #1 of Eristic Dialectic: The Extension. These methods are neither productive nor welcome.

In no way is being stabbed pleasurable. Your average person knows that this results in death, charges, jail, etc.

Light choking is quite common amongst sexual partners. It can be incredibly arousing for many. Its is, generally speaking, not at all dangerous when both parties have a very basic understanding of how to do the act safely. It is certainly possible for something to go terribly wrong, even if incredibly rarely.

There is a massive difference between domestic abuse choking and sexual pleasure choking, and tour argument is a fantastic example of how being incredibly reductive is damaging to the argument youre trying to make.

> […] However, no studies used formal neuropsychological assessment: the majority were medical case studies or based on self-report. Furthermore, few authors were able to control for possible confounds, including other physical violence and existing psychosocial difficulties.

So, not only is this not about consensual sex, but rather violence — and therefore inapplicable to consensual activities — but also built on very shaky grounds. The latter might be unavoidable in researching domestic/sexual violence cases, but the former just makes this paper completely useless in discussing consensual activities.