Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[arthwollipot]

What is your evidence for that claim?

I'm not going to link to the evidence, because that would be against the forum rules, but it can easily be seen in porn that when the man puts his hand on the woman's neck she is still clearly able to breathe and is therefore not being choked.

Sexual choking is more properly called breath play, and it can be incredibly dangerous. It involves restricting a person's ability to breathe. This is clearly not happening in porn as the person is obviously still breathing.

 

[arthwollipot]

I mean, when a organisation exists that has that for a name, you know you've messed up.

No, when an organisation exists that has that for a name, you know that it has an agenda.

 

[Joe Random]

I personally think it reveals a severe weakness in a moral position when a person thinks the best (only?) way to sway others is by trying to find a rhetorical 'gotcha', or by simple hectoring dressed up as "unlike you, I care about children, so ...".

 

[Lithrael]

No, when an organisation exists that has that for a name, you know that it has an agenda.

Whoa, whoa whoa... Are you trying to tell me that having a name like Smucker's does not in fact mean it has to be good?

 

[Poem]

No, when an organisation exists that has that for a name, you know that it has an agenda.

What agenda Art?

 

[Poem]

I'm not going to link to the evidence, because that would be against the forum rules, but it can easily be seen in porn that when the man puts his hand on the woman's neck she is still clearly able to breathe and is therefore not being choked.

Sexual choking is more properly called breath play, and it can be incredibly dangerous. It involves restricting a person's ability to breathe. This is clearly not happening in porn as the person is obviously still breathing.

Are you going to address the rest of my post?

 

[arthwollipot]

What agenda Art?

What do you think? Religion-inspired moralism, that's what.

Are you going to address the rest of my post?

No, because it is irrelevant to your argument that children are doing whatever it is they are reported to be doing because of porn. I have demonstrated that actual breath play is not a part of most porn. Furthermore, I dispute your sources as biased and agenda-driven.

 

[Poem]

You act like recreational sex precludes responsibility. There are plenty of effective methods for preventing unwanted pregnancies available. This is a matter for realistic sex education. And the conservative abstinence-only method has proved to be particularly ineffective at preventing unplanned pregnancies compared to comprehensive education about birth control.

The question was about pregnancy. What do you propose when recreational sex results in a pregnancy (clearly, in context, an unplanned one)?

But as far as same-sex partners goes, I guess they're off the hook in this regard. First you went from 'homosexual relationships are bad because they don't produce offspring', to 'heterosexual relationships for the joy of sex are bad because they do produce offspring'. Neat trick, that. Can you do it through a flaming hoop?

Cite me on those two.

How so? By not only depicting heterosexual couples intent upon having sex to produce offspring, and not simply for the joy of sex?

I have promoting such porn? You don't think porn is a celebration of lust and selfishness? If it isn't then what is it?
Are you saying you don't think porn is a devaluing of the meaning of sex?

It's equally clear to me that you are indoctrinated to regard sex as something that is sinful and dirty, rather than something that is beautiful and joyful for those involved when they have the emotional maturity to respect others.

Citation please.

The problems being discussed aren't caused by pornography.

I need to respond to that?

The subset of pornography that depicts force, aggression, disrespect and other unhealthy attitudes and behaviors is a symptom of deeper problems within human emotional states. Pornography that depicts willing adults sharing mutual enjoyment is a far cry from that.

Another assertion.

Define "the relationship". I'll be the first one to say that someone who knows that a partner believes there is a mutual expectation of monogamy, but surreptitiously has sex with someone else, is being a complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, and the partner whose trust they've betrayed has every right to be angry, and even end the relationship. But not everyone is in a (nominally) permanent monogamous relationship, and some people are perfectly capable of being honest with someone about wanting sex without wanting to start a permanent, exclusive relationship.

Let's assume that you are right - the value and meaning of sex is whatever an individual decides. If A and B are in relationship and there is a mutual understanding of monogamy (whilst still acknowledging an individual's right to non-exclusivity), what happens if A suddenly decides that sex no longer has such a high relationship value? Maybe A even changed as a result of watching porn? Isn't it obvious that the increasing pornification of society is a de facto threat in this respect?

One only has to look at the increasing numbers of broken families to know we're in a mess.

And even within a monogamous relationship, sexual desire can't just be shut off like a switch. Emotionally immature people, raised on a steady diet of guilt and self-loathing regarding sex, often think that the ideal relationship means that a partner genuinely does not find anyone else in the world attractive. This is silly. Emotionally mature and honest couples understand that sexual instincts can't just be turned off. They don't pretend that they'll never even find someone else attractive. They also understand that such attraction is not "thought crime". And for these couples those outside attractions are often focused back inward toward the partner, with mutually enjoyable results.

Ok - that seems obvious so I am not sure why you have written this.

 

[Poem]

I'm suggesting that Stalin's atheism had no more to do with his actions that his lack of golfing. The Soviet Communists used atheism as a reason to oppose rival power structures - primarily the Eastern Orthodox Church. But this was done in the name of Communism, not atheism. So a tu quoque about Stalin doesn't really apply to someone just because they're non religious.

Since I am not disputing the criticism about religious atrocities then it isn't a tu quoque. If you are suggesting that only atheists (who aren't captured by extreme ideology etc) occupy the moral high ground then I'd say you are wrong.

This makes no sense, especially in the context of the previous posts on the subject. You could argue that Hitler, for example, appealed to traditional Christianity to garner the support of his followers, but can you explain how Stalin used religious tradition?

Pictures of Stalin in the red corner.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The question was about pregnancy. What do you propose when recreational sex results in a pregnancy (clearly, in context, an unplanned one)?

Sorry, I'm not chasing squirrels with you. Again, sex for the pure pleasure of it doesn't preclude responsibility.

Cite me on those two.

You literally warned that species that have "too much" homosexuality will go extinct. Don't you remember that? The rest of us reading this thread do.

You also responded to the idea of sex for the fun of it by bringing up unplanned pregnancies, as though the only way to prevent pregnancies from happening is abstinence. The United States, thanks largely to the influence of the religious right, has demonstrated that abstinence-only birth control is inferior to comprehensive sex education when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies.

I have promoting such porn? You don't think porn is a celebration of lust and selfishness? If it isn't then what is it?
Are you saying you don't think porn is a devaluing of the meaning of sex?

What do you think "the meaning of sex" is? For humans especially, it goes beyond only reproduction. It has a powerful effect on emotional bonds and psychological health. Is sex only permissible, in your view, when a man and woman intend a pregnancy as at least a possible outcome of the act? Is it only permissible when a man and woman have been officially married "in the eyes of God", as recognized by a church?

You need to understand that for many people outside your dogma, "the meaning of sex" is mostly about pleasure and emotional bonding.

Citation please.

Sure.

I need to respond to that?

Your lack of response says enough.

Another assertion.

So you're saying that pornography depicting consenting adults mutually enjoying sex isn't any different from pornography depicting rape? You're just reinforcing what acbytesla said in post #6439

Let's assume that you are right - the value and meaning of sex is whatever an individual decides. If A and B are in relationship and there is a mutual understanding of monogamy (whilst still acknowledging an individual's right to non-exclusivity), what happens if A suddenly decides that sex no longer has such a high relationship value? Maybe A even changed as a result of watching porn? Isn't it obvious that the increasing pornification of society is a de facto threat in this respect?

Please be more specific than "A suddenly decides that sex no longer has such a high relationship value". If either partner in a monogamous relationship is no longer satisfied with the situation, then they should be honest with their partner about that fact. If one partner betrays the other's trust and surreptitiously has sex with someone else, then they are entirely justified in ending the relationship for that reason.

The increase in divorces isn't caused by porn, it's caused by people having the freedom to do so without being ostracized, especially for women (at least outside of religious fundamentalist communities). I don't even buy the assertion that porn causes marriages to split up. I've seen a few biased religious sources infer as much from reported correlations, but they ignore entirely the question of whether viewing porn by one of the partners (it's not at all uncommon for partners to view porn together) was a symptom of an already failing relationship, where the person has turned to porn out of frustration over their partner's lack of interest in them.

One only has to look at the increasing numbers of broken families to know we're in a mess.

We were in a mess before, too. It was just mostly hidden. Cultural stigma about divorce, and social and legal limitations placed on women in particular, caused many people to remain in marriages that were train wrecks. Many a "good Christian marriage" was (and still is) nothing more than window dressing.

Ok - that seems obvious so I am not sure why you have written this.

To make clear that viewing pornography - that having sexual fantasies - isn't the thoughtcrime that those behind pulpits make it out to be.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Since I am not disputing the criticism about religious atrocities then it isn't a tu quoque. If you are suggesting that only atheists (who aren't captured by extreme ideology etc) occupy the moral high ground then I'd say you are wrong.

Again, that's not what was said. And a tu quoque, by definition, doesn't dispute that one's own side has done something in particular. It seeks to justify it by pointing an accusing finger at someone else perceived as doing it as well.

Pictures of Stalin in the red corner.

How does that not support my statement that Stalin's Communism was a religion unto itself? The "Red Corner" was a sort of Communist shrine.

 

[Poem]

Sorry, I'm not chasing squirrels with you. Again, sex for the pure pleasure of it doesn't preclude responsibility.

A straightforward question and you dodged it. Do you think that abortion is acceptable if recreational sex (assume birth control was used) results in a pregnancy?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think we have another squirrel to chase..

 

[arthwollipot]

A straightforward question and you dodged it. Do you think that abortion is acceptable if recreational sex (assume birth control was used) results in a pregnancy?

Yes, absolutely. But it should be a last resort. If birth control is used properly, it should prevent pregnancy. That's what it's for. It's very effective.

But there's another thread to discuss abortion. It's off-topic here.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A straightforward question and you dodged it.

I can't dodge a question you haven't asked. If you wanted to ask about abortion then you should have just asked about it. Don't get upset because you can't manipulate me into playing your rhetorical games.

Meanwhile, you've dodged quite a few questions in my previous post.

Do you think that abortion is acceptable if recreational sex (assume birth control was used) results in a pregnancy?

Abortion is up to the woman. No one else has the right to force her to carry to term a pregnancy she chooses not to.

And again, abstinence-only sex education is about the least effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Nobody is like, "Yay! More abortions!". But if you want to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, comprehensive sex education covering the importance and effectiveness of various birth control methods, and making those methods easily accessible to everyone, is the way to go.

Now let me ask you - do you think that the way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to just never have sex until you decide you want a child?

 

[dann]

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Get real! Wake up! Take a look at reality!

Why did choking during sex become vanilla? (Dazed, Sep 15, 2025)
Rising numbers of young women have been choked during consensual sex, as a once-niche kink moves into the mainstream

‘There is no safe way to do it’: the rapid rise and horrifying risks of choking during sex (reddit)

The reddit thread eferences an article in The Guardian saying:

Now thought to be the second most common cause of stroke in women under 40, it can also lead to difficulty swallowing, incontinence, seizures, memory problems, depression, anxiety and miscarriage. How has this extreme practice been normalised?

Why it’s so hard to opt out: The challenge of escaping the world of violent sexual imagery (ABC News, Sep 23, 2026)

Note: This article includes descriptions and discussion of sexual violence.​

The death of a 16-year old girl in Sydney last month, allegedly from being strangled during sex, has seen shock and anger ripple across the country. Since the news broke, calls have intensified for the state to address the growing normalisation of rough sex among young adults, and the violent treatment of women in sex.
In a recent large-scale survey, 57 per cent of young Australians reported being sexually strangled (or “choked”) and 51 per cent reported strangling a partner — with a higher proportion of women being strangled than men, and a higher proportion of men initiating strangulation.

Your argument doesn't show what you think it shows:

What actually appears regularly in otherwise vanilla hetero porn is that the man puts his hand on the woman's neck. She is still breathing - often quite deeply and noisily - when he does so, ergo he is not choking her. It doesn't look like choking and it doesn't sound like choking. At most, you can say that he is pretending to choke her, but even then he's not doing a very good imitation.

I haven't analyzed this phenomenon in detail the way you have, but in order for it to work in favor of what you're trying to argue for, young people learning about sexuality from (allegedly) vanilla porn would have to do the same analysis of porn as you appear to have been doing – and if they were able and willing to do so, they would probably have looked up actual sex education online instead of porn!

Speaking for myself, even without analyzing the scenes, I was also aware that the choking was pretend choking, i.e. that no actual strangulation took place, that no woman actually suffocated due to the pretend choking.
So much more reason to remove it entirely because 1) it won't satisfy the needs of the actual pervs, and 2) it will only serve to confuse people who don't know any better and think they are watching ordinary consensual sex. See links above!!!

And believe it or not, some people actually do enjoy spanking. It is quite harmless, and in fact quite normal. It's like putting a big toe into the kink pool. Some people even enjoy being tied up or restrained, which is slightly deeper in the kink pool (though still somewhat at the shallow end), but here's the thing about kink: as long as it is done safely and with full informed consent, it too is perfectly harmless.

You don't have to convince me that "some people actually do enjoy spanking.*" You also don't have to convince me that some people enjoy the whole spectrum of BDSM, i.e. 'non-vanilla,' in porn as well as IRL roleplaying. I know that 50 Shades ..., which I assume is at what you would call 'the shallow end of the pool', enjoys some popularity beyond the clientele of fetish clubs.
I also know that that kind of sex requires safe words and other safety measures for it to remain "perfectly harmless" and that those safety procedures sometimes fail, making it much less 'perfect' than you would like to make us believe.

* I had to correct the auto-correct, which changed spanking into speaking!


ETA: I can see that you are aware of the imperfection of the perfect harmlessness!

Sexual choking is more properly called breath play, and it can be incredibly dangerous. It involves restricting a person's ability to breathe. This is clearly not happening in porn as the person is obviously still breathing.

Breath play!!! What a silly euphemism for what is actually happening!

 

[dann]

What actually appears regularly in otherwise vanilla hetero porn is that the man puts his hand on the woman's neck.

Since you only included one paragraph from my post:
Am I right in assuming that you understand that young people may stumble on choking (or as you would like to call it: pretend choking) in ordinary (or 'vanilla') porn? Do you understand that they may get to watch choking in porn without looking for or wanting to watch choking porn?

 

[Poem]

Since you only included one paragraph from my post:
Am I right in assuming that you understand that young people may stumble on choking (or as you would like to call it: pretend choking) in ordinary (or 'vanilla') porn? Do you understand that they may get to watch choking in porn without looking for or wanting to watch choking porn?

What would you say is the solution dann - to this issue and porn in general?

 

[dann]

TL;DR – excerpts from the links in my post 6,456:

Why did choking during sex become vanilla? (Dazed, Sep 15, 2025)
New research from YouGov has found that in the UK, 22 per cent of women aged 18 to 29 have been choked at least once, a stark contrast to just one per cent of women over the age of 60. The data also reflects shifting attitudes towards choking: while 12 per cent of young people say that choking during sex is either “tame” or “neither tame nor extreme”, just one per cent of over-60s share the same view.
(...)
Choking, by definition, is a sex act that falls firmly under the BDSM umbrella: in other words, it’s niche (it’s also technically illegal, even if the person being choked has consented to it). So why have so many young people tried it? “The rise of sexual choking among young adults is likely a product of the mainstreaming of kink we’ve seen in recent years,” says Dr Justin Lehmiller, Senior Research Fellow at the Kinsey Institute and host of the Sex and Psychology Podcast.

‘There is no safe way to do it’: the rapid rise and horrifying risks of choking during sex (reddit)
MysteryMeat101
My ex watched a lot of p0rn and loved to choke and gag me. He claimed it was his kink and that I had to go along with it. I absolutely hated it and I asked him not to do it. I explained the risks to him and he admitted that in the past he choked a partner until she lost consciousness long enough that he thought she was dead. He still did it. I started avoiding having sex with him. Eventually I stopped having sex with him. We ended up divorced because of our dead bedroom. Better a dead bedroom than a dead spouse. I wish I had left sooner.
shamefully-epic
This is news to me - thanks for the PSA.
Also, the amount of women telling their experiences of violence being unceremoniously thrust upon them during intercourse is genuinely horrifying.
I think we might need to reconsider the idea that kink shaming is taboo… thoughts?
Mar 136
I saw this posted on another subreddit (a general health one I think) and some people were still arguing that there’s safe ways to do it, complaining about kink-shaming, and some were even saying that most women expect it (what a crock of bull).
Tallchick8
Thank you so much for posting this. I have done "light" choking in the past (though this article makes clear that there's no such thing). As other people have mentioned, there is a sense of euphoria that goes with it.
I knew that things like " hard choking/ passing out" were bad.
I hadn't realized the risks of "minor" stuff. I do now.
Thanks.

Why it’s so hard to opt out: The challenge of escaping the world of violent sexual imagery (ABC News, Sep 23, 2026)
How did we get here? And who, or what, can be held responsible? In public discussions, two main culprits have been identified: violent, misogynistic pornography; and its amplification by means of social media algorithms. The #FixOurFeeds campaign, led by activist Chanel Contos, has been pushing the Australian government to force tech giants to install an “opt in” and “opt out” feature for algorithmic content, in a bid to prevent teenagers from being flooded with violent sexual content on digital platforms.
The urgency of this intervention cannot be denied. A 2019 study in the UK found that one-quarter of men use unbidden violence during sex, and that 38 per cent of women under 40 have experienced unwanted slapping, spitting, choking and gagging. In a 2021 US study, most of the women interviewed reported that they were often strangled without consent, either because their sexual partner was indifferent or because they simply assumed their consent. Reports of coercive and unwanted anal sex are also rising.

NSW Police investigating 16-year-old Sydney girl's death as suspected sexual choking act (ABC News, Aug 27, 2026)
Regardless of whether it was consensual, Ms Steggall said there was "no safe way" to engage in choking during sex.
"It's led by pornography, manosphere content on social media, and it's lack of, I guess, proper enough education when it comes to respectful relationships, consents for sexual intercourse," she told 702 ABC Sydney.
"We have a very dangerous environment where the statistics are saying in under-18s, there is a real rise in sexual assaults."

Prevalence of Sexual Strangulation/Choking Among Australian 18–35 Year-Olds (PubMed Central, July 3, 2024)
Differences were found across genders on all variables of sexual strangulation, including frequency of engagement, level of pressure on the neck, consequences, wanting and enjoyment, and how consent was given/received. However, when split by gender, sexual orientation of men and women revealed further differences in behaviors, consequences, and wanting, particularly among straight and bisexual women. After accounting for exposure to strangulation in pornography and previous experience of sexual strangulation, positive perceptions of being strangled (R2 = .51) and strangling a partner (R2 = .53) were predicted by ratings that it could be done safely and social normative factors.

 

[Lithrael]

That's weird. When did kids mix up 'kink shaming' (you have x kink? gross) and 'having personal taste/boundaries' (it's fine that you have that kink but I don't. So no)

All else aside, they do need to know that they shouldn't stay in a relationship with someone that doesn't respect their boundaries.