Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36526942›Full record

ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2023

#ChokeMeDaddy: A Content Analysis of Memes Related to Choking/Strangulation During Sex.

Debby Herbenick, Lucia Guerra-Reyes, Callie Patterson, Jodi Wilson, Yael R Rosenstock Gonzalez, Eva Voorheis, Maddy Whitcomb, Rachel Kump, Evan Theis, Emily F Rothman and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A content analysis of the OrbeezInjury epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Debby HerbenickDepartment of Applied Health Science, Indiana University School of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA. debby@iu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0352-2248
Lucia Guerra-ReyesDepartment of Applied Health Science, Indiana University School of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Callie PattersonDepartment of Applied Health Science, Indiana University School of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Jodi WilsonDepartment of Applied Health Science, Indiana University School of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Yael R Rosenstock GonzalezDepartment of Applied Health Science, Indiana University School of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Eva VoorheisThe Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University School of Public Health, SPH 116, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Maddy WhitcombThe Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University School of Public Health, SPH 116, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Rachel KumpThe Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University School of Public Health, SPH 116, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Evan TheisThe Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University School of Public Health, SPH 116, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA.
Emily F RothmanDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Kimberly M NelsonDepartment of Community Health Sciences and Department of Psychiatry, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Megan K MaasDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Indiana University Bloomington · USBoston University · USIndiana University Health · USMichigan State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research indicates that some young people initially learn about sexual choking through Internet memes. Thus, a qualitative content analysis was performed on 316 visual and textual memes collected from various social media websites and online searches to assess salient categories related to choking during sex. We identified nine main categories: communication, gendered dynamics, choking as dangerous, choking as sexy, sexualization of the nonsexual, shame and worry, romance/rough sex juxtaposition, choking and religious references, instructional/informational. Given that memes, through their humor, can make difficult topics more palatable and minimize potential harm in the phenomenon they depict, more concerted, synergistic effort that integrates media literacy into sexuality education programming on the potential risks that may ensue for those engaging in sexual choking is warranted.

Indexed as

Airway ObstructionSocial MediaAdolescentAsphyxiaCoitusFemaleHumansMaleSexual BehaviorAsphyxiationChoking during sexManual strangulationMeme analysisNon-fatal strangulation

Identifiers

PMID36526942
PMCPMC9757635
OpenAlexW4312065664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.