
When abuse masquerades as ‘rough sex'
Opinion: Sean 'Diddy' Combs – also known as Puff Daddy or P Diddy – is on trial in the United States on a raft of sex-trafficking, forced-prostitution, and racketeering charges. The case against the American rapper alleges that he and his associates were responsible for coercing women into drug-fuelled sex marathons known as 'freak-offs'. Combs is alleged to have controlled, abused, and raped his ex-partner Cassie Ventura.
Singer Dawn Richard testified that Combs was frequently violent toward Ventura, punching her, choking her, dragging her, and slapping her in the mouth. Kerry Morgan, a former long-time friend of Ventura, also testified she had witnessed his violence against Ventura and that she herself had been choked and assaulted by him.
The Combs trial has highlighted the insidious nature of coercion, control, and violence in intimate relationships. It has also drawn attention to 'choking' – a term now commonly used to refer to strangulation.
Strangulation is a common and dangerous form of violence. It involves compression of the neck – an area highly vulnerable to injury – with hands, an arm, or objects, such as belts or scarves.
Strangulation is also deeply gendered. In New Zealand, a fifth of women who experience physical violence from an intimate partner have been purposely choked or burnt at least once.
Strangulation often leaves no visible injury, but it can result in a range of serious health consequences. These consequences might be felt immediately, or they might arise in the days, weeks, or months following the event.
People who have been strangled may report difficulty breathing, a sore throat, confusion, vision changes, or loss of consciousness. Strangulation can also result in miscarriage, traumatic brain injury and death.
Strangulation is a known red flag for escalating violence in relationships. It is troubling, then, that the same act – applying pressure to the neck – has become an increasingly common aspect of some people's sexual lives, often under the guise of 'rough sex'.
How common is 'choking' during sex?
In Australia, research with young adults aged 18 to 35 found over half – 57 percent – had a history of partnered sexual choking. In the US, a 2021 survey found a quarter of undergraduate students at a large university reported being choked during their most recent sexual event.
Data about the prevalence of the practice in Aotearoa is limited. Project Gender sought to gather some insights through a survey (promoted via social media) of online dating and sex. Thirty percent of the 823 respondents to this survey reported being choked or suffocated during consensual sex with a partner from a dating app.
Being choked during sex may be increasing in frequency, but it is not always wanted. It is often reported as a 'scary' experience – particularly for women. A third of respondents in Project Gender's survey said they 'never' or 'rarely' consented to being choked.
The influence of pornography
Choking during sex is eroticised in pornography, presenting it as a pleasurable and legitimate act within the pursuit of (mostly) male heterosexual pleasure.
These portrayals occur in material marketed at 'mainstream' audiences, outside of content aimed at audiences seeking portrayals of safe, explicitly consensual BDSM – bondage, domination, submission, and masochism.
Young people report they often first learn about choking through pornography, which can act as a default source of information about sex. However, pornography is not the only arena in which choking and strangulation is depicted. It is eroticised in popular films such as Polish erotic drama 365 days, and in chart topping music hits such as 'Lovin on Me' by Jack Harlow or 'Take My Breath' by The Weeknd.
Choking is also discussed in sex and relationships advice in magazines such as Men's Health and Cosmopolitan. Articles often reference the pleasures that can be found – usually for women – during choking. Online articles also frame choking as a positive and 'safe' behaviour. Few articles are subject to expert or medical review.
Collectively, these repeated portrayals may reinforce wider messaging that suggests rough sex or 'choking' is ordinary or should be expected. Additionally, these portrayals may neutralise the potential harms associated with these practices.
Challenging the 'rough sex is normal' narrative
While some people may enjoy partaking in 'rougher' styles of sex, irrespective of consent it is important we do not lose focus on the health risks associated with choking.
To help challenge and contextualise broader narratives that are shaping contemporary ideas and sexual expectations, reliable information about sex, relationships, consent, and violence needs to be available to everyone.
Rather than learning from the fantasy-based, stereotypical images of sex in mainstream pornography, a good place to begin is with resources developed in conjunction with experts, clinicians, sexual educators, and others with specialist insights.
These resources provide concise and accurate information about the realities of choking during sex, enabling people to make more informed decisions about their sexual lives.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
US Proud Boys no longer terrorists in NZ as designation lapses
Members of the Proud Boys were involved in the US Capitol riots of 2021. Photo / New York Times Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Members of the Proud Boys were involved in the US Capitol riots of 2021. Photo / New York Times Members of the American far-right group the Proud Boys are no longer considered terrorists in New Zealand, as the group's terrorist designation has expired. A notice published on the New Zealand Gazette on June 19 confirmed the group's 2022 designation as a terrorist entity under the Terrorism Suppression Act had lapsed. A spokesperson of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said the Proud Boys remained 'on the radar' of the Terrorism Designation Working Group. '[I]n due course, officials will consider any new information that arises to support a decision around whether there are reasonable grounds to designate it in accordance with the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.' While the statement didn't address why the designation wasn't renewed, it detailed how such an action required an entity to 'either knowingly carrying out, or knowingly participating in the carrying out, of an act of terrorism'.

1News
a day ago
- 1News
What to know as jury begins deliberations in Diddy sex trafficking trial
For seven weeks, a jury in Manhattan has listened as prosecutors laid out a criminal sex trafficking and racketeering case against rapper Sean 'Diddy' Combs. They heard his ex-girlfriends and other witnesses deliver shocking accounts of violence and drug-fueled sexual marathons. Next week, jurors are set to begin deliberating, ultimately deciding whether Combs was running a criminal enterprise, as the government says, or — as his lawyer insists — merely living a swinger lifestyle that included recreational drug use and, regrettably, domestic violence. The answer will determine the future of one of the biggest music moguls and cultural figures of the past four decades. If convicted, Combs, 55, would face 15 years to life in prison. Here's what to know about the case: ADVERTISEMENT What are the charges? The three-time Grammy Award winner has pleaded not guilty to five felony charges: one count of racketeering conspiracy; two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Prosecutors say Combs coerced women into abusive sex parties involving hired male sex workers, ensured their compliance with drugs like cocaine and threats to their careers, and silenced victims through blackmail and violence that included kidnapping, arson and beatings. Sean "Diddy" Combs in court. (Source: Associated Press) 'He's the leader of a criminal enterprise. He doesn't take no for an answer," Assistant US Attorney Christy Slavik said in her closing arguments on Thursday (local time). Combs' lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, portrayed the Bad Boys Records founder as the victim of overzealous prosecutors who exaggerated elements of his lifestyle and recreational drug use to bring charges that resulted in what he called a 'fake trial'. What is racketeering? ADVERTISEMENT The most serious charge, racketeering conspiracy, alleges that Combs ran a criminal enterprise for two decades that relied on bodyguards, household staff, personal assistants and others in his orbit to facilitate and cover up crimes. Federal prosecutors brought the charge under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act, or RICO. Congress passed the federal law in 1970 with the declared purpose of targeting organised crime, but its use has been more widespread. To prove the charge, prosecutors must show that an enterprise existed and was involved in a pattern of racketeering activity. In this case, that alleged activity includes kidnapping, arson, bribery and sex trafficking. Key pieces of evidence Early in the trial, prosecutors showed jurors 2016 security video of Combs beating and kicking his former longtime girlfriend Cassie at a Los Angeles hotel. Cassie, an R&B singer whose legal name is Casandra Ventura, testified the assault took place as she was trying to leave one of the sexual encounters, which witnesses say he referred to as 'freak-offs" or 'hotel nights'. Jurors saw numerous explicit clips of such encounters, some involving Cassie and others involving a later girlfriend who was identified only by the pseudonym 'Jane'. Both women took the stand. ADVERTISEMENT Cassie testified over four days that she participated in hundreds of the events with paid sex workers while she and Combs were in a relationship from 2007 until 2018, often feeling like she didn't have a choice. She sued Combs in 2023, alleging years of abuse. He settled within hours, and dozens of similar lawsuits followed. Cassie Ventura, left, and Sean "Diddy" Combs appear at The Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute benefit gala celebrating "China: Through the Looking Glass" in New York on May 4, 2015. (Source: Associated Press) Jane testified over six days that she was romantically involved with Combs from 2021 until his September arrest at a New York hotel, and that she, too, felt forced to have sex with the hired strangers in multiday sex marathons while Combs watched. The Associated Press doesn't generally identify people who say they are victims of sexual abuse unless they come forward publicly, as Cassie has done. Testimony also included hours of text message exchanges, some of which involved Combs or other people in his orbit, that were read aloud by a Homeland Security Investigations agent. In all, 34 people took the stand, all of them called by the prosecution. Combs did not testify. ADVERTISEMENT How will jury deliberations work? Judge Arun Subramanian will give instructions to the jurors before sending them off to deliberate inside the Manhattan federal courthouse. The jury of eight men and four women must unanimously decide guilty or not guilty on each count. That means all 12 jurors must agree. If jurors don't reach an agreement, they could come back and say they are deadlocked. Traditionally, the judge would then encourage them to continue deliberating, but if they can't reach a consensus, it would be up to the judge to decide whether to declare a mistrial.


NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Drugs in sport: Kiwi athletes are being told to watch what they wear
Kiwi athletes have been warned to be cautious about what they wear after an American athlete failed a drugs test after wearing clothes contaminated with traces of a performance-enhancing drug. New Zealand Herald composite photo Kiwi athletes are being urged to watch what they put on their bodies - or risk falling foul of drug testers. The warning comes after an American athlete – who was not taking performance-enhancing drugs – failed a test after using sportswear he had borrowed from a teammate. The unnamed