Sex work is work. Accept the proposition; start from there. The next question is: what kind of work, with what compromises? Very good work, if you listen to the porn performers interviewed in Netflix documentary Money Shot: The Pornhub Story. Theirs is not just a job, but a job that brings people pleasure — and, they say, sometimes allows them to experience some of that pleasure on their own terms.
Since the advent of “content creator” platforms like the one offered by Pornhub, it can also be a very well-paid job. One performer, Wolf Hudson, explains how he went from earning $4,000 a month working for porn studios, to well over $10,000 as a free agent monetising his work through Pornhub’s Modelhub service, which launched in 2018. “Content creation has shown that performers have always been in charge,” he says. “Without us, there would be no industry.”
For Milf performer Cherie DeVille, Modelhub was a source of “autonomy, power, a good bit of money”. Siri Dahl says it’s the reason she was able to buy a house. More than that: she credits her porn work with giving her, as a survivor of sexual abuse, an arena in which she had full control of her sexuality. “Like, one of my favourite things about the industry I work in is the fact that we care about consent.”
Through Modelhub, verified performers can collect a share of the revenue from ads served against their videos. They can also charge consumers for downloads or custom videos. Essentially, it was an answer to the problem that had been stalking porn since the internet decimated the industry in the Noughties: how the hell was anyone going to earn money from making it? Which means that Modelhub was Pornhub’s answer to a problem Pornhub had played a significant role in creating.
By the time Pornhub was founded in 2007, the porn industry — like the music industry and Hollywood — was already foundering under pressure from the internet. Porn had done very well out of the VHS era — some histories even credit it with VHS’s victory over Betamax in the format wars — and had been expected to do equally well from DVDs. But DVDs arrived at roughly the same time as the mass internet, meaning that porn was, suddenly, everywhere all of the time. And all of it was free.
Previously, consumers had expected to be ripped off for their porn, handing over fistfuls of dollars for a handful of scenes strung together. Now they could download an illegal torrent of anything they could imagine, a process made simpler by the foundation of the “tube” sites, which allowed users to upload their own videos — or anyone else’s. It wasn’t in the sites’s interests to police copyright violations, since they made their money by serving ads, and more videos simply meant more eyeballs, which meant more profit. So, the late Noughties were a golden age of pornography for almost everyone involved, apart from the people who actually made it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis stuff is horrible. The industry is dehumanizing and gross.
I’m just not sure how you stop it. So long as there are women willing to do the work, for whatever reason, and people willing to watch it, I just do not see how you end it.
Its kinda like prostitution. So long as humans have been around, there have been women willing to engage in prostitution and despite the best efforts of churches and legal systems, it is still there and is very likely never going to go away.
Since these things are somehow inevitable, the question we are left with is; How do we manage it?
I think it’s also kinda like: so some people abused the system, therefore the system should not exist is catastrophizing. The solution is to use more AI solutions or more moderation not shut it all down.
The industry is definitely predatory in the way it’s structured and how it’s evolved, but I think there’s ways to at least ameliorate the worst aspects without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As the old saying goes everyone has ‘needs’, and if you can’t satisfy those needs you need an outlet to relive them in a safe, healthy manner. I won’t go as far as those whackjob German communists who theorized sexual repression led to the Nazis existing (look up the East German pedophile experiment if you want to have a bad time), but repression can certainly lead to unhealthy neuroses, or worse in some extreme cases. I think the issue with the current industry is there was NO outlet until some scumbags in ‘the Valley’ built one they could exploit, and from there the rest of the issues flowed. The pro-porn feminists will say things like ‘sex work is work’ and other assorted post-hoc justifications, while the anti-porn feminists will say things edging dangerously towards the likes of ‘all sex is rape’. I think both are extremes we should navigate between rather than choose one over the other.
I don’t claim to have an answer but at least a suggestion, and that’s the sort of Rule 34-type ‘erotic’ illustrators you can find all over the internet if you tip over the right rock. After all, not as much actual dehumanizing can happen if the only person involved in making it is a guy in his basement with art tools and digital rendering software. I imagine the worst would be severe carpel tunnel syndrome. (Although the obvious caveat to that is ensuring a strong delineation between fantasy and reality, to avoid a sort of ‘Mazes and Monsters’ type situation, but that applies to most media in general.)
Unfortunately the number of young women with more beauty than morals willing to bank on their looks is probably a lot higher than the number of skilled artists willing to use their talents to draw bewbs, vaj, and dong for a living.
Actually, the baby is pretty gross and should be thrown out with the bath water, and in a perfect world would be, but, as you say, some have needs and they are the sort of needs that require addressing, so we’re stuck with it. The problem is that I don’t know how it can be controlled to stop the worst abuses without actually legal regulation, which means the government getting involved, and that would intimate government endorsement of pornography/prositution which would raise the hackles of many.
That is true, it is a very gross baby, but it still is ours and we have to accept responsibility for it, regardless of whether we want it or not. Even if it is hackle-raising it’s an issue we need to address sooner rather than later. The more we preach women’s liberation out one side of our mouths while demonizing masculinity out the other the worse this issue becomes, not better. More and more young, lonely men are being left behind by the ‘March of Progress’, and quite a few face the scary prospect of never finding a loving partner. In such a bleak situation, can you really blame them for breaking down and having a good ol’ chug while looking at some bimbo making more money in a month then they will in a lifetime?
Pornhub may be as exploitative as the old producers of the the Valley, but they’re both relics of a dying age. In their place things like OnlyFans, Twitch thots, and Instagram thirst-traps reign supreme, and in that regard the tables of sexual exploitation have well and truly turned. It’s no surprise that ardent feminists still focus on the former and completely ignore the latter.
That is true, it is a very gross baby, but it still is ours and we have to accept responsibility for it, regardless of whether we want it or not. Even if it is hackle-raising it’s an issue we need to address sooner rather than later. The more we preach women’s liberation out one side of our mouths while demonizing masculinity out the other the worse this issue becomes, not better. More and more young, lonely men are being left behind by the ‘March of Progress’, and quite a few face the scary prospect of never finding a loving partner. In such a bleak situation, can you really blame them for breaking down and having a good ol’ chug while looking at some bimbo making more money in a month then they will in a lifetime?
Pornhub may be as exploitative as the old producers of the the Valley, but they’re both relics of a dying age. In their place things like OnlyFans, Twitch thots, and Instagram thirst-traps reign supreme, and in that regard the tables of sexual exploitation have well and truly turned. It’s no surprise that ardent feminists still focus on the former and completely ignore the latter.
Actually, the baby is pretty gross and should be thrown out with the bath water, and in a perfect world would be, but, as you say, some have needs and they are the sort of needs that require addressing, so we’re stuck with it. The problem is that I don’t know how it can be controlled to stop the worst abuses without actually legal regulation, which means the government getting involved, and that would intimate government endorsement of pornography/prositution which would raise the hackles of many.
The thing that’s always puzzled me was that the feminist movement wasn’t more vociferous against the porn industry, given the obvious misogynistic overtones of most of the content of the videos.
Half of it is vociferous, the other half is sex positive. This article is presented to you by the vociferous subsegment.
A subsection of feminists view it as empowerment.
It’s not puzzling once you accept that half of the human population can never be understood as accepting or supporting any individual movement, no matter its name. Some feminists simply wanted equal representation in law. 1st, 2nd and 3rd wave “movements” can be seen as an extreme reduction of organized movements of the last 1/2 century that could never represent billions of women’s interests or concerns. And if you want to read a feminist critique of porn, Andrea Dworkin is a good example from decade’s past, and in the past few years we’ve seen countless women from all sides of the political spectrum writing and protesting against it at full throttle. Meghan Murphy routinely interviews women who critique porn, for just one example.
Half of it is vociferous, the other half is sex positive. This article is presented to you by the vociferous subsegment.
A subsection of feminists view it as empowerment.
It’s not puzzling once you accept that half of the human population can never be understood as accepting or supporting any individual movement, no matter its name. Some feminists simply wanted equal representation in law. 1st, 2nd and 3rd wave “movements” can be seen as an extreme reduction of organized movements of the last 1/2 century that could never represent billions of women’s interests or concerns. And if you want to read a feminist critique of porn, Andrea Dworkin is a good example from decade’s past, and in the past few years we’ve seen countless women from all sides of the political spectrum writing and protesting against it at full throttle. Meghan Murphy routinely interviews women who critique porn, for just one example.
Women have their own ATM cash dispenser between their legs.
It’s a treasure that women are born with.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that they use it.
What makes you think the majority of women engaged in prostitution are “willing”? How many women do you think “willingly” have sex with multiple men they are not attracted to every single day? Very few women have ever made a free choice to be used like human spitoons.
That being said, the best way to “manage” the harm done to people in the sex industry is to decrease demand so that traffickers have less financial incentive to coerce people into prostitution and porn.
Pimps and pornographers are not the problem: sex buyers and porn consumers are the problem.
We need to stop treating these creeps like “nice men” and start treating them like the abusers they are.
We need to criminalize sex buying (NOT “sex workers”) and stigmatize the use of porn to masturbate.
If you don’t have enough erotic imagination to masturbate without porn, then find another hobby that doesn’t contribute to the trafficking industry.
Child molesting is never going to go away, yet we still must do everything we can as a society to fight it.
The same is true of sex industry abuses.
That’s the default assumption for most jobs, until shown otherwise. There are many jobs in the world that are extremely unpleasant but people do them anyway.
Perhaps, if you believe all participation in the sex industry is bad and cannot be improved except by eliminating it.
That’s not what the women in the sex industry think. Eliminate the pimps and traffickers and you get rid of the coercion.
Which is akin to blaming meat-eaters because some farm animals are abused. Or people who wear clothes because some textile workers suffer inhumane conditions.
Your remaining points are as easy to dismiss.
That’s the default assumption for most jobs, until shown otherwise. There are many jobs in the world that are extremely unpleasant but people do them anyway.
Perhaps, if you believe all participation in the sex industry is bad and cannot be improved except by eliminating it.
That’s not what the women in the sex industry think. Eliminate the pimps and traffickers and you get rid of the coercion.
Which is akin to blaming meat-eaters because some farm animals are abused. Or people who wear clothes because some textile workers suffer inhumane conditions.
Your remaining points are as easy to dismiss.
Is there any chance that men can be shamed and guilted into not using it in the first place? Or perhaps that they can exercise some self restraint? Cut the demand, cut the supply.
The attitudes of “all men look at porn”, “if you don’t like porn, you’re frigid”, “at least he’s not cheating on you”, “we need to normalized porn”, “I’m totally fine with my man watching porn” need to change.
Maybe it’s the women who should exercise some self restraint?
To employ an analogy… rather than asking drug users to exercise self restraint maybe the drug suppliers should be the ones restrained.
You really have a grievance against women don’t you Will?
I can imagine a grievance against the idea that we’re going to preach sexual liberation on the one hand and men’s self-restraint on the other.
This is already standard in western societies. Women are invited to be liberated, while men are expected to be restrained. Will Shaw is reacting against that double standard.
This is already standard in western societies. Women are invited to be liberated, while men are expected to be restrained. Will Shaw is reacting against that double standard.
There isn’t any doubt the plight of most women in this industry is really sad, and the whole thing is genuinely gross.
But it’s also problematic that the solution is to “shame and guilt” men for a society where their options for sex are:
A. Paying exorbitant amounts for sex with an unknown woman (believe it or not, not the preferred option for most men)
B. Earning a lot of money and working a stressful job to persuade someone to marry you (because all those women who otherwise talk gender equality suddenly turn traditional at that point). Which of course has a decent chance thar you still ending up without sex…. as well as the house, kids and a chunk of your income.
I think you will find shaming and guilting stops working after a point. Maybe worth asking why women don’t have to pay? If men can have sex without monetising it or treating it as a favour, why can’t women?
Well Samir, we live in times where women control the narrative in the most absolute fashion. Whatever women value is spoken of as a universal value, and anyone challenging that is spoken of as a thug. Situations like this are never resolved via communication, since communication requires listening equanimously. The resolution is more likely to come by via unhealthy “replacements”, with both sides losing. The detachment is already all around us, and even poor substitutes as porn are irresistible when compared to the options. We would not be in this mess if there was honesty in the discussion…
Well Samir, we live in times where women control the narrative in the most absolute fashion. Whatever women value is spoken of as a universal value, and anyone challenging that is spoken of as a thug. Situations like this are never resolved via communication, since communication requires listening equanimously. The resolution is more likely to come by via unhealthy “replacements”, with both sides losing. The detachment is already all around us, and even poor substitutes as porn are irresistible when compared to the options. We would not be in this mess if there was honesty in the discussion…
I can imagine a grievance against the idea that we’re going to preach sexual liberation on the one hand and men’s self-restraint on the other.
There isn’t any doubt the plight of most women in this industry is really sad, and the whole thing is genuinely gross.
But it’s also problematic that the solution is to “shame and guilt” men for a society where their options for sex are:
A. Paying exorbitant amounts for sex with an unknown woman (believe it or not, not the preferred option for most men)
B. Earning a lot of money and working a stressful job to persuade someone to marry you (because all those women who otherwise talk gender equality suddenly turn traditional at that point). Which of course has a decent chance thar you still ending up without sex…. as well as the house, kids and a chunk of your income.
I think you will find shaming and guilting stops working after a point. Maybe worth asking why women don’t have to pay? If men can have sex without monetising it or treating it as a favour, why can’t women?
Women don’t consume porn to the extent that men do. Men create a market for porn, women and men acting in a mercenary manner, fill the market. If the market wasn’t there, they wouldn’t’ create the porn.
In your drug analogy the woman is more akin to the drug itself than the pusher/supplier. Porn turns her into a product.
“Porn turns her into a product.” Correct!
Product or product supplier, makes little difference.
It’s easier to remove a product from the market than successfully shame millions of anonymous buyers.
Indeed–and even if it weren’t for these users’ anonymity, as we know from the behavior of addicts and criminals, such individuals will most likely simply withdraw from those who would “shame” them.
The popular and heart-warming notion of the “intervention,” for example, seldom actually “works”–though the user may withdraw further.
Indeed–and even if it weren’t for these users’ anonymity, as we know from the behavior of addicts and criminals, such individuals will most likely simply withdraw from those who would “shame” them.
The popular and heart-warming notion of the “intervention,” for example, seldom actually “works”–though the user may withdraw further.
“Porn turns her into a product.” Correct!
Product or product supplier, makes little difference.
It’s easier to remove a product from the market than successfully shame millions of anonymous buyers.
You really have a grievance against women don’t you Will?
Women don’t consume porn to the extent that men do. Men create a market for porn, women and men acting in a mercenary manner, fill the market. If the market wasn’t there, they wouldn’t’ create the porn.
In your drug analogy the woman is more akin to the drug itself than the pusher/supplier. Porn turns her into a product.
Shame and guilt? How do you respond to being shamed and guilt-tripped?
The attitudes you describe seem to belong to women rather than men, correct?
Is it too much to ask of our enlightened women not to participate in the active destruction of the nuclear family?
Men ought to shame each other into not using porn as an outlet for the sexual desires, yes. “You spent how much on OnlyFans? What? Get a life, mate!” Social shaming. “I don’t watch porn, thanks, got a real girlfriend”. Or “Woah, porn? On your phone? What if your kid sees that, I’m not OK with it”.
Women can help too by not shaming other women around this issue, playing the ‘cool girl’ who isn’t bothered by her partner doing this.
Is it too much to ask of our enlightened women not to participate in the active destruction of the nuclear family? – it isn’t, no. But I don’t think this is the main issue here. Men create the demand for porn. If men stopped consuming it and paying for it, the supply would plummet.
There is certainly something to be said for stating one’s attitude toward pornography, the basis of one’s critique, should the subject arise. We do not wish to excuse ourselves saying, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
But, your dialog is impossible if the speaker does not hold the attitude in the first place that pornography is wrong–or, in a secular setting in which right and wrong are up for debate, is, say, a practical detriment to one’s status or well-being (to say nothing of the well-being of the prostitutes involved in its production and distribution).
Now, how is a young man supposed to arrive at these attitudes? It is clearly not enough to say he simply “ought to.” Especially when we find ourselves in an environment where pornography is available–and so, permitted; and in which young men are taught they are by nature oppressors, abusers, porn consumers, and so on.
Indeed: let the rediscovery of the family as the basis for society–the sexual counter-revolution–begin.
I trust you are telling your friends about it, the way the young man in your dialogs talks to his?
I absolutely agree with you. I think that the family is the place for the start of these conversations. I think the mother, the father, ought to be able to live through example here and also be able to talk to their children (age appropriately) about the damage that pornography does to the men and women involved in creating and consuming it. It is natural for kids to be curious about bodies and sex, but porn shouldn’t be an avenue for children to explore this and they ought to be expressly told this.
I think schools ought to play a role here as well. If you are teaching a sex education block I think it would be to the children’s advantage to have the teachers communicate that pornography is not real life and to be open about the dangers of using it as a basis for learning about sex as well as for gratification. Furthermore, the danger of addiction to pornography ought to be discussed. Not to mention the potential legal issues users can get into. And we could go into the problems men and women of inadequacy when comparing themselves to some of the things out there.
But, yes, I do feel that peer pressure has a strong role to play here. I’ve read news stories (during #metoo) where women have complained about men sitting on the tube watching porn. When did that become OK? Nobody wants to be ‘the prude’ and tell him ‘stop watching porn on the tube’ but yes, someone should and I think it does hold more weight man to man. I seem to recall growing up that the stereotype of a porn user was either a 14 year old boy who didn’t have the access to women he wanted in real life, or some raincoat wearing loner who was an adult male that real life women had rejected. Porn has been normalized and viewed as being a positive thing, when experience over time seems to showing the opposite. Porn hasn’t made people feel more comfortable with sex but has pushed taboos into the mainstream, in turn calling for new taboos to be pushed into relatively easily accessible porn, it has created a slew of addicted men and women who are turned off sex and (apparently more often than in the past) injured by men wanting to perform sex acts on them that they have seen in porn: a**l sex and choking for example.
So just to make sure I understand you, Caty: You are the one entitled to define what all men should (or “are allowed to”) desire, and any that do not comply with your point of view ought to be criminalized – or at least talked down by their peers? Hmmm, this is sounding quite familiar…
Hmm, maybe apply some critical reading skills: she is making observations and suggestions. Isn’t that what these forums are for?
Hmmm, maybe you should apply critical reading skills: Caty is arguing for something clearly reproachable (totalitarian, “I am right and everyone else ought to be wrong”), whereas you are pitifully failing in getting what she wrote requalified as an “observation” or “suggestion”. Wanna try again?
Hmmm, maybe you should apply critical reading skills: Caty is arguing for something clearly reproachable (totalitarian, “I am right and everyone else ought to be wrong”), whereas you are pitifully failing in getting what she wrote requalified as an “observation” or “suggestion”. Wanna try again?
Hmm, maybe apply some critical reading skills: she is making observations and suggestions. Isn’t that what these forums are for?
So just to make sure I understand you, Caty: You are the one entitled to define what all men should (or “are allowed to”) desire, and any that do not comply with your point of view ought to be criminalized – or at least talked down by their peers? Hmmm, this is sounding quite familiar…
I absolutely agree with you. I think that the family is the place for the start of these conversations. I think the mother, the father, ought to be able to live through example here and also be able to talk to their children (age appropriately) about the damage that pornography does to the men and women involved in creating and consuming it. It is natural for kids to be curious about bodies and sex, but porn shouldn’t be an avenue for children to explore this and they ought to be expressly told this.
I think schools ought to play a role here as well. If you are teaching a sex education block I think it would be to the children’s advantage to have the teachers communicate that pornography is not real life and to be open about the dangers of using it as a basis for learning about sex as well as for gratification. Furthermore, the danger of addiction to pornography ought to be discussed. Not to mention the potential legal issues users can get into. And we could go into the problems men and women of inadequacy when comparing themselves to some of the things out there.
But, yes, I do feel that peer pressure has a strong role to play here. I’ve read news stories (during #metoo) where women have complained about men sitting on the tube watching porn. When did that become OK? Nobody wants to be ‘the prude’ and tell him ‘stop watching porn on the tube’ but yes, someone should and I think it does hold more weight man to man. I seem to recall growing up that the stereotype of a porn user was either a 14 year old boy who didn’t have the access to women he wanted in real life, or some raincoat wearing loner who was an adult male that real life women had rejected. Porn has been normalized and viewed as being a positive thing, when experience over time seems to showing the opposite. Porn hasn’t made people feel more comfortable with sex but has pushed taboos into the mainstream, in turn calling for new taboos to be pushed into relatively easily accessible porn, it has created a slew of addicted men and women who are turned off sex and (apparently more often than in the past) injured by men wanting to perform sex acts on them that they have seen in porn: a**l sex and choking for example.
–
So your solution comes down to “we need to change men so they think like we do, and enforce our values on each other by shaming”.
I don’t think you understand men very well.
There is certainly something to be said for stating one’s attitude toward pornography, the basis of one’s critique, should the subject arise. We do not wish to excuse ourselves saying, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
But, your dialog is impossible if the speaker does not hold the attitude in the first place that pornography is wrong–or, in a secular setting in which right and wrong are up for debate, is, say, a practical detriment to one’s status or well-being (to say nothing of the well-being of the prostitutes involved in its production and distribution).
Now, how is a young man supposed to arrive at these attitudes? It is clearly not enough to say he simply “ought to.” Especially when we find ourselves in an environment where pornography is available–and so, permitted; and in which young men are taught they are by nature oppressors, abusers, porn consumers, and so on.
Indeed: let the rediscovery of the family as the basis for society–the sexual counter-revolution–begin.
I trust you are telling your friends about it, the way the young man in your dialogs talks to his?
–
So your solution comes down to “we need to change men so they think like we do, and enforce our values on each other by shaming”.
I don’t think you understand men very well.
Men ought to shame each other into not using porn as an outlet for the sexual desires, yes. “You spent how much on OnlyFans? What? Get a life, mate!” Social shaming. “I don’t watch porn, thanks, got a real girlfriend”. Or “Woah, porn? On your phone? What if your kid sees that, I’m not OK with it”.
Women can help too by not shaming other women around this issue, playing the ‘cool girl’ who isn’t bothered by her partner doing this.
Is it too much to ask of our enlightened women not to participate in the active destruction of the nuclear family? – it isn’t, no. But I don’t think this is the main issue here. Men create the demand for porn. If men stopped consuming it and paying for it, the supply would plummet.
Maybe it’s the women who should exercise some self restraint?
To employ an analogy… rather than asking drug users to exercise self restraint maybe the drug suppliers should be the ones restrained.
Shame and guilt? How do you respond to being shamed and guilt-tripped?
The attitudes you describe seem to belong to women rather than men, correct?
Is it too much to ask of our enlightened women not to participate in the active destruction of the nuclear family?
Hey, Daniel you’ve twice blamed women in your comment “women willing to do the work” but “people willing to watch”. It’s MEN who watch and support pornography not people. Then “women willing to engage in prostitution” but again it’s MEN who support prostitution because they are “willing” to pay for sex.
I worked in Internet technology for many years, specifically in building the first generation of web-enabled applications from the mid-90’s to early 2000’s. Yes, they are names and apps you would know.
There is absolutely no technological reason we can not end Internet pornography tomorrow. The problem is political will.
For many years, anti-porn was a crusade of the Right, which meant the Left had to embrace it — since the Right consists of only Puritans and Nazis, anything they want to do must be evil. As a result, you had feminists arguing that “porn is liberating for women” with a straight face. That has continued to this day. It is deeply ironic that the party which is so concerned about microaggressions and social justice can’t wrap its brain around the idea that paying women to be beaten and raped on camera isn’t empowering, but that’s where we are.
However, I will say it again, the technological ability exists (and has for years) to filter and control this. We simply choose not to.
If the Chinese can block discussion of the Uyghur genocide, surely we can block porn on the internet.
I think it’s also kinda like: so some people abused the system, therefore the system should not exist is catastrophizing. The solution is to use more AI solutions or more moderation not shut it all down.
The industry is definitely predatory in the way it’s structured and how it’s evolved, but I think there’s ways to at least ameliorate the worst aspects without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As the old saying goes everyone has ‘needs’, and if you can’t satisfy those needs you need an outlet to relive them in a safe, healthy manner. I won’t go as far as those whackjob German communists who theorized sexual repression led to the Nazis existing (look up the East German pedophile experiment if you want to have a bad time), but repression can certainly lead to unhealthy neuroses, or worse in some extreme cases. I think the issue with the current industry is there was NO outlet until some scumbags in ‘the Valley’ built one they could exploit, and from there the rest of the issues flowed. The pro-porn feminists will say things like ‘sex work is work’ and other assorted post-hoc justifications, while the anti-porn feminists will say things edging dangerously towards the likes of ‘all sex is rape’. I think both are extremes we should navigate between rather than choose one over the other.
I don’t claim to have an answer but at least a suggestion, and that’s the sort of Rule 34-type ‘erotic’ illustrators you can find all over the internet if you tip over the right rock. After all, not as much actual dehumanizing can happen if the only person involved in making it is a guy in his basement with art tools and digital rendering software. I imagine the worst would be severe carpel tunnel syndrome. (Although the obvious caveat to that is ensuring a strong delineation between fantasy and reality, to avoid a sort of ‘Mazes and Monsters’ type situation, but that applies to most media in general.)
Unfortunately the number of young women with more beauty than morals willing to bank on their looks is probably a lot higher than the number of skilled artists willing to use their talents to draw bewbs, vaj, and dong for a living.
The thing that’s always puzzled me was that the feminist movement wasn’t more vociferous against the porn industry, given the obvious misogynistic overtones of most of the content of the videos.
Women have their own ATM cash dispenser between their legs.
It’s a treasure that women are born with.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that they use it.
What makes you think the majority of women engaged in prostitution are “willing”? How many women do you think “willingly” have sex with multiple men they are not attracted to every single day? Very few women have ever made a free choice to be used like human spitoons.
That being said, the best way to “manage” the harm done to people in the sex industry is to decrease demand so that traffickers have less financial incentive to coerce people into prostitution and porn.
Pimps and pornographers are not the problem: sex buyers and porn consumers are the problem.
We need to stop treating these creeps like “nice men” and start treating them like the abusers they are.
We need to criminalize sex buying (NOT “sex workers”) and stigmatize the use of porn to masturbate.
If you don’t have enough erotic imagination to masturbate without porn, then find another hobby that doesn’t contribute to the trafficking industry.
Child molesting is never going to go away, yet we still must do everything we can as a society to fight it.
The same is true of sex industry abuses.
Is there any chance that men can be shamed and guilted into not using it in the first place? Or perhaps that they can exercise some self restraint? Cut the demand, cut the supply.
The attitudes of “all men look at porn”, “if you don’t like porn, you’re frigid”, “at least he’s not cheating on you”, “we need to normalized porn”, “I’m totally fine with my man watching porn” need to change.
Hey, Daniel you’ve twice blamed women in your comment “women willing to do the work” but “people willing to watch”. It’s MEN who watch and support pornography not people. Then “women willing to engage in prostitution” but again it’s MEN who support prostitution because they are “willing” to pay for sex.
I worked in Internet technology for many years, specifically in building the first generation of web-enabled applications from the mid-90’s to early 2000’s. Yes, they are names and apps you would know.
There is absolutely no technological reason we can not end Internet pornography tomorrow. The problem is political will.
For many years, anti-porn was a crusade of the Right, which meant the Left had to embrace it — since the Right consists of only Puritans and Nazis, anything they want to do must be evil. As a result, you had feminists arguing that “porn is liberating for women” with a straight face. That has continued to this day. It is deeply ironic that the party which is so concerned about microaggressions and social justice can’t wrap its brain around the idea that paying women to be beaten and raped on camera isn’t empowering, but that’s where we are.
However, I will say it again, the technological ability exists (and has for years) to filter and control this. We simply choose not to.
If the Chinese can block discussion of the Uyghur genocide, surely we can block porn on the internet.
This stuff is horrible. The industry is dehumanizing and gross.
I’m just not sure how you stop it. So long as there are women willing to do the work, for whatever reason, and people willing to watch it, I just do not see how you end it.
Its kinda like prostitution. So long as humans have been around, there have been women willing to engage in prostitution and despite the best efforts of churches and legal systems, it is still there and is very likely never going to go away.
Since these things are somehow inevitable, the question we are left with is; How do we manage it?
We might never reach consensus on this controversy, because we don’t all begin with the same understanding of what it means to be human.
Many of those who oppose pornography and prostitution rely on rational arguments (either practical or moral ones) about what is non-rational (sexual urges). Many of those who tolerate pornography and prostitution, however, rely on non-rational arguments (ultimately theological ones) about what is rational (social contracts). In other words, there might be an unbridgeable gulf between the two sides.
Despite the many differences that divide religious traditions, and even the inconsistencies within those traditions, most religious traditions make clear distinctions between the sacred (special) and the profane (ordinary). What makes a time, place, person, act or event either sacred or profane is its relation to–or separation from–the experience of holiness (which is ineffable) and therefore to the cosmos (which is infinite and eternal). Western religious traditions, for example, have taught that the experience of sex can be either sacred (not only within the context of marriage but also in conformity with symbols and rituals that replicate the cosmos on a microcosmic scale) or profane (not necessarily evil, per se, but either beyond the context of marriage or in conformity only with the practical needs of society and personal gratification).
What does secularity have to do with any of this? And I assume here that most of you are secular. The sacred and the profane can exist only in relation to each other; neither can exist otherwise. Secularity, however, is what happens after the abolition of both the sacred and the profane, even though the English words that signify this result usually refer only to abolition of the former: “desacralization” or “desecration.”
Now, apply all of this to sexual behavior–that is, in the context of this discussion, to pornography and prostitution. Many of you say, presumably on secular grounds, that both are inherently “horrible,” “shocking,” “degrading,” “dehumanizing” and therefore evil. But it’s hard to make that argument stick on purely emotional grounds. Moreover, not everyone agrees on what those words mean even in practical or moral terms. How can something that’s not inherently sacred in the first place, after all, be desacralized or desecrated? Or, to put that in philosophical terms instead of theological ones, what is the secular foundation for any notion of the good or the bad? The answer is easy when it comes to murder, of course, because common sense indicates that no society can permit that and expect to endure. Ditto for lying, cheating, stealing and so on. The answer isn’t so easy when it comes to some other behaviors.
Religious arguments for or against some sexual behaviors (such as homosexuality) can be very problematic, it’s true, but so can secular ones. That’s because the latter now rely mainly on the highly debatable grounds of either identity politics or social utility, which is why not even all feminists can agree with each other about what women want or need, let alone what society requires.
I don’t know of any way to facilitate this debate. My goal here is merely to suggest consideration of some underlying misunderstandings.
You have raised an important question: “What is the secular foundation for any notion of the good or the bad?” (Answer: there is no such thing.)
But if indeed one is opposing pornography before a secular audience, why not rely on practical grounds? Supposedly the secular world is practical, rational, enlightened–as opposed to emotional, irrational and superstitious. (I am aware these are not necessarily your words; rather it is the commonplace secular view of things.)
Pornographic “talent” tends to perish of drugs, disease, suicide and violence after leading grim lives few would wish for themselves or their loved ones; it is prostitution by another name and authorities ought to eradicate its production and distribution. No one can claim pornography improves the lives of men or women: indeed it is like an anaesthetic for men, and for women another reason to recoil emotionally, disgusted with men as well as other women.
Leaving aside the question of how and indeed whether authorities will achieve this result, as a practical matter, we know of the proven best way for young men, who appear to be the main audience for pornography, to combat their inclination to its use: the Sacraments of Reconciliation (Confession) and of course the Eucharist.
Will parents opposed to pornography make the effort to ensure their sons receive the Eucharist and Reconciliation? Will adult men make the sacrifice and seek out these Sacraments in order to do their part in decreasing demand for this vile “product”?
In reading the comments here and the article, you have a serious point. In abandoning the morality viewpoint in our secular society, we have no way to process erotic content which we define as porn as the basest of that content. Sex and the erotic are built into human desire and needs.
I’m reminded of visiting an Amsterdam live sex show with my wife. Likely the most boring thing we has ever seen. I suspect porn ends up there as well. I do see teens telling me that (perhaps to please me) but I really don’t know. They find more interesting stuff on TicTok. But we are faced with a declining interest or fear of sex among teens who have been exposed on their phones to porn. That along with a disinterest in marriage and children does not bode well for society.
Thank you, Paul and Hardee. I wasn’t expecting to receive thoughtful replies, frankly, or even to be taken seriously for introducing the ultimate context of sexual behavior.
Paul, you oppose pornography and prostitution for theological reasons, but you also cite secular reasons. On purely secular grounds, in fact, society could either oppose or support many activities. Americans tried to ban the production, sale and consumption of alcohol during the 1920s, after all, but Prohibition wasn’t exactly a success in rational terms. Would it be rational for governments now to ban all foods or sports that might be statistically just as harmful as alcohol? In any case, there’s no such thing as “settled science.” Consequently these laws would be very unstable even on purely scientific grounds. Locking down schools and businesses to prevent the spread of Covid looked rational, at first, on medical grounds. But within months or even weeks, it looked irrational not only on economic and political grounds but even on medical grounds. My point is that people can, and do, claim that pornography and prostitution are beneficial in some circumstances by serving needs.
Hardee, it’s true that sexual stimuli, like any other physiological stimuli, can become repetitive and boring after a while (which is why so many societies have produced highly sophisticated erotic manuals). But I don’t see why you classify pornography as “base” content. What makes some forms of sexual arousal “interesting” and other forms “base”? I suspect that the answer to that question would have nothing to do with physiology. Either way, after all, pornography is about fantasy. And fantasy has a life of its own. It is therefore, by definition, unconstrained by aesthetic, rational or even moral considerations. (Acting out fantasies in real life is, of course, another matter.) Some people in our time would like very much to ban fantasies, just as they already ban ideas and even spoken words that they dislike. Their mentality is not only irrational, for many reasons, but also profoundly destructive.
Thank you, Paul and Hardee. I wasn’t expecting to receive thoughtful replies, frankly, or even to be taken seriously for introducing the ultimate context of sexual behavior.
Paul, you oppose pornography and prostitution for theological reasons, but you also cite secular reasons. On purely secular grounds, in fact, society could either oppose or support many activities. Americans tried to ban the production, sale and consumption of alcohol during the 1920s, after all, but Prohibition wasn’t exactly a success in rational terms. Would it be rational for governments now to ban all foods or sports that might be statistically just as harmful as alcohol? In any case, there’s no such thing as “settled science.” Consequently these laws would be very unstable even on purely scientific grounds. Locking down schools and businesses to prevent the spread of Covid looked rational, at first, on medical grounds. But within months or even weeks, it looked irrational not only on economic and political grounds but even on medical grounds. My point is that people can, and do, claim that pornography and prostitution are beneficial in some circumstances by serving needs.
Hardee, it’s true that sexual stimuli, like any other physiological stimuli, can become repetitive and boring after a while (which is why so many societies have produced highly sophisticated erotic manuals). But I don’t see why you classify pornography as “base” content. What makes some forms of sexual arousal “interesting” and other forms “base”? I suspect that the answer to that question would have nothing to do with physiology. Either way, after all, pornography is about fantasy. And fantasy has a life of its own. It is therefore, by definition, unconstrained by aesthetic, rational or even moral considerations. (Acting out fantasies in real life is, of course, another matter.) Some people in our time would like very much to ban fantasies, just as they already ban ideas and even spoken words that they dislike. Their mentality is not only irrational, for many reasons, but also profoundly destructive.
You have raised an important question: “What is the secular foundation for any notion of the good or the bad?” (Answer: there is no such thing.)
But if indeed one is opposing pornography before a secular audience, why not rely on practical grounds? Supposedly the secular world is practical, rational, enlightened–as opposed to emotional, irrational and superstitious. (I am aware these are not necessarily your words; rather it is the commonplace secular view of things.)
Pornographic “talent” tends to perish of drugs, disease, suicide and violence after leading grim lives few would wish for themselves or their loved ones; it is prostitution by another name and authorities ought to eradicate its production and distribution. No one can claim pornography improves the lives of men or women: indeed it is like an anaesthetic for men, and for women another reason to recoil emotionally, disgusted with men as well as other women.
Leaving aside the question of how and indeed whether authorities will achieve this result, as a practical matter, we know of the proven best way for young men, who appear to be the main audience for pornography, to combat their inclination to its use: the Sacraments of Reconciliation (Confession) and of course the Eucharist.
Will parents opposed to pornography make the effort to ensure their sons receive the Eucharist and Reconciliation? Will adult men make the sacrifice and seek out these Sacraments in order to do their part in decreasing demand for this vile “product”?
In reading the comments here and the article, you have a serious point. In abandoning the morality viewpoint in our secular society, we have no way to process erotic content which we define as porn as the basest of that content. Sex and the erotic are built into human desire and needs.
I’m reminded of visiting an Amsterdam live sex show with my wife. Likely the most boring thing we has ever seen. I suspect porn ends up there as well. I do see teens telling me that (perhaps to please me) but I really don’t know. They find more interesting stuff on TicTok. But we are faced with a declining interest or fear of sex among teens who have been exposed on their phones to porn. That along with a disinterest in marriage and children does not bode well for society.
We might never reach consensus on this controversy, because we don’t all begin with the same understanding of what it means to be human.
Many of those who oppose pornography and prostitution rely on rational arguments (either practical or moral ones) about what is non-rational (sexual urges). Many of those who tolerate pornography and prostitution, however, rely on non-rational arguments (ultimately theological ones) about what is rational (social contracts). In other words, there might be an unbridgeable gulf between the two sides.
Despite the many differences that divide religious traditions, and even the inconsistencies within those traditions, most religious traditions make clear distinctions between the sacred (special) and the profane (ordinary). What makes a time, place, person, act or event either sacred or profane is its relation to–or separation from–the experience of holiness (which is ineffable) and therefore to the cosmos (which is infinite and eternal). Western religious traditions, for example, have taught that the experience of sex can be either sacred (not only within the context of marriage but also in conformity with symbols and rituals that replicate the cosmos on a microcosmic scale) or profane (not necessarily evil, per se, but either beyond the context of marriage or in conformity only with the practical needs of society and personal gratification).
What does secularity have to do with any of this? And I assume here that most of you are secular. The sacred and the profane can exist only in relation to each other; neither can exist otherwise. Secularity, however, is what happens after the abolition of both the sacred and the profane, even though the English words that signify this result usually refer only to abolition of the former: “desacralization” or “desecration.”
Now, apply all of this to sexual behavior–that is, in the context of this discussion, to pornography and prostitution. Many of you say, presumably on secular grounds, that both are inherently “horrible,” “shocking,” “degrading,” “dehumanizing” and therefore evil. But it’s hard to make that argument stick on purely emotional grounds. Moreover, not everyone agrees on what those words mean even in practical or moral terms. How can something that’s not inherently sacred in the first place, after all, be desacralized or desecrated? Or, to put that in philosophical terms instead of theological ones, what is the secular foundation for any notion of the good or the bad? The answer is easy when it comes to murder, of course, because common sense indicates that no society can permit that and expect to endure. Ditto for lying, cheating, stealing and so on. The answer isn’t so easy when it comes to some other behaviors.
Religious arguments for or against some sexual behaviors (such as homosexuality) can be very problematic, it’s true, but so can secular ones. That’s because the latter now rely mainly on the highly debatable grounds of either identity politics or social utility, which is why not even all feminists can agree with each other about what women want or need, let alone what society requires.
I don’t know of any way to facilitate this debate. My goal here is merely to suggest consideration of some underlying misunderstandings.
The issue, as with social media, is effective moderation.
Publishers – and I include social media – should be held 100% responsible for everything published on their site. No ifs or buts. Not a vague commitment to improve an algorithm.
In newsagents, porn is on the top shelf, under wraps. A child can’t see it or get it. The newsagent isn’t going to sell something that does not meet, ahem, a certain quality and probity. If they started selling magazines full of stolen pictures of girls getting abused, the newsagent would be arrested.
If I send a letter to the Times full of incoherent, expletive laden, defamatory nonsense, it is not going to get published.
Social Media companies and porn merchants have been getting away with murder. Hold them liable for what they publish, and watch the bad stuff disappear.
The issue, as with social media, is effective moderation.
Publishers – and I include social media – should be held 100% responsible for everything published on their site. No ifs or buts. Not a vague commitment to improve an algorithm.
In newsagents, porn is on the top shelf, under wraps. A child can’t see it or get it. The newsagent isn’t going to sell something that does not meet, ahem, a certain quality and probity. If they started selling magazines full of stolen pictures of girls getting abused, the newsagent would be arrested.
If I send a letter to the Times full of incoherent, expletive laden, defamatory nonsense, it is not going to get published.
Social Media companies and porn merchants have been getting away with murder. Hold them liable for what they publish, and watch the bad stuff disappear.
Both this article and most of the comments so far have all ignored the elephant in the room: places like Pornhub are no longer the heart of the porn production ‘industry’. The documentary mentioned in this article, and the article itself, quite clearly show how it’s a floundering business grasping at straws. Just as the internet porn devastated the porno industry, the rise of the porn ‘entrepanuer’ has devastated the internet porn industry. Onlyfans is an obvious example, but even things ostensibly non-sexual like instagram, tik-tok, or twitch, which was originally a video game streaming platform, have become purveyors of erotic content, not by choice but by young women discovering on their own that dancing around in a bikini in front of a camera will get young, desperate, lonely, and stupid men to throw their life savings at them in record-breaking time. In these cases the exploitation happening here does not fit the feminist framework, because it’s being done *by* women *to* men. And so it’s ignored. We call men falling victim to these sirens ‘degenerates’ and ‘perverts’, but how desperate for human contact can someone be that they’ll fork over $1000 to a complete stranger just to write their name on the inflatable banana she’s lounging on in a kiddie pool, alongside the dozens of others who’ve done the same?
I’ve seen many people here argue along economic terms such as ‘cut the demand, and the supply dries up’. The issue with that is that men are hardwired on a biological level to want and seek sexual stimuli, which makes sense biologically speaking, as generally males of any species have a shorter life expectancy. And male arousal is *visual*, so just saying ‘use your imagination’ isn’t going to be as effective.
I’m not saying ‘oh men are men and we should just accept we’re all rapists and monsters’, just that we need to find ways to channel this innate drive into constructive ways rather than destructive ones. Unfortunately most ways to do that have either dried up or been actively dismantled. Most young men without partners can’t find a mate not just because they’re ‘toxic’, though obviously many are. Internal data from dating sites shows the issues more clearly: 70% of women on tinder are all competing to date the same 30% of men. Hypergamy is a very real thing, and the idea that leveling the playing field in employment would do away with it has proven emphatically false. Women earn more college/university degrees than men, yet despite earning equal or more money than many men do, they still insist on ‘dating up’. Thus the pool of ‘viable’ men is growing ever smaller, because more and more men become ‘un-viable’. We’re now left with an ever-expanding group of men with NO prospects; no job prospects, family prospects, mating prospects, even prospects for anything resembling happiness. Is anyone surprised they’re not contributing productively to society? Even if they tried we won’t let them!
Destroying the ‘demand’ without addressing *why* there is one simply will not work. It’d be like trying to stop poaching in Africa by demanding people stop being hungry. Porn can be and often is obviously harmful, to the producers and consumers of it, but it fills a need that society no longer cares to even acknowledge exists. It’s cruel to demand that need remain unmet without offering any alternative.
Thomas, soon enough you’re bound to get the standard answer: All that men need to do is “step up to the plate” and provide whatever it s that women find themselves automatically entitled to these days – be it a man with supermodel looks, tons of money or an eternal doormat approach to “relationships”. The elephants in the room such as horrendous libido imbalance, female hypergamy or sheer misandry cannot ever be mentioned. As I pointed out in another post above, there is no honesty in the discussion, so no real chance for reconnection. As you sagely pointed out, over time the numbers game will inevitably put the balance 70% of women in the same lonely corner that men are – but I am not sure that will drive any reconsideration about the points above.
Thomas k. An excellent summary!
Thomas, soon enough you’re bound to get the standard answer: All that men need to do is “step up to the plate” and provide whatever it s that women find themselves automatically entitled to these days – be it a man with supermodel looks, tons of money or an eternal doormat approach to “relationships”. The elephants in the room such as horrendous libido imbalance, female hypergamy or sheer misandry cannot ever be mentioned. As I pointed out in another post above, there is no honesty in the discussion, so no real chance for reconnection. As you sagely pointed out, over time the numbers game will inevitably put the balance 70% of women in the same lonely corner that men are – but I am not sure that will drive any reconsideration about the points above.
Thomas k. An excellent summary!
Both this article and most of the comments so far have all ignored the elephant in the room: places like Pornhub are no longer the heart of the porn production ‘industry’. The documentary mentioned in this article, and the article itself, quite clearly show how it’s a floundering business grasping at straws. Just as the internet porn devastated the porno industry, the rise of the porn ‘entrepanuer’ has devastated the internet porn industry. Onlyfans is an obvious example, but even things ostensibly non-sexual like instagram, tik-tok, or twitch, which was originally a video game streaming platform, have become purveyors of erotic content, not by choice but by young women discovering on their own that dancing around in a bikini in front of a camera will get young, desperate, lonely, and stupid men to throw their life savings at them in record-breaking time. In these cases the exploitation happening here does not fit the feminist framework, because it’s being done *by* women *to* men. And so it’s ignored. We call men falling victim to these sirens ‘degenerates’ and ‘perverts’, but how desperate for human contact can someone be that they’ll fork over $1000 to a complete stranger just to write their name on the inflatable banana she’s lounging on in a kiddie pool, alongside the dozens of others who’ve done the same?
I’ve seen many people here argue along economic terms such as ‘cut the demand, and the supply dries up’. The issue with that is that men are hardwired on a biological level to want and seek sexual stimuli, which makes sense biologically speaking, as generally males of any species have a shorter life expectancy. And male arousal is *visual*, so just saying ‘use your imagination’ isn’t going to be as effective.
I’m not saying ‘oh men are men and we should just accept we’re all rapists and monsters’, just that we need to find ways to channel this innate drive into constructive ways rather than destructive ones. Unfortunately most ways to do that have either dried up or been actively dismantled. Most young men without partners can’t find a mate not just because they’re ‘toxic’, though obviously many are. Internal data from dating sites shows the issues more clearly: 70% of women on tinder are all competing to date the same 30% of men. Hypergamy is a very real thing, and the idea that leveling the playing field in employment would do away with it has proven emphatically false. Women earn more college/university degrees than men, yet despite earning equal or more money than many men do, they still insist on ‘dating up’. Thus the pool of ‘viable’ men is growing ever smaller, because more and more men become ‘un-viable’. We’re now left with an ever-expanding group of men with NO prospects; no job prospects, family prospects, mating prospects, even prospects for anything resembling happiness. Is anyone surprised they’re not contributing productively to society? Even if they tried we won’t let them!
Destroying the ‘demand’ without addressing *why* there is one simply will not work. It’d be like trying to stop poaching in Africa by demanding people stop being hungry. Porn can be and often is obviously harmful, to the producers and consumers of it, but it fills a need that society no longer cares to even acknowledge exists. It’s cruel to demand that need remain unmet without offering any alternative.
Teenagers will always find porn. I remember it on floppy disks and bulletin boards, as well as VHS and magazines, though the VGAs and GIFs I hunted down were tame compared to what’s easily accessible today, in high resolution.
It’s a damning indictment of our society that sites like PornHub are allowed to operate as they do. If porn is to stay this accessible, the content needs to change.
The trouble is that it’s hard to enable the government to crack down on this without empowering it to further stifle freedom of speech.
Some of this happens already. I remember getting an “adult content” warning from my mobile network a few years ago when attempting to access the Libertarian Alliance website.
Teenagers will always find porn. I remember it on floppy disks and bulletin boards, as well as VHS and magazines, though the VGAs and GIFs I hunted down were tame compared to what’s easily accessible today, in high resolution.
It’s a damning indictment of our society that sites like PornHub are allowed to operate as they do. If porn is to stay this accessible, the content needs to change.
The trouble is that it’s hard to enable the government to crack down on this without empowering it to further stifle freedom of speech.
Some of this happens already. I remember getting an “adult content” warning from my mobile network a few years ago when attempting to access the Libertarian Alliance website.
There doesn’t seem to be any difficulty blocking payment to creators whose politics is disagreable, but presumably Pornhub still benefits from online payment systems; users aren’t paying for this stuff by mailing cash. Pornhub would shut down pretty quickly if there was no money it.
I think they make their money from ads. Sure, you can probably pay for some premium version like everything else but I think ad revenue is the largest generator of cash.
I am not even sure it is legal to cut off the ability to someone to pay a debt to another person or entity if the business is a legal business. That would be a scary slippery slope.
But, it is worth discussing what would happen if we did somehow manage to shut down these sites. The stuff on them, the behaviors, are not going away so where will they go next? Will the next iteration be even worse? These women have chosen to exchange sex acts for money, for whatever reason. Will we simply force them into prostitution and at the same time expand the supply of prostitutes and so drive down their earnings? Will we drive things even further underground and create more risks for them?
As I said previously, like alcohol, drugs and other things we have tried to ban, women exchanging sex for money has been around as long as humans have. Some become kept mistresses. Some become street prostitutes. Some become very high end escorts. There is even an argument to be made that a woman who marries for money is acting this way. There will always be some women who are financially desperate or financially ambitious who see this as the simplest answer to their problem and there have always been and always will be men with the means and the will to pay them.
So, for the same reason that I think alcohol and drugs should be legal, I think we would be foolish to think we can stop this and any efforts we make beyond protecting minors and keeping the greatest predators in check is to keep it legal, out in the open and able to be monitored.
I’m talking about the titans of Silicon Valley here. If Paypal can stop you sending money to a social media site that might host unregulated chat you might think they could do the same with a site that hosts child pornography- or any kind of pornography. If we can no platform Tommy Robinson why can’t we no platform PornHub?
There are multiple ways around nearly every restriction. All the various methods just mean that consumers pay more. Crypto payments bypass them all.
There are multiple ways around nearly every restriction. All the various methods just mean that consumers pay more. Crypto payments bypass them all.
I’m talking about the titans of Silicon Valley here. If Paypal can stop you sending money to a social media site that might host unregulated chat you might think they could do the same with a site that hosts child pornography- or any kind of pornography. If we can no platform Tommy Robinson why can’t we no platform PornHub?
I think they make their money from ads. Sure, you can probably pay for some premium version like everything else but I think ad revenue is the largest generator of cash.
I am not even sure it is legal to cut off the ability to someone to pay a debt to another person or entity if the business is a legal business. That would be a scary slippery slope.
But, it is worth discussing what would happen if we did somehow manage to shut down these sites. The stuff on them, the behaviors, are not going away so where will they go next? Will the next iteration be even worse? These women have chosen to exchange sex acts for money, for whatever reason. Will we simply force them into prostitution and at the same time expand the supply of prostitutes and so drive down their earnings? Will we drive things even further underground and create more risks for them?
As I said previously, like alcohol, drugs and other things we have tried to ban, women exchanging sex for money has been around as long as humans have. Some become kept mistresses. Some become street prostitutes. Some become very high end escorts. There is even an argument to be made that a woman who marries for money is acting this way. There will always be some women who are financially desperate or financially ambitious who see this as the simplest answer to their problem and there have always been and always will be men with the means and the will to pay them.
So, for the same reason that I think alcohol and drugs should be legal, I think we would be foolish to think we can stop this and any efforts we make beyond protecting minors and keeping the greatest predators in check is to keep it legal, out in the open and able to be monitored.
There doesn’t seem to be any difficulty blocking payment to creators whose politics is disagreable, but presumably Pornhub still benefits from online payment systems; users aren’t paying for this stuff by mailing cash. Pornhub would shut down pretty quickly if there was no money it.
Good article. Sarah, I’d like to see you write a piece on the downside of porn *even excluding the really bad stuff*. It’s massively consequential for the actors and actresses but also for the consumer, and I think much of that consequence is unhealthy, dehumanising and addictive, even if they are just making nice consensual stuff. ie what I’m asking for is the steel-man anti-porn case, not the one that implicitly says it’s ok except for the abuse stuff.
Good article. Sarah, I’d like to see you write a piece on the downside of porn *even excluding the really bad stuff*. It’s massively consequential for the actors and actresses but also for the consumer, and I think much of that consequence is unhealthy, dehumanising and addictive, even if they are just making nice consensual stuff. ie what I’m asking for is the steel-man anti-porn case, not the one that implicitly says it’s ok except for the abuse stuff.
A one-cent tax on every stream on a tube site would be a good idea here. The revenues could be ringfenced for domestic violence initiatives and human trafficking prevention. In such a high-volume low-margin internet business, the tube sites would have to pass on the tax to the users. The users would then have to pay with a card, which would be an easy way to do age verification. Worst-case scenario: you mitigate the harms caused by this industry. Best-case scenario: you shut it down altogether.
I’m not sure why this has not been tried but I can hazard a guess. Our government in Ireland wants to introduce “p*rn literacy” as part of s*x education – in other words, grooming. From the government’s point of view it makes sense, it’s more bread and circuses: a zombified population hooked on cheap digital thrills is one that won’t organize and demand an end to the housing crisis, the cost-of-living crisis, the environmental crisis, and every other crisis going on around us right now.
A one-cent tax on every stream on a tube site would be a good idea here. The revenues could be ringfenced for domestic violence initiatives and human trafficking prevention. In such a high-volume low-margin internet business, the tube sites would have to pass on the tax to the users. The users would then have to pay with a card, which would be an easy way to do age verification. Worst-case scenario: you mitigate the harms caused by this industry. Best-case scenario: you shut it down altogether.
I’m not sure why this has not been tried but I can hazard a guess. Our government in Ireland wants to introduce “p*rn literacy” as part of s*x education – in other words, grooming. From the government’s point of view it makes sense, it’s more bread and circuses: a zombified population hooked on cheap digital thrills is one that won’t organize and demand an end to the housing crisis, the cost-of-living crisis, the environmental crisis, and every other crisis going on around us right now.
Please name all the progessive left wing people who supported Mary Whitehouse. Mary Whitehouse was villified by the Left, including women yet now they complain about porn. How many decades too late are the Left ?
Please name all the progessive left wing people who supported Mary Whitehouse. Mary Whitehouse was villified by the Left, including women yet now they complain about porn. How many decades too late are the Left ?
OMG all these men blaming women for porn! Did they not read the bits about doing it as they were desperate for money?
What about the damage to society from the misogyny and normalisation of violence? 12 year olds apparently thinking that choking is what girls want to get aroused? And that’s without the criminal links, drug use and trafficking.
Porn only survives because of the demand for it, fed by men too lazy or unpleasant to attempt to form a relationship based on mutual respect and consent.
Is this due to a lack of guidance to sons from emotionally mature responsible worldy wise fathers ?The Left except for the Methodist/ Non Conformist Labour types have been mocking good manners and gentility since the French Revolution and especially from mid 1960s.
Is this due to a lack of guidance to sons from emotionally mature responsible worldy wise fathers ?The Left except for the Methodist/ Non Conformist Labour types have been mocking good manners and gentility since the French Revolution and especially from mid 1960s.
OMG all these men blaming women for porn! Did they not read the bits about doing it as they were desperate for money?
What about the damage to society from the misogyny and normalisation of violence? 12 year olds apparently thinking that choking is what girls want to get aroused? And that’s without the criminal links, drug use and trafficking.
Porn only survives because of the demand for it, fed by men too lazy or unpleasant to attempt to form a relationship based on mutual respect and consent.
A modicum of research on and into Pornhub displays the following facts:
• The women on Pornhub are by any standards, stunningly attractive, and one would have have surmised, have no problem attracting men, not least those rich enough to ensure that they did not have to work.
• The most watched / popular women have their own identities, web sites and social media, so are clearly not in porn via some force.
• They appear in hundreds of videos.
• More and more are aged 40 plus, and many are actually married.
Ah the old ” just research” defence
Ah the old ” just research” defence
A modicum of research on and into Pornhub displays the following facts:
• The women on Pornhub are by any standards, stunningly attractive, and one would have have surmised, have no problem attracting men, not least those rich enough to ensure that they did not have to work.
• The most watched / popular women have their own identities, web sites and social media, so are clearly not in porn via some force.
• They appear in hundreds of videos.
• More and more are aged 40 plus, and many are actually married.
The likes of Stormy Daniels and Brandi Love would disgree….
The likes of Stormy Daniels and Brandi Love would disgree….
Our life is a constant fight against the abuse of power and the safe guarding of our freedoms.
Our life is a constant fight against the abuse of power and the safe guarding of our freedoms.
There has always been porn and there always will be.
There has always been porn and there always will be.
“Sex work is work” is a symptom, not a cause; specifically a symptom of the normalisation of pornography and prostitution in modern society. Most adults regularly use, or have used porn. For teenagers it is a part of everyday life. Until we engage with this simple fact then we are only left with hand-wringing, eye-rolling articles (and comments) such as this tutting at the state of things. Nothing good will come of it, so to speak.
“Sex work is work” is a symptom, not a cause; specifically a symptom of the normalisation of pornography and prostitution in modern society. Most adults regularly use, or have used porn. For teenagers it is a part of everyday life. Until we engage with this simple fact then we are only left with hand-wringing, eye-rolling articles (and comments) such as this tutting at the state of things. Nothing good will come of it, so to speak.
“But what distresses them most of all is the terrible unfairness of their work (on Pornhub) being associated with child sexual abuse footage (also on Pornhub). The documentary doesn’t push this point, but the disjunction still stands: they seem to believe they should have their share of Pornhub’s profits, without responsibility for the abuses that helped underpin them.”
I sympathise with them on that point. They are not responsible for illegal content and have no power to stop it happening. There is no guilt by association here.
Awaiting for approval.
Awaiting for approval.
The government could shut down Pornhub in the UK if they wanted on a range of violations, not least being a pusher of illegal material. But I’d like to see it done with more panache; pass a statutory instrument under the Public Health act designating Pornhub a threat to the mental and physical wellbeing of the population. I believe they have an office in London so why not then send in the security services and drag everyone out the front door. Immunity from prosecution for the tech staff that cooperate with eviscerating their platform. Once the dust settles invite representatives from the other tech and social media sites in for a discussion on how they can become more socially responsible corporate citizens. If we are to refound society then we will need these kinds of interventions.
It’s not “society” you’re describing, but human nature. Your prescription is at best naive and at worst totalitarian.
Without doubt, there are aspects of human nature that should remain illegal, but moral repugnance has to be very carefully considered or we’ll be banning Lady Chatterley’s Lover again.
But this is what we are doing as I write. Ronald Dahl must be censored; I hear that James Bond films are being patched to remove parts which cause distress to the ‘vulnerable’. If they reshoot and want a body double for Sean Connery, I will do it for a small charge.
Yes, but Dahl’s books are being re-edited because of popular pressure (or pressure from the publishing industry), not through compulsion by law. Cancel culture is not real censorship in the sense that legal censorship is. This is why I’m always amazed at the double standards of people who bemoan the occasional incidents of say non-platforming by students at university events (a decision made by a free institution to prevent someone speaking in a certain place) and government control of speech (such as the Tories’ proposal for freedom Tsars for universities dictating what does and does not count as free speech)..
Free speech should include everything, not just the things find important. How can a decision be made by a free institution to stop somebody from speaking – then it becomes a muzzled institution.
You manage to put sentences together so how can’t you see this? If there are 10 students of whom 6 don’t want to hear a speaker and 4 do want to hear – the speaker is then banned. So all the students don’t get to hear another viewpoint and the four students just sit in their rooms bored.
That may be symptomatic of a society with increasingly homogenous views, perhaps – but is the solution then for government to intervene to ensure freedom of speech? I would not back any government – let alone one that lies and manipulates public opinion as much as this one – with that task.
The problem of no-platforming is also greatly exagerrated. See here: https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/01/25/the-invented-free-speech-crisis/
As to those 4 students annoyed by not being able to see a more controversial speaker, they can either begin their own society where such speakers can be hosted or find access to their ideas through other media (these people usually have big enough platforms already, hence their ability to stir a public outcry)
That may be symptomatic of a society with increasingly homogenous views, perhaps – but is the solution then for government to intervene to ensure freedom of speech? I would not back any government – let alone one that lies and manipulates public opinion as much as this one – with that task.
The problem of no-platforming is also greatly exagerrated. See here: https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/01/25/the-invented-free-speech-crisis/
As to those 4 students annoyed by not being able to see a more controversial speaker, they can either begin their own society where such speakers can be hosted or find access to their ideas through other media (these people usually have big enough platforms already, hence their ability to stir a public outcry)
Free speech should include everything, not just the things find important. How can a decision be made by a free institution to stop somebody from speaking – then it becomes a muzzled institution.
You manage to put sentences together so how can’t you see this? If there are 10 students of whom 6 don’t want to hear a speaker and 4 do want to hear – the speaker is then banned. So all the students don’t get to hear another viewpoint and the four students just sit in their rooms bored.
And “The Dambusters’ and that dog!*
(* The grave was desecrated by RAF Scampton two years ago. No wonder it is to become an Asylum Camp.)
Yes, but Dahl’s books are being re-edited because of popular pressure (or pressure from the publishing industry), not through compulsion by law. Cancel culture is not real censorship in the sense that legal censorship is. This is why I’m always amazed at the double standards of people who bemoan the occasional incidents of say non-platforming by students at university events (a decision made by a free institution to prevent someone speaking in a certain place) and government control of speech (such as the Tories’ proposal for freedom Tsars for universities dictating what does and does not count as free speech)..
And “The Dambusters’ and that dog!*
(* The grave was desecrated by RAF Scampton two years ago. No wonder it is to become an Asylum Camp.)
Child abuse imagery and rape videos are ‘human nature’ and shouldn’t be censured? Well, you’ve certainly outed yourself there Steve.
I see this straightforwardly; if a business was pouring toxic waste into the water supply it would be forced to close. Industrial pornography does the same straight into the minds of people the world over and it should be suppressed. Otherwise what is the coercive power of the State for?
“Otherwise what is the coercive power of the State for?”
One thing….to protect our rights. Nothing more. Otherwise, we live in totalitarianism.
We do aleady. The banning of speakers at universities starts with the Herbert Marcuse essay ” Repressive Tolerance written in the mid 1960s nd has become worse. Look at the reaction to Jordon Peterson or Julie Bindell, or Peter Hitchens.
Orwell said that once one starts censoring one part of one’s mind it has an adverse impact on all aspects.
We do aleady. The banning of speakers at universities starts with the Herbert Marcuse essay ” Repressive Tolerance written in the mid 1960s nd has become worse. Look at the reaction to Jordon Peterson or Julie Bindell, or Peter Hitchens.
Orwell said that once one starts censoring one part of one’s mind it has an adverse impact on all aspects.
Actually Xaven, you’ve “outed yourself” as someone who can’t follow a complex discussion without making simplistic and entirely inappropriate personal remarks.
Well, it’s more complex now you’ve edited your original comment. Cheater.
The edit took place immediately after i’d posted it, and before your response. Look at the timelines.
Now, if you’re capable of making an apology for both your comments in response to mine, i’ll accept it.
I can understand someone perhaps not familiar with the level of debate on this forum, and perhaps thinking it’s similar to Twitter, trying it on for size. All you’ve done is make yourself look small. Learn that lesson, and move on.
The edit took place immediately after i’d posted it, and before your response. Look at the timelines.
Now, if you’re capable of making an apology for both your comments in response to mine, i’ll accept it.
I can understand someone perhaps not familiar with the level of debate on this forum, and perhaps thinking it’s similar to Twitter, trying it on for size. All you’ve done is make yourself look small. Learn that lesson, and move on.
Such as All porn = bad. Or “anyone watching porn is watching child abuse, violent assault or some other criminal variation of it”. The narrative MUST be that there cannot be perfectly healthy porn content that is watched by a normal human being, who owes no one any justification for personal sexual preferences. There can only be saints and demons, period. Again, the lack of honesty in the discussion is making debate impossible…
Well, it’s more complex now you’ve edited your original comment. Cheater.
Such as All porn = bad. Or “anyone watching porn is watching child abuse, violent assault or some other criminal variation of it”. The narrative MUST be that there cannot be perfectly healthy porn content that is watched by a normal human being, who owes no one any justification for personal sexual preferences. There can only be saints and demons, period. Again, the lack of honesty in the discussion is making debate impossible…
It is obvious that Steve Murray does not suffer from “moral repugnance”…but from a grandiose feeling of self-importance/worth.
“Otherwise what is the coercive power of the State for?”
One thing….to protect our rights. Nothing more. Otherwise, we live in totalitarianism.
Actually Xaven, you’ve “outed yourself” as someone who can’t follow a complex discussion without making simplistic and entirely inappropriate personal remarks.
It is obvious that Steve Murray does not suffer from “moral repugnance”…but from a grandiose feeling of self-importance/worth.
Yes this would be a deep freedom of expression concern. The porn wars need to be fought through persuasion and regulation, and possibly through PSHE lessons in schools..
Regulation includes the possibility of shutting businesses down when they fail to meet their regulatory requirements. This happens in the food industry frequently. Pornhub is already breaking laws by distributing child abuse and non-consensual material, thus the argument to shut it down is in keeping with current standards of regulatory enforcement. Our problem is we have weak willed politicians who wont act against big tech.
Our politicians won’t act against this particular instance of big tech. They are too busy watching videos of “tractors”.
Yeah fair enough, perhaps they should shut it down then. Although given the pervasiveness of the problem across social media, the same might have to happen to twittter..
Our politicians won’t act against this particular instance of big tech. They are too busy watching videos of “tractors”.
Yeah fair enough, perhaps they should shut it down then. Although given the pervasiveness of the problem across social media, the same might have to happen to twittter..
Regulation includes the possibility of shutting businesses down when they fail to meet their regulatory requirements. This happens in the food industry frequently. Pornhub is already breaking laws by distributing child abuse and non-consensual material, thus the argument to shut it down is in keeping with current standards of regulatory enforcement. Our problem is we have weak willed politicians who wont act against big tech.
But this is what we are doing as I write. Ronald Dahl must be censored; I hear that James Bond films are being patched to remove parts which cause distress to the ‘vulnerable’. If they reshoot and want a body double for Sean Connery, I will do it for a small charge.
Child abuse imagery and rape videos are ‘human nature’ and shouldn’t be censured? Well, you’ve certainly outed yourself there Steve.
I see this straightforwardly; if a business was pouring toxic waste into the water supply it would be forced to close. Industrial pornography does the same straight into the minds of people the world over and it should be suppressed. Otherwise what is the coercive power of the State for?
Yes this would be a deep freedom of expression concern. The porn wars need to be fought through persuasion and regulation, and possibly through PSHE lessons in schools..
It’s not “society” you’re describing, but human nature. Your prescription is at best naive and at worst totalitarian.
Without doubt, there are aspects of human nature that should remain illegal, but moral repugnance has to be very carefully considered or we’ll be banning Lady Chatterley’s Lover again.
The government could shut down Pornhub in the UK if they wanted on a range of violations, not least being a pusher of illegal material. But I’d like to see it done with more panache; pass a statutory instrument under the Public Health act designating Pornhub a threat to the mental and physical wellbeing of the population. I believe they have an office in London so why not then send in the security services and drag everyone out the front door. Immunity from prosecution for the tech staff that cooperate with eviscerating their platform. Once the dust settles invite representatives from the other tech and social media sites in for a discussion on how they can become more socially responsible corporate citizens. If we are to refound society then we will need these kinds of interventions.
I am suppose the self-righteous author is wearing Nikes made by children laborer.
Porn is neither marvelous nor a bless bestowed upon society. Yet it is an unpleasant job that provides opportunities for people to earn a living, sometimes a comfortable one. Not everyone enjoys the privileged life of an Unherd columnist.
Sex work is work, not a hobby. The workers are in for the cash, and the freedom cash brings them; This is true in other industries, where work can be taxing and salaries not always great. Examples would include
Sanitation
Cashier
Warehouse or delivery driver
Roofer
Call center telemarketer…
There are a lot of jobs that requires you to accept something unpleasant and/or unhealthy in exchange for a paycheck, Sometimes a mediocre paycheck and sometimes a good paycheck (roofers can earn great money, but the job requires acepting very significant physical hazards)
Long live the porn industry, long live Ethical Captial Partners (new owners of Pornhub) and f**k the cunty puritans that insit on censoring adult content.
I am suppose the self-righteous author is wearing Nikes made by children laborer.
Porn is neither marvelous nor a bless bestowed upon society. Yet it is an unpleasant job that provides opportunities for people to earn a living, sometimes a comfortable one. Not everyone enjoys the privileged life of an Unherd columnist.
Sex work is work, not a hobby. The workers are in for the cash, and the freedom cash brings them; This is true in other industries, where work can be taxing and salaries not always great. Examples would include
Sanitation
Cashier
Warehouse or delivery driver
Roofer
Call center telemarketer…
There are a lot of jobs that requires you to accept something unpleasant and/or unhealthy in exchange for a paycheck, Sometimes a mediocre paycheck and sometimes a good paycheck (roofers can earn great money, but the job requires acepting very significant physical hazards)
Long live the porn industry, long live Ethical Captial Partners (new owners of Pornhub) and f**k the cunty puritans that insit on censoring adult content.