Something tragic is happening with young Australians and sex. Violence has slipped into their bedrooms disguised as intimacy and there's no shortage of suspects.
A culture of aggression and humiliation that once dwelled in sexuality's darker shadows has been ushered into the mainstream by easily accessed pornography, social media and that malignant manosphere preaching misogyny and seething with resentment toward women.
The data is staggering. A study by the universities of Melbourne and Queensland of almost 5000 people between the ages of 18 and 35 found 57 per cent had been strangled during sex. Six in 10 young women reported being choked.
Ponder that. Choking - an act most of us instinctively regard as violence - has been rebranded as intimacy between lovers.
Sexual choking, also known as erotic asphyxiation, was once confined to the fringes of sexual culture, partly as a means of heightening arousal. But restricting blood and oxygen flow to the brain can have catastrophic consequences like stroke, seizures and permanent brain damage.
Last week a 16-year-old Sydney girl died in hospital after being found unconscious at home. Police reportedly believe she lost consciousness after being choked during sex, but are yet to officially confirm the cause of death.
This unbearably sad story quickly produced a familiar response when Warringah MP Zali Steggall called on the federal government to roll out a national public awareness campaign to improve the sexual health and relationships of young Australians.
Something certainly needs to be done. Government and schools have a role in convincing young people that strangling a partner is not an act of intimacy. And the porn and social media giants clearly have yet another case to answer when it comes to taking responsibility for their product.
But there's one thing missing from this line-up of the usual suspects: parents.
If teenagers are learning about sex from porn sites and online misogynists surely our first reaction shouldn't be what is the government going to do about it, but what are we doing about it?
Where are the fathers making it clear that pornography is not a sexual instruction manual just as The Fast and The Furious is not a driving lesson?
Where are the parents teaching children about tenderness, affection, respect and empathy? Who is watching what our children watch? Who shoulders ultimate responsibility for making young people understand that violent acts have no place in a relationship?
These are awkward, sometimes excruciating, conversations. Welcome to parenting, where outsourcing life's most difficult discussions to government shouldn't be our first response.
Federal and state governments already fund campaigns about consent. Its fundamental role in relationships is now a mandatory subject in the Australian curriculum. If that has still led to a significant social failure then perhaps much of the responsibility lies closer to home.
Yet in our increasingly complex lives we've adopted a curious new reflex. When something goes wrong, government, not community or family, is expected to fix it.
It's a dependence governments of all stripes have greedily encouraged: in the first three financial years of the Albanese government national advertising campaigns cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Many with proven track records like road safety and vaccination awareness were legitimate. Others were not so defensible. Finance department figures show roughly $100 million was spent on campaigns promoting government reforms like tax cuts, cheaper medicines and Medicare changes.
This gravy train, historically enjoyed by varied governments provided they omit party logos, recently produced the absurd spectacle of Canberra collecting our taxes, cutting some of them and then spending $22 million telling us it had done so.
Governments have responsibilities, as do schools and the social media companies that have so deeply, and often insidiously, infiltrated our children's lives. But teaching kids that violent acts are not intimacy surely begins with those who raise them.
Canberra may launch another national campaign. Slick websites will be created, pithy slogans will be commissioned and millions will be spent spreading a message too many appear unwilling to deliver themselves.
Let's try some parenting first.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Do we rely too much on governments to fix social problems? What, if any, sex education were you given? How did you teach your children about sex? Should greater penalties and restrictions be imposed on porn and social media companies? Email us: [email protected]
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- The Coalition and One Nation are engaged in a discount war, offering to slash excise in a bid to curb the illegal tobacco trade. It has health authorities worried.
- Australia has sent more aid to Nepal, including a team of drone operators, to help with search operations as conditions remain "extremely challenging" following devastating floods.
- An online register of racism and discrimination against First Nations people is receiving up to $2 million in Commonwealth funding to help inform anti-racism action.
THEY SAID IT: "Respect is one of the greatest expressions of love." - Don Miguel Ruiz
YOU SAID IT: John's seen plenty of anger during his career. The difference is that these days it's instant, ill-considered and distributed widely.
"I don't do the socials," writes Ron. "My life is placid."
Susan writes: "Feeling frustrated, powerless leads to fight or flight = angry. Frustrated because I (and Australia generally) can't do a thing about the many deep insults to civilised behaviour promulgated by 'elected' leaders or thugs. Are we next to be assaulted? PTSD for all in this brave new world with symptoms to match especially for those who are already under stress."
"Somewhere along the way the principle that 'the government' is the people has been lost and we now live in a society where the media thrives on dividing society into us, them and an omniscient Third Party, 'the government'," writes Mick. "WE the people, in large numbers, elected OUR government. The breakdown occurs where OUR government takes us for granted. Failure to explain, in simple terms, the reasoning behind decisions WE have made for US leads to ignorance, to fear, to anger. Clear, concise, spin free, simple communication is the key to rationalism."
Kristine writes: "One antidote to online fury may be to require the ranter to identify themselves - name and contact - and therefore be forced to take responsibility for their opinions. Even if the perpetrators use false information, I am sure it is possible to find the source. The justice system could then take appropriate action through defamation laws. There must be swift and enforceable consequences for hate material."
"Great article," writes David. "The good news there is that people forget but the internet is forever so the hate speech distributed now can follow the hate speech speaker throughout their lives - constantly reminding them of how stupid they were or still are!"
Ian writes: "Australians are facing difficult times. While some parts of the population pluck roses, the rest of us are left with weeds. Our politicians show no sense of the future that awaits us. Typically, weather events in the northern hemisphere suggests the coming Australian summer could be a horror. There are no actions by government to suggest it is preparing for it. Its continuing enrapture with American military through AUKUS bewilders many of us who cannot understand how the end result will benefit voters. No politician offers us a 'Light on the Hill' moment (let alone a 'Uluru on a Mountain' moment) where they highlight a future pathway. We are becoming frustrated, irked and angry. And we will vote accordingly!"
"If something you read angers you, by all means belt out a missive of vitriol on your keyboard," writes Alan. "After all, it can be very cathartic to release those emotionally-charged pent-up feelings. However, and this is critical, do not hit SEND . Leave it in your Drafts folder till the next morning. After a night's sleep, re-read it, critically and unemotionally, and tone it down. You may even decide not to send it at all! It works for me."
David M writes: "Yes we have become angrier. We now have better outlets to funnel that anger into, such as online. Easier to yell at someone anonymously rather than in person. Where we live in mid-north coast the level of anger, conspiracy theories and sheer vitriol can get pretty intense if you dare post about something contentious to some."
"The 24 hour news cycle is overwhelming," writes Mike. "Drinking from the firehose is an apt analogy. Unfortunately social media algorithms, endless scrolling, and short attention spans mean people have lost their critical thinking skills. In the past, being fed less information with more time to digest resulted in less immediate (and inappropriate) responses. Keyboard warriors are not accountable enough. Everyone is an expert and needs to tell everyone else that their opinion is the only (and correct) one. Try to say what they say face-to-face and a repeat performance would be less likely."
Ken writes: "I have a theory about news stories. Firstly, the fire triangle of fuel, oxygen and heat will sustain the blaze. Take any of the three away and the fire goes out. The media triangle is similar, some whacko idea, some clown espousing their theory and then the media to give air to this rubbish. Take the media away and the collective audience is greatly reduced. The media seems to love giving air to every crackpot out there."
"After recently reading The Nerd Reich - Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy by Gil Durn, we no longer should be surprised by IT systems that are built to encourage the complete destruction of our peaceful way of life," writes Daniel. "An IT consultant working for me as a contracted software engineer once told me how he and his online mates honed their programming skills by writing algorithms that automatically responded to Twitter posts in a troll-like manner. I promptly gave all social media systems the flick, never to return. It's a completely meaningless online society, designed for one purpose - to make certain socially awkward individuals mega rich. And we all know who they are. The next thing I'm watching is when one of them makes an army of robots and says that they have a right to bear arms - oh, wait, we already have them. They're called drones."
