The cited "40% of college age women report being choked during sex" article is an NYT opinion piece where some of the respondents actually say they _wanted_ to be choked during sex, but the author of the opinion piece thinks they're wrong and choking (even if you want to be choked) is bad.
This isn't about protecting children, it's about prudes who don't like the way that other people enjoy sex.
Thank you for posting this. Parent comment is exactly how lies get told on the Internet these days: write a statement that nominally has a speck of truth but with the deliberate intention that it will be misinterpreted by any normal person reading it.
1. It's not just "college aged women". The study was on undergraduates of both sexes.
2. The framing of OP's comment ("these porn laws are dumb when all these women are being choked!") was obviously made to imply that we should somehow stop women from being choked, implying it was nonconsensual.
3. As you point out, the study itself was more about sex practices than people being attacked.
Hardly anything is even bothered to be argued in good faith anymore.
40% is a lot but kink and bdsm is really becoming more mainstream.
I've been into this longer and it's funny to see girls wearing designer dresses with black leather straps and studs and collars etc. Good for them though. I also love being choked, by women in fact (I'm a man)
The cool thing is that these people will shape a society that no longer looks down on such things, as these conservative politicians do. It will take a long time though, in a country where politics is a game for geriatrics.
>it's about prudes who don't like the way the younger generations enjoy sex.
Worth mentioning again that this is California, one of if not the most left/progressive state in the union. Absolutely dominated by Left/Progressive/Democrat politics thanks to how many cities are located in it.
As the old saying goes, one becomes more Right/Conservative/Republican(?) the older they get.
I'll sit back amused at identity politics players' heads imploding if this measure goes ahead further, because they always point and laugh at Texas, Montana, and Right/Conservatives/Republicans, et al. for this very thing.
An SF state assemblyman introduced a bill to limit cars to 10mph over the speed limit. It's just safety nannyism. Not everything is "conservative"/"liberal", and these labels tend to be meaningless. Obamacare was originally Romneycare was originally a Heritage Foundation idea.
> As the old saying goes, one becomes more Right/Conservative/Republican(?) the older they get.
Once again, I'm breaking molds. The older I get, the more liberal I get, at least with the current leanings of today's "conservative" party. Banning books is atrocious to me. Dictating women's health is insulting. Allowing businesses to be considered a person flabbergasts me. Knowingly denying scientific evidence on pollution is not only insulting to me but future generations. The list continues to go on that I honestly do not understand how just because one gets older they are supposed to suddenly think these things are okay.
While they might seem at odds (one observes tradition, the other does not necessarily), they are not mutually exclusive and there is significant political overlap in espousing moderation/caution and freedom ("generosity", "not strict", "open-minded"). Small government is the most obvious form of this overlap.
Conservatism for political contexts can thus be defined as a desire to exercise a minimum (and ideally no) enforcement of powers in order to protect and guarantee people's freedoms, and a general desire to oppose change unless a change can be demonstrably warranted.
As for the saying, the older we get the harder we are set in how we live and conduct ourselves. A man builds stronger and stronger ideals and an identity that defines what is good and evil as far as he is concerned. We become more conservative as we grow older.
Then conservatism is b.s. You'd think environmental conservation would be extremely conservative as it keeps things the way they are. But nope. The party of "individual freedom" is also the party of "don't let people do what they want in bed with consenting adults". It's a fairly arbitrary mix of policy positions adopted on each side, some in line with the principles and some contrary to.
> I honestly do not understand how just because one gets older they are supposed to suddenly think these things are okay.
Well I don't think it is that they "become OK"; I suspect the effect is that at some point over the course of 40 years most people have the click moment where they start earning some money, realise that the politicians are willing to talk about what is in the news but not what actually matters, and start aligning based on economic incentives.
Picking on the US, the government makes up 40% of the economy, and it appears that an entire generation of capital formation just happened in China rather than in the Americas. All the stuff you listed is a concern, but I think there is a pretty good argument that the entire Trump phenomenon is the backlash against decades of fumbled economic policy that the corporate media has not effectively grappled.
This isn't about protecting children, it's about prudes who don't like the way that other people enjoy sex.