Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39907845›Full record

ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2025

Choking/Strangulation During Sex: Understanding and Negotiating "Safety" Among 18-35 Year Old Australians.

Isabella Conte, Leah S Sharman, Heather Douglas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Isabella ConteMelbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham Street, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Leah S SharmanMelbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham Street, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Heather DouglasMelbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham Street, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia. douglash@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0420-3820

Funding

Australian Research Council CE230100004Australian Research Council DP2001101020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite its potentially fatal consequences, sexual choking/strangulation is an increasingly common sexual practice. Existing research suggests that its growing prevalence is partly a consequence of its popular construction as "risky yet safe." Few studies have directly examined how people frame and engage in choking/strangulation in terms of "safety"-what people think it means for strangulation to be (or not be) "safe" and how people think safety during strangulation can be achieved. Drawing on qualitative text responses from a survey collected in 2023, this paper examined whether and how Australian adults aged between 18-35 perceived choking/strangulation in terms of "safety." We identified and discussed four main themes arising from the data: choking/strangulation during sex can be safe; pressure/intensity is a safety mechanism; consent is a safety mechanism; and trust and communication are necessary. In consideration of these themes, we suggest that many Australian young people are not aware of the risks of choking/strangulation during sex and frequently equate pressure/intensity and consent, within a trusting relationship, with safety. Given the significant risks and harms associated with any sexual choking/strangulation and the resultant difficulty in achieving safe use, we concluded that appropriate education and information should be provided to young people.

Indexed as

Airway ObstructionAsphyxiaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSafetySexual BehaviorAdolescentAdultAustralasian PeopleAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesTrustYoung AdultBreath playChokingConsentSafetySexual chokingStrangulation

Identifiers

PMID39907845
PMCPMC11836099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.