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

[arthwollipot]

No, I am asking you for your sample size relating to choking or strangulation porn. As things stand, your claim that:

is worthless.

The problem is that we are prevented by forum rules from linking directly to specific examples. You by your own admission do not watch any porn, so how do you know whether anyone's being literally choked? You get your information (I won't call it "data") from dodgy ideologically biased sources, or news media that itself gets its information from those same sources, and sensationalises it for the clicks. Yes, even The Guardian, which I find is generally a pretty good news medium, does this.

A lot of your questions would be answered if you took the big old stick out of your butt and watch some porn. It's not going to turn you gay. It's not going to stunt your sexual development. It's free. Just fire up pornhub or whatever and watch some porn. Then you'll see firsthand what it's like. And who knows? You might find that you actually enjoy it.

 

[Poem]

I'm saying that you're quoting posts from way back in the thread, to ask questions that are already answered. Why can't you keep up with the thread along with the rest of us.

For a start, this is a bad habit because people are occasionally capable of changing their opinions about things, and quoting posts from six months ago might not reflect the current state of peoples' thinking.

Either respond to the things people say now, or don't respond at all.

Which post?

 

[Poem]

The problem is that we are prevented by forum rules from linking directly to specific examples. You by your own admission do not watch any porn, so how do you know whether anyone's being literally choked? You get your information (I won't call it "data") from dodgy ideologically biased sources, or news media that itself gets its information from those same sources, and sensationalises it for the clicks. Yes, even The Guardian, which I find is generally a pretty good news medium, does this.

A lot of your questions would be answered if you took the big old stick out of your butt and watch some porn. It's not going to turn you gay. It's not going to stunt your sexual development. It's free. Just fire up pornhub or whatever and watch some porn. Then you'll see firsthand what it's like. And who knows? You might find that you actually enjoy it.

I didn't ask for specific examples. The evidence you presented that strangulation porn is harmless based on what you have seen is inadmissible. And if it is to be considered, then dann's equally anecdotal evidence appears to cancel yours out:

Choking, pretending to choke, whatever.
It's definitely not just somebody with "their hand on or near another person's neck" and you can't "clearly see and hear the subject (!) breathing." (I can't rely on my own hearing to determine this, so I had to ask somebody else to confirm my impression.)

You haven't established that the data I have posted is from dodgy sources.

BTW, as stated before, Gabby Bertin (who headed the UK's Porn Taskforce) watched porn for her report:

The new rules follow a review into porn regulation in 2025 which found depictions of choking were "rife" on popular porn sites and had helped normalise the act among young people.

 

[arthwollipot]

The evidence you presented that strangulation porn is harmless based on what you have seen is inadmissible.

I'm not saying that it's harmless, I'm saying that it's not strangulation porn.

 

[Poem]

I'm not saying that it's harmless, I'm saying that it's not strangulation porn.

You said:

No it isn't. Nobody is being choked. You can clearly see and hear the subject breathing. That's not choking, that's just someone with their hand on or near another person's neck.

Do you know exactly what, if anything, you are saying?
And still no sample size?

 

[arthwollipot]

Do you know exactly what, if anything, you are saying?

Yes. I'm saying that putting a hand on or near someone's neck is not necessarily choking them. To choke them you have to cut off the airflow so that they cannot breathe. That's why the other more technical term for it is erotic asphyxiation. Some people get off on it, but it's incredibly dangerous and not recommended even in the rougher end of the BDSM communities. This is not what is being depicted in porn, because in porn you can clearly see the subject is still breathing and vocalising.

And if kids were being educated properly, they'd know that.

 

[Poem]

Yes. I'm saying that putting a hand on or near someone's neck is not necessarily choking them. To choke them you have to cut off the airflow so that they cannot breathe. That's why the other more technical term for it is erotic asphyxiation. Some people get off on it, but it's incredibly dangerous and not recommended even in the rougher end of the BDSM communities. This is not what is being depicted in porn, because in porn you can clearly see the subject is still breathing and vocalising.

And if kids were being educated properly, they'd know that.

Anecdotal evidence with no sample size against a major UK study that will ban such porn in a few weeks. And you talk about reliable sources?

 

[arthwollipot]

Anecdotal evidence with no sample size against a major UK study that will ban such porn in a few weeks. And you talk about reliable sources?

Yeah, about that ban. You remember how I said watch as nothing changes?

 

[Poem]

Yeah, about that ban. You remember how I said watch as nothing changes?

Another swerve.

 

[arthwollipot]

Another swerve.

Not at all. Why do you think I say that nothing will change?

I'll tell you. There are two reasons.

First, banning a certain kind of porn in the UK won't have an effect if that kind of porn isn't banned in other countries. And it isn't.

Second banning choking in porn won't change anything because nobody in porn is being choked. Although I guess Rule 34 and everything I would have to grant that there may be a few dodgy vids on some tiny site that caters to the most extreme fetishists. But in the porn you'll find on the mainstream sites, actual erotic asphyxiation is rare.

And no, I'm still not going to give you numbers because what I watch is none of your damn business.

 

[Poem]

Not at all. Why do you think I say that nothing will change?

I'll tell you. There are two reasons.

First, banning a certain kind of porn in the UK won't have an effect if that kind of porn isn't banned in other countries. And it isn't.

It will depend on how seriously the UK government / Ofcom is taking this - if they really believe that young people are riffing off this stuff.

Second banning choking in porn won't change anything because nobody in porn is being choked. Although I guess Rule 34 and everything I would have to grant that there may be a few dodgy vids on some tiny site that caters to the most extreme fetishists. But in the porn you'll find on the mainstream sites, actual erotic asphyxiation is rare.

Anecdotal evidence.

And no, I'm still not going to give you numbers because what I watch is none of your damn business.

You made it the thread's business because you have made the claim. How many videos have you seen that have something related to a hand being placed on a neck?

 

[Poem]

Gabby Bertin (BBC, 27th Feb. 2025):

It strikes me as incredible that to buy a DVD, which sounds so sort of retro, the BBFC [British Board of Film Classification] has to put a stamp on it, has to check that certain standards have been met. That there's no sense you are encouraging child sexual abuse. No harmful, degrading, humiliating practices which is not through consensual roleplay," she told the BBC.

"You just have to go on the homepages of some of these mainstream sites and you will see of all that degrading content – particularly violent towards women – and it's all there for everyone to see.

What is clear from the above is that Bertin has been told by the BBFC (see also #5,728) what would and would not be legal on DVD. Her claim that:

Non-fatal strangulation is already an offence if someone does not consent but its depiction online is not illegal and the review finds it is "rife on mainstream platforms".

isn't anecdotal. arthwollipot's is.

 

[Poem]

From the same article:

Madelaine Thomas, an adult content creator, also welcomed the review but added: "If we look to police people's sexual interests that's problematic.

Notice Ms. Thomas didn't claim, as arthwollipot has, that chocking porn isn't being portrayed.

 

[Darat]

You said:

Do you know exactly what, if anything, you are saying?
And still no sample size?

Yes he does but you don't. Some people find their neck to be a secondary erogenous zone, that means they like their neck to be stimulated during sex, that does not mean they want to be strangled or treated in any rough manner, holding and stroking someone's neck is not "breath play" or dangerous in any way. Apparently most deaths from "breath play" are autoerotic asphyxiations, i.e. solo. Amazing what you learn.

 

[Poem]

Yes he does but you don't. Some people find their neck to be a secondary erogenous zone, that means they like their neck to be stimulated during sex, that does not mean they want to be strangled or treated in any rough manner, holding and stroking someone's neck is not "breath play" or dangerous in any way. Apparently most deaths from "breath play" are autoerotic asphyxiations, i.e. solo. Amazing what you learn.

Your faith in art's anecdotes is noted. Apparently, all Bertin and co. had to do was listen to such testimony. You aren't dealing with reality. The BBFC has told Bertin about illegal material...material they would not give a certificate to.

Bertin's conclusion? It's rife.

 

[Darat]

I've tested these "rife" claims at least twice and twice found them to be incorrect.

 

[Poem]

I've tested these "rife" claims at least twice and twice found them to be incorrect.

Details.

 

[Helen]

It will depend on how seriously the UK government / Ofcom is taking this - if they really believe that young people are riffing off this stuff.

Anecdotal evidence.

You made it the thread's business because you have made the claim. How many videos have you seen that have something related to a hand being placed on a neck?

Don't blame the thread, it doesn't care, nor do any of the posters, apart from you. That you want to know is your problem. Or a result of your prurience. Or your kink. Or all of the above. By now, the only poster who seems to have an unwholesome interest in porn is you.

 

[Darat]

Details.

Buried much earlier in the thread.

I suspect that they are mistaking "neck play" for strangulation whenever they see anyone's hands on another performer's neck.

 

[Lithrael]

We can also see from examples of demanded cuts to DVDs posted a good while back in the thread, that the BBFC describes things like deep-throating without breathing comfortably, and/or with coughing/spluttering as choking which must be cut to get a rating. In that set of examples I didn't see any DVDs being told to cut hands-on-necks choking. Nose-pinching, yes. Though there was one that mentioned throat-grabbing in addition to airway obstruction.

The current R-18 criteria are presented with a little commentary at the bottom of this page: https://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/bw_guidelines.htm