RESUMO
Recent research indicates that some young people initially learn about sexual choking through Internet memes. Thus, a qualitative content analysis was performed on 316 visual and textual memes collected from various social media websites and online searches to assess salient categories related to choking during sex. We identified nine main categories: communication, gendered dynamics, choking as dangerous, choking as sexy, sexualization of the nonsexual, shame and worry, romance/rough sex juxtaposition, choking and religious references, instructional/informational. Given that memes, through their humor, can make difficult topics more palatable and minimize potential harm in the phenomenon they depict, more concerted, synergistic effort that integrates media literacy into sexuality education programming on the potential risks that may ensue for those engaging in sexual choking is warranted.
Assuntos
Obstrução das Vias Respiratórias , Mídias Sociais , Adolescente , Humanos , Asfixia , Coito , Comportamento Sexual , Masculino , FemininoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Foot Posture Index (FPI) has been advocated as a simple and convenient tool to assess static foot posture in a clinical setting. Although published studies have indicated that the FPI has good intrarater reliability and moderate interrater reliability, these studies were conducted on a previous version of the tool that used eight criteria to score a patient's foot posture. The revised tool has only six criteria (FPI-6). The purpose, therefore, of this study was to investigate the intrarater and interrater reliability of the revised version of the FPI. METHODS: Three different raters used the FPI-6 to twice evaluate 92 feet from 46 individuals. RESULTS: Intrarater reliability was high but interrater reliability was only moderate. In addition, using the raw score generated by the FPI-6 to classify feet into one of five categories did not improve agreement between raters. CONCLUSIONS: The FPI-6 should be used with extreme caution and may actually have limited value, especially from a research perspective.