Universities Teaching BDSM, UK Wants to Ban Choking in Porn: Who Decides What's Sexually Acceptable?
- Amanda Sandström Beijer
- 5 days ago
- 5 min read
Something wild is happening across campuses and government offices. While universities are rolling out BDSM education programs, the UK government just decided to criminalize choking in porn.
Talk about mixed messages.
This isn't your typical academic contradiction either. We're watching two completely different approaches to sexual autonomy play out in real time. One side says education and informed consent matter most. The other argues some things are just too dangerous, period.
Who's right? And more importantly, who gets to decide what counts as sexually acceptable in 2025?
When Ivy League Meets Rope and Leather
The academic world has quietly embraced kink education in ways that would make your grandmother clutch her pearls. Princeton University now offers courses exploring Black and queer leather culture. Columbia University hosts what they proudly call the longest-running BDSM education group in America.
Cornell's "Crunch: The Kinky Club" isn't hiding in basement meeting rooms anymore. These groups operate openly, with university backing and proper educational frameworks.
Harvard's Sexual Health Education & Advocacy group throws workshops on everything from stripteases to adult film analysis. Yale pioneered "Sex Week" two decades ago, and now half the Ivy League has copied the format.
Across the pond, UK universities aren't lagging behind. Durham, Warwick, York, and Lancaster all have registered BDSM societies. These aren't underground clubs anymore: they're official student organizations with proper funding and campus recognition.
The approach is refreshingly mature. Instead of pretending kink doesn't exist, these institutions focus on consent education, safety protocols, and harm reduction. They're teaching students how to negotiate boundaries, recognize red flags, and practice risk-aware consensual kink.
Meanwhile, in Westminster...
While universities embrace education, the UK government just dropped a bombshell. They're planning to criminalize pornography showing strangulation, arguing it normalizes dangerous practices among young viewers.
The reasoning sounds solid on paper. Government research suggests that widespread exposure to choking in porn has normalized the practice, particularly among teenagers encountering pornography before their first sexual experiences.
"Women cannot consent to the long-term harm caused by strangulation," officials stated, citing evidence of cognitive impairment and memory issues linked to oxygen restriction.
This isn't the UK's first rodeo with sexual content regulation either. Back in 2014, they banned spanking, face-sitting, and several other acts from pornography. The twist? They quietly reversed those bans five years later after sustained public pushback.
The Safety vs Autonomy Showdown
Here's where things get complicated. Sexual violence experts backing the strangulation ban point to real harm. Emergency room data shows increased injuries related to non-consensual choking. Domestic violence advocates report strangulation as a significant escalation factor in abusive relationships.
The normalization argument hits different when you consider the statistics. Young people increasingly view choking during sex as standard practice, often without proper safety knowledge or genuine consent discussions.
But kink educators and sex-positive advocates see government overreach. They argue that consensual BDSM between informed adults shouldn't fall under government control. The real issue isn't the acts themselves, but ensuring genuine consent, communication, and safety education.
This creates a fascinating paradox. Universities are saying "let's teach people how to do this safely," while the government says "this is too dangerous to allow at all."
Who Gets to Draw the Line?
The fundamental question lurking beneath all this isn't really about choking or rope bondage. It's about authority over sexual norms in a democratic society.
Should governments protect citizens from practices deemed inherently harmful, even between consenting adults? Or does sexual autonomy trump paternalistic protection?
Different countries are drawing wildly different conclusions. Germany's approach to sex work and kink differs dramatically from America's state-by-state patchwork. The Netherlands treats BDSM clubs as legitimate businesses. Meanwhile, some US states still have laws against certain consensual adult activities.
Academic institutions seem to be carving out a middle path. They're not endorsing specific practices, but they're acknowledging that people will explore sexuality regardless. Better to provide education, safety resources, and harm reduction than pretend it doesn't exist.
The university approach treats students as adults capable of making informed decisions given proper education. The government approach treats citizens as needing protection from their own choices.
The Normalization Question
Critics of kink education worry about normalization effects. If universities teach BDSM safety, are they encouraging participation? If governments ban certain depictions, are they effectively censoring adult content based on moral judgments?
The research on normalization isn't straightforward. Comprehensive sex education doesn't increase sexual activity rates among teenagers: it typically delays first experiences and increases safe practice adoption. But pornography consumption does seem to influence sexual scripts and expectations.
Universities threading this needle focus heavily on consent literacy rather than technique instruction. They're teaching communication skills, boundary negotiation, and red flag recognition. The goal isn't producing better dominants or submissives: it's creating more informed, consent-aware adults.
Cultural Double Standards
The inconsistency in sexual regulation reveals deeper cultural anxieties. Violent content in mainstream media rarely faces the same scrutiny as sexual content. Action movies depicting strangulation as entertainment don't trigger government bans.
Boxing and MMA involve consensual violence with real injury risks, yet remain legal and celebrated. The difference seems to be the sexual context, not the potential for harm.
This selective concern raises questions about whose sexual practices get protected versus policed. Mainstream heterosexual activities rarely face regulatory scrutiny, while kink communities often bear the burden of proving their practices are safe and consensual.
The pattern suggests that sexual acceptability isn't really about safety: it's about cultural comfort with different expressions of sexuality.
The Education vs Prohibition Debate
Universities bet on education as harm reduction. Their reasoning follows public health models: people will engage in risky activities regardless, so providing accurate information and safety resources reduces overall harm.
Government prohibition follows a different logic: some activities are too inherently dangerous to allow, regardless of claimed consent. The state has an interest in preventing harm, even when adults claim they want to assume those risks.
Both approaches claim to prioritize wellbeing, but they reflect fundamentally different philosophies about personal autonomy and state responsibility.
The university model treats adults as capable decision-makers who benefit from information. The government model treats certain choices as fundamentally flawed, requiring external intervention.
What Comes Next?
The tension between education and regulation won't resolve anytime soon. If anything, we're likely to see more conflicts as sexual norms continue evolving faster than legal frameworks.
Universities will probably continue expanding consent and safety education. The approach works: it reduces harm while respecting autonomy. But government regulation will likely increase too, especially around content accessible to minors.
The real battleground isn't in lecture halls or parliament chambers. It's in broader cultural conversations about consent, autonomy, and harm. Who gets to define sexual acceptability? How do we balance individual freedom with collective wellbeing?
These questions matter beyond kink communities. They shape how society approaches everything from sex work to reproductive rights to gender expression.
The universities teaching BDSM safety and the government banning choking porn are both trying to reduce harm. They just disagree about whether education or prohibition works better.
Maybe the answer isn't choosing sides. Maybe it's recognizing that different approaches work for different aspects of the same complex issue. Education for consenting adults, protection for vulnerable populations, and nuanced policies that actually understand what they're regulating.
Until then, we're stuck with the contradiction. Pass the rope and safe words, but keep the lawyers on speed dial.