Forum: Author Hangout

Rough sex the new norm

Switch Blayde 🚫
Updated:

I just read an article called: "Choking, smothering, slapping: More teens are having rough sex. Here's why."

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/more-teens-having-rough-sex-heres-why-230509457.html

We may need a new tag on SOL for "choking." It seems to be the new norm.

As a sexuality researcher and college professor, I have a unique window into young people's sexual lives. One of the most significant changes to teenage sexuality that I've seen in recent years has to do with the increase of "rough sex" — a trend influenced by widely accessible pornography, popular erotica such as Fifty Shades of Gray and social media.

In my research, I've found that many young people think that sex is supposed to be rough. … many teens watch pornography for several years before becoming sexually active with a partner. These repeated exposures can create a sense of how sex is "supposed" to play out

when we've asked college students why they engage in rough sex, they generally say that they engage in it because it feels exciting or adventurous, or that it's just the way that sex is done these days. Young people sometimes describe worrying they will be "vanilla shamed" — written off as boring — if they're not into rough sex. Some young men worry they won't be viewed as masculine if they don't choke or slap their partner.

Young men often describe learning about rough sex from pornography, whereas young women often describe learning about rough sex from social media memes, TikTok and fan fiction.

In a 2020 survey of 4,998 undergraduate students representative of college campuses, my colleagues and I found that about 80% of students had engaged in rough sex, and most described liking it. One of the most common forms of rough sex is widely referred to as "choking" even though it is technically a form of strangulation

and this is the real scary part:

In a 2021 U.S. nationally representative survey, we found that 1 in 3 women age 18 to 24 were choked the last time they had sex. Among college students, about two-thirds of women have been choked during sex, as have nearly one-third of men and about half of transgender and gender nonbinary students. About one-quarter of these students were first choked between the ages of 12 and 17.

There's more in the article. I just cut and pasted parts.

Replies: Pixy awnlee jawking DBActive Pixy flightorfight solreader50 John Demille DBActive hst666

Pixy 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Not sure it's just down to watching porn reading books and peer pressure.

People do things because, ultimately, they like doing things. I eat chocolate not because of some woman on the telly suggestively sucking on a chocolate surrogate penis, but because I like eating chocolate. People don't climb cliffs because they saw a small American man do it in a film. They do it because they like it.

Some people like being choked and slapped because.... They like it...

Some people like sexual partners of the same gender, because...they do...

Some, yes, will do so because of peer pressure or threats by their partner, but that's only going to a be a relatively small minority.

Replies: Marius-6 solreader50

Marius-6 🚫

@Pixy

Not sure it's just down to watching porn reading books and peer pressure.

People do things because, ultimately, they like doing things.

Perhaps it is because I am now an "old codger" but I believe that young people (under 30) seem to be much more susceptible to social media.

Mass social media has only been around for roughly 15 years. We don't really know, let alone "understand" the effects of social media. We have some understanding of dopamine and how our "brains" can be changed by chemical imbalances, which can be altered by emotions as well as drugs and other things.

"Tik Tok challenges" are just one of the newer trends influencing young people. Hormones motivate teens and young adults (tweens too). Worse, it seems that for a variety of reasons public schools don't seem to be teaching critical thinking; nor instilling/reinforcing "traditional values" but rather encouraging risky behaviors.

No matter our "moral" perspective on particular sexual activities; most "non-vanilla" acts are inherently more dangerous than straight sex (which is hardly risk free). Anal sex is dangerous, so is sex without a condom, multiple partners. Then there is genital mutilation! Emotional dangers, in addition to physical injuries, and diseases are all exacerbated in current Western nations.

So, I believe that a variety of social factors are significantly increasing the participation in various forms of "Rough Sex" and I believe it is both dangerous and Degrading!

Choking can lead to brain damage or death. It is dangerous to incorporate with sex by people who are knowledgeable about the risks, and comparatively "safe" ways to practice it. Teens in the throes of sexual passion... I think it is criminally reckless! People are going to die needlessly! Not to mention the emotional damage.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Marius-6

most "non-vanilla" acts are inherently more dangerous than straight sex

David Carradine died of erotic asphyxiation.

What surprised (troubled) me was how common it is today among the young (according to the article).

Replies: Dinsdale

Dinsdale 🚫

@Switch Blayde

David Carradine died of erotic asphyxiation.

I knew someone who died that way back in the mid 90's, before the Internet became ubiquitous and before the term "social media" became known (or was even coined). The one I knew, his girlfriend came back from work and discovered him hanging there.
There was a Tory MP in England who died a year or so later, allegedly with an orange in his mouth and a plastic bag over his head (there were more exotic details but I can't remember them, or his name).

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dinsdale

I knew someone who died that way back in the mid 90's

It's likely the frequency of mortality as a consequence of multiple risky sexual sessions is under-reported, because erotic asphyxiation also increases the risk of death by heart attack, and a coroner is likely to stop after recording 'heart attack' and not investigate whether risky sexual practices might also have been a factor.

AJ

solreader50 🚫

@Pixy

Some people like being choked and slapped because.... They like it...

Or do some people like being choked and slapped because.... their partner insists on it. Another dom/sub perversion.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I read a similar article in my UK newspaper.

The supporting study is small (1358 kids) self-reported (ie no verification) and was run by an organisation with a vested interest in banning porn. It fails my sniff test.

Rough sex is rare in adults, and when it includes breath play, there's an alarmingly high fatality rate. If millions of kids are doing it based on internet porn, they won't know how to do it safely (if that's possible) and mortuaries would be full of casualties.

There probably is more rough sex amongst the sexually active, but studies seem to show Generation Z is more conservative and less likely to indulge in sex under 18 than previous recent generations.

AJ

Replies: Dicrostonyx solreader50

Dicrostonyx 🚫

@awnlee jawking

By psychology standards 1358 is actually a pretty big study and almost everything is self-reported. There are methods for adjusting based false reporting, but there are also certain tendencies in how things are falsely reported.

For example, people tend to give false reports when they feel they might be judged for telling the truth, so in the case of sexual studies people tend to downplay anything they feel is unconventional or which they might be judged on. On the other hand, they also tend to feel guilty about doing these things, so they may attach more weight to something even if they only tried it once.

Replies: DBActive awnlee jawking

DBActive 🚫

@Dicrostonyx

A "self-reported" study can be valuable but is more likely worthless. It all depends on where you seek the reports.
Seek responses about extra-marital sex on Surviving Infidelity and you just might get different answers than on cuckoldry.com.
Almost all social science surveys are designed and conducted to support the viewpoints of the researchers. If the results don't do so, the results are tossed and the survey redesigned.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dicrostonyx

Oddly enough, I would expect the opposite. A hormonal 13-17yo would be more likely to lie and big up their experience to impress their peers.

AJ

Replies: Dicrostonyx

Dicrostonyx 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Maybe, but they aren't around their peers when filling out a survey like this. Most psych studies these days involve the participant being in a room by themselves or with the researcher and filling out the survey via a computer. You typically only have paper forms when a study is being done by students as part of a class project.

You never have participants filling out surveys as a group or on their own unless the thing being studied is not the thing you say you're studying. For example, you might hand a class of 30 students tests on sexual experience then mount a camera in the room because you're studying the group dynamics, attention to instructions, bullying behaviours, or some other social metric. Ethically you'd also have to tell the participants afterwards what was actually being studied, too.

solreader50 🚫

@awnlee jawking

The supporting study is small (1358 kids)

Statically significant sample - no complaints here

self-reported (ie no verification)

Hmmm - picking the results off the table and starting to look for file 13.

and was run by an organisation with a vested interest in banning porn.

Dropping those results I was carrying into file 13, never to see daylight again.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@solreader50

Statically significant sample - no complaints here

Statistically significant how? Surely that depends on the questions and the percentage choosing each answer.

By the way (huge alarm bell), the nationwide study was only on teen porn viewing habits, not how it translated into real life - for that we only have the author's word. And the nationwide study participants were volunteered by their caregivers in exchange for money.

AJ

Replies: solreader50

solreader50 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

I do remember many, many moons ago sweating through statistics texts books to help my dearly beloved with the quantitative part of her doctoral thesis. I do recall that for many purposes a sample size of 400+ was sufficient to give a reasonably accurate result. Some later work on opinion polls backed that memory up. But I could be wrong.

You just want me to drop the rubbish in the file 13 garbage earlier. We do not disagree. This is a survey that is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Replies: Dicrostonyx

Dicrostonyx 🚫
Updated:

@solreader50

I don't know the math for calculating sample sizes, but I do still have my class notes* for what sample sizes are necessary for a given confidence level, accuracy of estimate, and population.

In a population of 1 million, a sample size of just 462 people is big enough for 99% confidence with estimate accuracy of +/- 6% while 384 people is enough for 95% confidence at an accuracy of +/- 5%.

* Note: The class in question was "Research for Professional Writers," not a maths class. We had this table because most class assignments were social science based since the prof did gov't contracting when not teaching, so it was her jam.

DBActive 🚫

@Switch Blayde

What should tell you that the article is bullshit is thatauthor does no give any reference to his "nationally representative survey."

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@DBActive

What should tell you that the article is bullshit is thatauthor does no give any reference to his "nationally representative survey."

From her Amazon author profile:

Dr. Herbenick … is the lead scientist behind the National Surveys of Sexual Health and Behavior, the largest nationally representative studies of sex in America.

I guess that's where the data came from.

I also spotted this book of hers on her profile: "Read My Lips: A Complete Guide to the Vagina and Vulva." Cute title.

Pixy 🚫

@Switch Blayde

One of the (many) elephants in the proverbial, is that women are more open today than they used to be. It's not as socially taboo for women to speak their mind (In western culture) these days.

As has been pointed out above, many people claim that the youth of today are 'more' susceptible to 'Social Media' than older people. I would argue that's complete rubbish and that the aged of today would have been just as susceptible, had SM existed when they were young.The same things are claimed about SM that were claimed about rock & roll music in the 50's, and indeed Punk in the 60's, Glam rock in the 70's, rave in the 90's in fact, if you look, there is actually a generational trend every decade where the incumbent 'adult' population complains about the behaviour of 'today's' youth.

Sexual violence has existed as long as humans could recognise it for what it is and many women have a fascination for it. Its not men who are the main consumers of True Crime shows on TV or magazines detailing True Crime. If you look at the publications that sell the most and the TV shows that have the highest ratings (reference true Crime), and look at the content, it's the shows/publications that have the higher salacious content that sell the most.

And that has existed for as long as 'media' has existed. All that has changed, is that over the centuries, society has allowed for more explicit detail, and that it has become easier to distribute and get your hands on such content.

There is a reason why novels written in Victorian times (for consumption by women) and indeed about Victorian times, are called 'Bodice rippers'. The clue is in the very name...

Personally, I think the writers of yesteryear were much more subtle in satisfying the desires of the population of their era. Take Dracula for instance. Very popular with the 'ladies' of the time and yet, it's subject matter is all about a dark mysterious male (ish) figure slipping into the boudoirs of innocent young women in the middle of the night and stealing/taking their virginity, oops, sorry, that should have been blood, against their will...

Physical violence, or the threat of it, has always existed in sex. It's just that we talk about it more, it's more socially acceptable to talk about it more. Or, to put it another way, just because history has very little documentation on women's periods for the last millennia, doesn't mean that because we as a society are talking more about it these last few years, that it's a physiological phenomena only suffered by the women of today.

Replies: solreader50 Marius-6 alohadave awnlee jawking

solreader50 🚫
Updated:

@Pixy

and indeed Punk in the 60's

Punk was a 70s phenomena - both in the New York and the UK. OK, the Velvets may have been the granddaddies of punk in the 60s but they were alone.

I do recognize the problem. Because you lived through the late 60s you have forgotten all about them. Acid, incense and balloons.

Replies: Pixy

Pixy 🚫

@solreader50

I do recognize the problem. Because you lived through the late 60s you have forgotten all about them. Acid, incense and balloons.

🤪

Marius-6 🚫
Updated:

@Pixy

Pixy said:

As has been pointed out above, many people claim that the youth of today are 'more' susceptible to 'Social Media' than older people. I would argue that's complete rubbish and that the aged of today would have been just as susceptible, had SM existed when they were young.

I said:

Mass social media has only been around for roughly 15 years. We don't really know, let alone "understand" the effects of social media. We have some understanding of dopamine and how our "brains" can be changed by chemical imbalances, which can be altered by emotions as well as drugs and other things.

I did Not state, nor imply, that the current generation of youth is significantly more susceptible than previous generations would have been. I stated that Social Media poses Hazzards that no previous generation has been exposed to.

There are many other studies that raise concerns about the effects of Social Media, in particular upon people under age 25, whose brains have not fully developed. 🧠

I am not citing a "unique" moral weakness amongst today's youth. I am concerned that some people have learned how to manipulate people, young people in particular, using social media. 😕 Experts have learned how to condition soldiers (police, etc.) to be more willing and effective at using deadly force.

Numerous studies back this up. General SLA Marshall, and later LTC Grossman, have published multiple books on the subject; as well as effecting changes on how firing weapons is taught by the US Armed Forces. I was a PMI (Primarily Marksmanship Instructor), and own manuals for teaching Marksmanship from the 1930's up to the 21st century.

Mates and Muchachos is book about the conflict in the Falklands 🇫🇰 in the early 1980's. It discusses how the British were taught, compared to the Argentineans. Both sides used nearly identical rifles, machine-guns, and other weapons. The British used "modern" techniques, in particular shooting at human silhouettes that fell when hit. Argentina used WWII era techniques, shooting at "bullseye" 🎯 targets. The British were much more effective.

Techniques and Technology is much more effective at conditioning people. Not 100%, but it does effect a significantly larger percentage of people.

This should concern us all. Not just "rough sex" or choking, but more serious issues about society.

Replies: Pixy

Pixy 🚫

@Marius-6

I stated that Social Media poses hazards that no previous generation has been exposed to.

Granted, but equally, that goes the other way as well. Children today are not exposed to the hardships the previous generations were exposed to. No working in dangerous factories at ten (or younger) years of age. No sweeping chimneys or working down the coal pit. So they are actually being subjected to less responsibility at younger ages than their peers were. Obviously, we are talking mostly Western society here, as it doesn't apply for the likes of S America, Russia, or China, which still utilises child labour on a large scale.

If anything, we could well have gone (as a society) too far the other way, with an overstated 'let kids be kids' attitude, and a desire to 'protect' kids considerably further into their life than is necessary. Case in point for that, is the age at which various countries have decided 'kids' can legally drink and have sex. Even today in the UK, there are still arguments as to the exact age when a child can be held accountable for their actions.

I am concerned that some people have learned how to manipulate people, young people in particular, using social media

That has always been the case, and the only way to deal with that is better education. Again, perfect case in point is the Catholic Church. Absolute masters in the past, of the manipulation of large populations. With the advent of better education throughout the populace and the ability now of the plebs to read and write, the Catholic church lost their ability to sway large portions of the population and now their last 'strongholds' are places where the standard of education is poor verging on non-existent.

in particular shooting at human silhouettes that fell when hit

Not sure I would agree that using human silhouettes is mental conditioning in that it gets the individual ready to shoot another human being. It does however, instil the importance that body shots will have a higher chance of hitting the target than head-shots.

When doing frontal attacks on the range, checking the target to see if your shot hit, is not very safe, so without targets that fall when hit, you would have no idea as to both your accuracy and effectiveness of your fire. Having targets that fall when hit, safely solves that issue and allows you to learn how to conserve ammunition and prioritise.

As to the effectiveness of UK troops against Argentinian. It's hard to compare, because one side was a (fairly) well trained volunteer force, whilst the other was a poorly trained conscripted one. And if there is one thing history has shown (and is continuing to do so with regards to a certain 'special military operation') is that conscripted soldiers are always going to underperform when pitted against troops that have chosen to be there.

alohadave 🚫

@Pixy

As has been pointed out above, many people claim that the youth of today are 'more' susceptible to 'Social Media' than older people. I would argue that's complete rubbish and that the aged of today would have been just as susceptible, had SM existed when they were young.

I know plenty of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, who have fallen into social media and believe everything they see on there, and they are the ones doomscrolling all day long getting worked up over every little scam and gimmick.

I can't count the number of them that still post stupid notices to facebook thinking that they have any effect on anything.

There are lots of younger people who are turning away from social media. They may use it, but they aren't all ruled by it, and having grown up with it, are a little more critical about trusting it without verifying first.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Pixy

had SM existed when they were young.

They had to make do with only BD? ;-)

AJ

flightorfight 🚫

@Switch Blayde

That's the direction that stories here on SOL have been trending for the last few years. People learn from reading and watching videos so naturally they are going to try out what they have discovered.

Replies: Switch Blayde Dinsdale

Switch Blayde 🚫

@flightorfight

Actually, there are "rough" and "spanking" tags.

Replies: flightorfight

flightorfight 🚫

@Switch Blayde

And your point is??? I didn't say anything about story tags in my post.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@flightorfight

And your point is???

In my original post I said there may be a need for a new tag — choking. Then I saw the other tags so I brought it up. It had nothing to do with you.

Dinsdale 🚫

@flightorfight

I remember Jay Cantrell's Daze in the Valley taking exception to that side of the business, my viewpoint could be summarised as "stop slapping the slapper".

Replies: solreader50

solreader50 🚫

@Dinsdale

"stop slapping the slapper".

A wonderful transatlantic double-entendre.

Replies: Dinsdale

Dinsdale 🚫

@solreader50

Hey, this thread has nothing to do with DP, although maybe that should also be included.
(that comment based on a translation of "entendre" unsupported by most dictionaries).

I'd better stop this now, this is tending towards RS (grinning Dick) territory.

solreader50 🚫

@Switch Blayde

In a 2021 U.S. nationally representative survey, we found that 1 in 3 women age 18 to 24 were choked the last time they had sex. Among college students, about two-thirds of women have been choked during sex, as have nearly one-third of men and about half of transgender and gender nonbinary students. About one-quarter of these students were first choked between the ages of 12 and 17.

Did the survey reveal what proportion of choking led to exitus. I recall when I last lived in the UK there were several high profile cases and was it murder or manslaughter or accidental death.

John Demille 🚫

@Switch Blayde

about two-thirds of women have been choked during sex

Some anecdotal evidence. I'm in my fifties so, not a young person covered by the article.

I can confirm that this one is due to women themselves. For most of my life, I've had what is usually considered vanilla sex with some anal thrown in. We're talking mostly in the late 80s and early 90s, way before the internet and the ridiculous availability of porn these days.

One day I was with a girl and while kissing her, I gently pushed her to the wall and I had her immobilized by her neck, for no particular reason other than to assert a low level of dominance. The result was she got turned on a lot and the resulting sex was more intense than ever before with her.

After that, every time I tried the neck holding with a new woman, it almost invariably resulted in more intense sex. A couple of women even added their own hands on top of mine and urged me to exert more pressure on their necks. One even put way more pressure than I dared on my own, she practically choked herself hard using my hand. She did it so much I got nervous about how she was behaving.

But I can only imagine that such behaviour would eventually lead to the normalization of choking. It seems there is enough women that like to be physically dominated that bit by bit, the slippery slope leads to choking becoming somewhat the norm and some would even take it to extreme levels, even without them being raised watching porn.

Let's not forget how many celebrities have died through erotic asphyxiation, which points to some weird choking/sex pleasure combination inherent in our physiological/psychological make up.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@John Demille

which points to some weird choking/sex pleasure combination inherent in our physiological/psychological make up.

Actually I believe it's an instinctive drive to pass on genes when death is staring you in the face, although if your death is imminent, realistically there's no chance of a nine month gestational period.

AJ

DBActive 🚫

@Switch Blayde

This reminds me of the "suicide epidemic" with Long Island teen boys in the 1980s. It turned out that what was happening wasn't a a rash of suicides. It was a middle school and high school craze for autoerotic asphyxiation.
About the same time Robert Chambers the "preppy killer" murdered Jennifer (?) Levin by strangulation during sex in Central Park.

hst666 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I am all for BDSM exploration, but I believe any genuine choking is too dangerous and extreme too easy to accidentally kill someone.

I also get the impression that young men are not obtaining consent before trying the choking.

I do not understand why anyone would think that porn is an accurate depiction of sex.

Replies: Michael Loucks

Michael Loucks 🚫
Updated:

@hst666

I do not understand why anyone would think that porn is an accurate depiction of sex.

Because it is the only source many have due to prudes limiting or controlling access to sex education, not to mention the outright demonization of healthy sex by huge swaths of the political spectrum right and left (at least in the US).

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

Rough sex the new norm

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...