We cannot treat the freedom to consume something as automatically more important than the safety of people who may suffer from its production or normalization.

The fans of strangulation in porn are having a difficult time this week. Kind of hard on them to see a government actually take women’s safety seriously.

Under the UK’s Crime and Policing Act 2026, possessing or publishing certain explicit, realistic pornographic images will become illegal when they depict:

• Strangulation or suffocation, including pressure on someone’s neck or interference with breathing.

  

  Photo by Shreena Bindra

• Incest, including certain scenarios involving people pretending to be close relatives.

• Sexual activity involving children under 16, including adults pretending to be children.

The restrictions also cover qualifying realistic AI-generated images. In England and Wales that takes effect November 6, 2026.

We regulate food production because consumers should not have to become seriously ill before companies take precautions. We regulate workplaces because employees should not have to lose limbs or die before employers address known hazards. We require seat belts, fire exits, safety equipment, and warnings about dangerous products.

We do these things because we recognize that preventing harm is better than apologizing for it afterward.

So why should the pornography industry receive an exemption from that reasoning, particularly when it comes to strangulation? In the name of someone’s pleasure?

Protecting performers is part of protecting human life.

The women performing in pornography are human beings. Their lives, health, and futures do not become less important because someone pays to watch them.

Strangulation carries medical risks, including damage to blood vessels, brain injury, and death. A woman does not have to lose consciousness or show visible bruising to experience serious harm. And the fact that a performer agrees to participate does not make those risks disappear.

We would not ordinarily allow an employer to dismiss known workplace dangers simply because an employee signed a document agreeing to the job. Why should we abandon that concern when the workplace involves sexual entertainment?

The right to earn a living should not require a person to surrender the right to reasonable protection from serious injury. People seem to know that when it is time for them to clock in for their job. 

The evidence is already telling us something.

These figures describe different populations and circumstances. They do not prove that pornography caused every incident. But they establish why researchers, medical professionals, and women’s safety advocates are concerned.

The problem with waiting for women to get hurt

We have developed a troubling habit of demanding “proof of injury” before taking women’s warnings seriously. A woman raises a safety concern, and someone calls her unreasonable. She objects to a dangerous practice, and someone accuses her of interfering with another person’s freedom. She refuses to participate, and someone questions her attitude.

Then, when someone gets hurt, we ask why nobody intervened sooner. Women are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Sometimes we aren’t heard at all.

That is not a prevention strategy. Prevention means recognizing credible danger and taking reasonable steps to reduce it before another person becomes a casualty.

What about the freedom of the performers?

A performer may consent to appearing in pornography. That does not mean producers should face no limits on the physical hazards they can introduce into a production.

The new law in England and Wales, effective November 6, 2026, criminalizes possession and publication of certain realistic pornographic depictions, including strangulation and suffocation. It does not, by itself, establish a comprehensive workplace-safety system for performers.

Safety is not something women should have to earn through suffering.

There will always be people who demand that society wait for more “evidence.” While continuing to change the standards and criteria for what qualifies as “evidence.” Responsible lawmakers must consider evidence, proportionality, and civil liberties. But waiting for absolute certainty is not the same as responsible caution. The UK government has explicitly placed these pornography restrictions within its violence-against-women prevention strategy.

We do not need to promise that one law will end all sexual violence. We need to recognize that preventing known hazards is a legitimate responsibility of government, including when those hazards appear in profitable industries. Women and girls should not have to become the evidence that finally convinces society to protect them. We are not your crash test dummies. 

We have heard enough warnings to take prevention seriously. We have enough medical knowledge to recognize the danger of strangulation. And we have every reason to insist that human safety deserves consideration before injury, not merely sympathy afterward. At some point, it is go time. 

We can protect civil liberties while demanding that industries reduce serious, foreseeable harm. That is what thoughtful prevention requires.

And it is long past time we stopped treating women’s safety as something society can afford to consider only after the damage is done.

Primary sources for publication

The 2025 Independent Pornography Review, the UK Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, and the official explanation of the 2026 law provide a strong foundation for a sourced article.

Survivor Rachel Williams Highlights Strangulation Timeline – WE Survive Abuse