By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of a government initiative to combat violence against women and girls, online pornography depicting strangulation or suffocation will be outlawed. This decision follows a review highlighting the normalization of choking in mainstream porn and its potential impact on young people. Amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill will criminalize both possessing and publishing such content, with online platforms mandated to detect and remove it. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) emphasized that this move elevates choking in pornography to a “priority offence” under the Online Safety Act, akin to child sexual abuse material and terrorism content.
Read the original article here
Online porn showing choking to be made illegal, government says, and it’s difficult not to have some initial, almost knee-jerk, reactions. The very idea of the government stepping in to legislate what consenting adults can watch, especially in the realm of adult entertainment, immediately raises eyebrows. I mean, we’re talking about a world with age verification systems already in place, designed to ensure that minors aren’t accessing this content. So, to then ban specific acts within that context feels like a step too far, bordering on censorship. It’s a sentiment that many would likely share: the feeling of having your choices, your access to information, restricted.
This brings up a more fundamental question: Where do we draw the line? If choking is deemed illegal, does that mean any depiction of physical restraint becomes taboo? Would it extend beyond the realm of adult films? There’s a concern that such a ban could be the tip of the iceberg, opening the door to further government overreach in the future. The argument becomes about control and the gradual erosion of personal liberties. And let’s be honest, the hypocrisy is glaring. We’re potentially banning simulated strangulation while, seemingly, more violent acts receive less scrutiny.
Of course, the rationale presented is rooted in concern for safety, and the potential harm associated with the act of strangulation. The statistics mentioned in the UK’s survey are chilling. A significant percentage of women have reported being choked during sex. The perspective shifts to the potential dangers, the long-term health consequences, and the violation of consent. It creates a tension: the desire to protect vulnerable individuals, juxtaposed with the belief in individual freedom and autonomy. It prompts a need for a wider conversation about communication and consent. Instead of simply banning depictions, wouldn’t it be more effective to encourage open dialogue about sexual boundaries and expectations, both before and during intimate encounters?
But, even acknowledging the serious concerns, there are valid counterpoints to consider. One of the main points is that regulation is needed and that the current unregulated porn industry can be a source of exploitation and abuse. But, the response here, a simple ban, is seen by many as a simplistic response to a multifaceted issue. It feels like the government is taking the path of least resistance. It’s easier to ban something than to grapple with complex issues, to have discussions about consent, and to try to tackle the root causes of the problem.
And it brings the focus back to the bigger picture and the potential for a slippery slope. The worry is that the act of banning this specific activity is not just about this activity. It’s about setting a precedent for future restrictions. It normalizes government intervention in increasingly personal matters, and it does so with a backdrop of a growing political climate of intolerance and authoritarianism. It’s a worrying trend that suggests a lack of ideas and ambition from those in power, who seem content to simply ban things rather than tackle complex issues in more constructive ways.
There’s the question of the practicalities. Even if a ban is implemented, how effective will it be? Will it actually prevent people from engaging in these acts, or will it simply drive them underground, onto platforms beyond the reach of regulation? Furthermore, what are the implications for the industry? There are concerns that banning strangulation could inadvertently lead to a situation where other, potentially more dangerous, acts become more prevalent. The unintended consequences of such a move are also a great concern.
Ultimately, the issue of banning online porn showing choking is a complex one, filled with competing interests. On the one hand, there’s the genuine desire to protect vulnerable individuals and combat violence. On the other, there’s the concern about censorship, the erosion of personal freedoms, and the potential for unintended consequences. It’s a debate that highlights the challenges of navigating the relationship between the government, the individual, and the increasingly complex digital world.