A new study making the rounds looks at biomarkers in the blood of women who engage in repeated sexual strangulation. On paper, the science sounds interesting: researchers tested for signs of neuroinflammation and found one biomarker (S100B) was elevated in those who reported being choked during sex four or more times in the last month.

That’s the headline. But the real story is in the missing details.

Read the paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40062485/

Small Sample, Big Gaps

The study involved just 32 women. Fifteen were in the “strangled” group, seventeen were not. That’s a sample size so small it’s hard to draw meaningful conclusions — especially on something as complex and nuanced as sex, kink, and the human body.

Even more concerning: there’s no baseline. We don’t know what their biomarker levels were before they started engaging in this kind of play. Without that, how do we know whether the higher levels are a result of sexual choking, a lifetime of sports injuries, a recent fall, or something else entirely?

Missing the Human Context

The paper doesn’t tell us:

• Were the Doms or tops experienced?
• Did they know how to apply pressure safely and back off at the first sign of distress?
• Was the play primarily breath restriction, or was it more about the feeling of a hand on the throat?
• How long was pressure applied, and how often did it happen during sex?

We also don’t know whether the participants had other lifestyle factors that could raise these biomarkers:

• Contact sports like MMA or judo, where throws and impacts are common
• Chronic health conditions that affect blood flow or inflammation
• Previous concussions or neck injuries
• Even unrelated activities like weightlifting or intense cycling can temporarily alter certain markers in the blood

Without that information, we’re looking at a single puzzle piece and trying to guess the whole picture.

When Science Becomes a Weapon

This isn’t just about academic thoroughness. Studies like this can be — and have been — weaponised. Without careful framing, a paper like this can be used to shame or ban consensual practices, especially kink activities like erotic choking.

If you’re someone who already thinks kink is inherently dangerous or immoral, this becomes “proof” you can wave around, even if the actual science doesn’t support such a leap.

And that’s the danger: not the study itself, but how it’s interpreted without context.

Asking the Right Questions

I’m not saying the research should be dismissed. It’s a start — a tiny, cautious one. But before we quote it like gospel, we should be asking:

• What’s the actual cause of the elevated biomarkers?
• How many of these women have ever had a concussion, neck injury, or sustained impact unrelated to sex?
• How consistent is this finding in larger, more diverse populations?
• Does this effect last, or is it temporary?
• And perhaps most importantly: does the risk profile change with experience, technique, and negotiated boundaries?

Until we have that context, it’s not a study to cite with authority — it’s a conversation starter.

My takeaway? Science is powerful, but without the human details, it’s like reading the last line of a novel and thinking you understand the whole plot. This study raises interesting questions, but the real value is in what comes next — research that looks not just at biomarkers, but at the people, the practices, and the full complexity of their lives.

Questions to Ask Before Sharing This Study

Before you repost, cite, or debate the findings, pause and consider:

1. Sample Size – Was the number of participants large enough to draw meaningful conclusions?
2. Baseline Data – Do we know their biomarker levels before engaging in sexual strangulation?
3. Experience Level – Were the people applying the choke experienced in safe technique?
4. Play Context – How was “strangulation” defined? Breath play? Blood restriction? Hand placement without real pressure?
5. Duration & Frequency – How long did the choke last, and how often did it occur during sexual encounters?
6. Other Risk Factors – Could the participants’ results be influenced by contact sports, pre-existing injuries, or unrelated physical impacts?
7. Consent & Negotiation – Were these scenes negotiated in advance? Was there safety communication during play?
8. Diversity of Sample – Does the participant group reflect a broad range of ages, bodies, ethnicities, and sexual backgrounds?
9. Peer Review & Replication – Has this result been replicated in larger studies or confirmed over time?
10. Potential for Misuse – Could this study be misrepresented to shame, stigmatise, or restrict consensual kink?