I guess when you are desperate for any grain of data backing your totally failed "porn is bad" hypothesis (porn has been a click away for hundred of millions going on 30 years now), you'll latch on to anything.

Ironically if you read the study, it's basically "People enjoyed the act and consented to it, but it's bad because not breathing can be fatal and it's also illegal in Australia". It's also a singular study (rather than a long term trend meta-study) with an online survey data collection method, so about as low of a rigor as you can get.

Of course though, it's gone around heavily marketed as "Record levels of boys are watching porn and going around violently choking out young women because of it".

What are you seeing people finding more compelling? There was that whole "the chemicals are turning frogs gay and now you too" or whatever it was, but that wasn't compelling. Tell that to the average Joe and he will simply wonder what kind of drugs you are on. Tell the average Joe that "increased porn consumption is diminishing partnered sexual activity" and you'll at least get, "Huh. Maybe."

> It certainly could be a factor, sure, but by no means the only one.

Case in point. But it seems you're confusing a compelling explanation with a scientific explanation. Whether or not porn is actually a factor is entirely immaterial. It might have absolutely nothing to do with it. It can still be compelling even if that is the case.