What in the #JoeRogan is going on in P*rn, BJJ, MMA and Judo and why are these linked by incompatible science in some way?

And no BJJ is not a euphemism or shorthand for a job (of sorts).

This blog is likely to challenge and upset a cohort of people who will likely see what I have to say as being ‘pro’ p*orn, but, I ask the questions here in genuine curiosity because science is not limited to specific contexts only, but it would seem that I am seeing exactly this occurring in relation to the act of choking, which can be and is a s*xual act now deemed as an online harm in p*rn media. So, what on earth has Joe Rogan, Dana White, Women, Young people and combat sports got to do with choking, p*orn and online harm?

Nothing and everything.

What I seem to be seeing what is called a false flag, or what some might say is ‘pick and choose when to apply science’, this being applied to a specific behaviour in a specific context that is not applied elsewhere. Choking has not resulted in an outright ban of combat sports but is being applied to a form of media that adults* view, making choices about their viewing habits for them by banning an act in this media format but not others. And no I don’t mean the grown-ups watching combat sports (* as you will see this now applies only to adults, because children and young people don’t watch or view p*rn).

Confused? So am I.

Well I’m not really, it’s a rhetorical remark as I am genuinely curious about when MMA will be banned for these same medical reasons that are and have been cited in the new change to what can and can’t be shown in P*rn, in the UK.

Allow me to expand my critical appraisal of something that is taking place that I find somewhat confusing because the approach does not make logical sense for several reasons.

Now I write about online harm and its impact, especially on kids, and have been seeing the symptoms of influence of people, behaviours they engage in online and what happens in the real world and how this affects the humans in my therapy office for well over 15 years, and I am not saying that this particular subject matter of choking someone is not harmful in any way, but this might be what certain groups take from this blog as I put forward my thinking here.

So bear with, as I explain that the science, moreover the medical science that I am seeing cited is being applied to one specific context and not applied to all settings/scenarios or experiences which included the act of choking.

Gravity exists on Earth all over the planet and not just in certain countries, cities or buildings for example. We can’t pick and choose when gravity applies and it doesn’t based on our likes or dislikes. This latter element is the one I feel has been applied in what might be construed as a moral issue not robust science methodology.

The application of the science of choking.

I think what I am seeing is a kind of back to front, upside down communication about how we prevent women being killed through a violent act, which in the past has been used as a violent act and then used as a defence in court of being an ‘accidental’ death, based on a s*xual act that resulted in the woman dying. I have seen that this is discussed as being ‘an excuse’ for killing a woman because the defendant is suggested not to have known how long or what force was being used when choking his partner, which is proposed to have occurred through sexual activity. I am not the judge in these cases and this is not a blog about who is or isn’t guilty.

This is about the act of choking, whether this is in p*rn or not, and where illogical reasoning using medicine and neuroscience seems to support the case for banning choking in p*rn but has not been applied across the board to other activities such as combat sports. Perhaps the science that was cited for banning this act in p*rn is wholly correct and there is now a need to ban all combat sports for both men, and women, and children… because if the science is wholly true, then we have a Houston level problem with medical reasoning in settings other than the bedroom (or wherever you have your s*x).

Two settings or two sciences?

Brain damage

Cited in news and by activists in the domain of VAWG (violence against women and girls) that the s*xual act of strangulation, also known as choking ‘causes brain damage and should be banned in p*rn and prevented from being shown (in the UK) as there is no safe way to choke’. This act is now deemed illegal both as an online harm and in law (I will cover this next section). I can agree with, the fact that extended periods in which lack of oxygen is not being delivered to the lungs, then via blood into the brain is a route to brain damage as developmental hypoxic and anoxic injuries (starvation of oxygen during birth) and traumatic brain injuries are something that I work with in my caseloads (studying this to work effectively with these clients). Deprivation of oxygen most certainly can result in effects on organ function post deprivation, depending upon the severity and time of deprivation. I do not argue this here, my point is why banned here but not there?

What has confused me is how this science is not resulting in the outright banning of strangulation and choking techniques used in some martial arts (or combat sports) where the uniform (Gi or tee) is often used to choke someone out (till they pass out or tap out) and or where choke holds have the same effect and perhaps may occur for long periods of time where the person being choked refuses to tap out, give up or pass out (which seems to be quite a long time in competitive settings). In these settings the goal is to cause immense pressure in both the neck and resulting blood pressure changes that cause the tap/pass out. This is an aggressive form of the manoeuvre for sure (I can’t say anyone ever did this lightly in sparring or training).

I would not like to be the person who asks for ethical approval to measure the time in combat sports of choking versus other scenarios just to make a counter argument with me here (that in one setting the time is longer than another), the intent behind these manoeuvres can be for differing outcomes, no pun intended.

And here is where the science has not been consentient in the claims by activists or applied to all settings and or scenarios. In MMA, BJJ, Judo and Karate to name few combat sports the choke holds or techniques are both long and short in duration and most importantly take place between sparring partners who can be women vs women (see image)

and or young people (learning the techniques and so may have less knowledge of pressure, time and feedback), men vs men, men vs women and young people vs adults for practice partner work (not high end competitions).

At competitive levels these groups still include women fighting women and carrying out choking techniques on each other, with doctors and medical staff both present and involved in the sport at all levels with many years of observing, advising and monitoring these practices. Choking here is a valid form of competitive combat sport action and I have not seen evidence within the sports saying this practice must be halted or banned based on the same science cited about banning it in p*rn. And no im not saying that choking in MMA, and combat sports for example is ‘safe’ or even how you could measure that other than the person did not die. Yet it is a present move still included at a high rate in many age groups and the s*xes in combat sports writ large in may cites and towns around the world.

And yes to those screaming at me, people have died in both settings because of this action and behaviour. Robust Figures are difficult to find so I won’t cite ones that have been returned by searching online, because there are always issues with death related figures when searching for specific crimes around the world.

So the act is considered violent in p*rn but not martial arts. The act is deemed currently to be an online harm, but not a real world harm when applied to martial arts. The act is deemed to promote or encourage violent acts and even copycat behaviours by men, but not people who take part in an aggressive (perhaps violent if you want to use that word) martial arts settings and even competitive sporting arenas. Which are streamed on live television, recorded sports programs and shown on social media or the news but not banned there.

So I made a weak correlation that this must be because kids might see it and that’s possibly where this was a move to protect them by not showing this in p*rn in the UK.

Banning it in p*rn. Its not because of the kids though?

Since the implementation of the Online Safety Act in the UK, kids under 18 have now been prevented from and are not able to access p*rn right? So it’s not being banned to protect them cos they can’t watch it anymore can they?

So who is the act being banned from? Who is being prevented from watching? It seems that this act is now being seen from a perspective that those on high levels of ‘running the internet’  get to sanction what is and isn’t okay to watch in P*rn, by adults who are by definition …old enough to make their own choices about what they watch? From a s*xology perspective who gets to decide what someone wants to watch or take part in when it comes to s*xual behaviour and activity?

So what is it we are actually banning?

I only see criminology being a major player in this activism and I can understand the banning of viewing murder through strangulation (that sounds more like a different kind of movie than P*rn and I am not going into that discussing here). But are we really watching murder or s*xual activity that is and has been misunderstood because we haven’t talked about this in detail, what the form, function and outcome are and why people engage in this behaviour, even alone. Sadly yes, famous people alerted us to this lonesome version which clearly horrified those who do not understand or want to think about acts other than the normative (vanilla) aspects of s*xual practices of adults. Eww Cath don’t make me think about that!

So why not ban it in all media?

Moreover, if in p*rn then are we going to ban even brief moments of choking and strangulation in movies, on Netflix and other video channels? And what would that look like in terms of regulating Hollywood for example, no hands on or around the neck? no S8xual activity that might hint at or show this in any romance movies or s*x scenes, no action heroes grabbing a villain by their clothing?

Would the UK be banned from showing those movies if there are scenes of choking taking place, and what about the viewing that may well include live events of the MMA and combat sports too? Video on demand, social media, streaming and broadband, or TV? 

I think that we are in a zeitgeist of banning anything to do with s*x. Especially if we don’t like it, don’t want to know or sadly work with people who are harmed in a power dynamic in and around sexual activities. I get the intent behind the recent interventions and like I said I work with children who have viewed this act in porn. Ive worked with young people who engage in the activity not knowing the why. What I do think is the upside down part of the whole ban it conversation and action has been around the adults not fully understanding this, nor being able to have discussions about it in an open dialogue with open hearts, because you see s*ex is taboo and there are people who want this ‘horrid, sinful, disgusting, shameful’, and for some traumatising act (s*x as a whole that is) to disappear. Make it go away, just like the phones because I don’t want to think about it.

And so we don’t talk, we don’t explain and we don’t communicate with young people who then go onto view behaviours such as choking without knowing its roots or biology and why this practice exists (which have been around outside of the UK for centuries) so let’s say we ban it here in the UK, we don’t really affect the practice writ large but we do get to feel better about a small cohort of people who will not see this. Because of course they won’t go looking or using other methods to access s*ual material online.

So lets stay silent about sexual activities, lets not talk to the younger generations about sexology as well as relationships and what this means in both practice, affect and effects. Just good ol fashioned basics of how to make babies, not get STI's, consider consent but not what this means when it comes to kinks and squinks, and not increase the figures of teen pregnancy? Because we feel awkward, embarrassed or ashamed of our own s*xual activities and likes. 

I had written an extensive piece on s*xology, psychos*xual development and more but the blogs need to be readable and in short time frames. I'll add my thoughts on another blog regarding this and I’ll be covering this topic in my children and young people who view p*rn course on Monday.

Next cohort in 2026.