It feels like they're saying basically now people are doing the whole thing themselves (soup to um, nuts, as it were). Directing, lighting, shooting, and being in the films. It seems like these are great skills to learn and differentiators! I wonder if this might inspire a new generation of not only porn making but film making as some of these people may eventually end up doing other things?
The ending of "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmakers Apocalypse" (filmed during the shooting of Apocalypse Now, 1979):
Francis Ford Coppola: To me, the great hope is that now these little 8mm video recorders and stuff have come out, and some... just people who normally wouldn't make movies are going to be making them. And you know, suddenly, one day some little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart, you know, and make a beautiful film with her little father's camera recorder. And for once, the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed, forever. And it will really become an art form. That's my opinion.
I think "commoditization" would have been a better choice of word than "professionalism". There's nothing wrong with taking your craft seriously but damage is done when you make your art formulaic.
It takes the standard cycle of taking creativity, ruthlessly optimizing it to a point where you can manufacture a mass producible version of that creativity, and then go through the destructive phase where things became too formulaic to be considered creative anymore and require full destruction.
The shift from Baroque era music over to Classical is a good example.
Disney’s formula for converting comic books and 90s cartoons to live action is a form of this optimization. There is an upper limit to it.
One can argue that certain parts of tech, for better or worse, has this cycle built in more than others.
Both parts of the cycle are important, as one pushes things to establish the new standard (boundless creativity), while the other pushes things to the mainstream (boundless efficiency).
When you churn out the same formula, you crowd out lesser players that might have really pushed the art form forward (Madden and NBA2K would be two prime examples).
While movies aren't being produced by "little fat girls in Ohio", the internet and digital cameras made "Vloggers" possible. The predicted outcome wasn't met exactly but 40 years later people are making their own video productions for millions of viewers online. It was a very good prediction.
So what? Perhaps the overprofessionalization of activity is winding down.
People used to enjoy singing together, amateur productions, and local amateur sports. Those things have not vanished, of course, but are significantly lower volume, having been replaced by purchasing the work of professionals.
There's nothing wrong with high quality professional product, but something else was lost in the process. If the pendulum moves back a bit many people may enjoy life more.
Wrong. Masters started that way. Even porn masters, who tuned the industry upside down. Such as Buttman creating with his Gonzo style the Evil Empire, destroying all the old studios.
I found the article interesting too. Porn can be really exploitative for the performers, good for them that this is the perfect storm to not depend on anyone else anymore and make their own content.
I’ve been thinking for a little while to do something around that industry, a tool to make it easier to get shit done and earn more money for the models/performers but I haven’t found what yet. I’d love to get in touch with people who produce this kind of content themselves to see what could be a useful product and do some research but I don’t personally know any. I have not succeeded so far because (I guess) I’m getting drowned into the constant stream of creeps that want their attention, my contact attempts receiving no answer. Any ideas how to approach this?
So you think it's great they don't have to depend on anyone else, but that they should still for some reason be interested in someone who, by your own admission, doesn't have a clue about "that industry" and has nothing at all to offer to "get shit done" (whatever that is supposed to mean)?
And you're confused why these people already making lots of money by and for themselves aren't interested in yet another random guy selflessly offering to "help" them, and think it can only be the fault of "creeps" (people more likely to be supporting the performers, and not just looking to make money off their backs)?
It wasn't intended to be harsh, simply a case of 'come on dude, think about it'. These performers will be swamped by offers of "help" every day from people charitably wanting to get in on their act.
The people who matter to the performers are the supporters/fans the poster (harshly) dismisses as "creeps".
> There was nothing contradictory is his/her statement.
Without wanting to repeat myself, their first sentence is about how great they think it is performers/models don't need anyone else, and the rest is annoyance and refusal to accept that that includes him/her.
A new kind of porn was already developing before pandemic: an action cam mounted in the chest or head of the guy. Maybe it doesn't sound so new. But there's something that makes it very different: you can feel vividly that the performers are alone, because some cues from the video or the sound.
It's really a couple making love, or maybe three persons, but the feeling is totally different from a studio shot.
> Francis Ford Coppola: To me, the great hope is that now these little 8mm video recorders and stuff have come out, and some... just people who normally wouldn't make movies are going to be making them. And you know, suddenly, one day some little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart, you know, and make a beautiful film with her little father's camera recorder. And for once, the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed, forever. And it will really become an art form. That's my opinion.
Fans Only? I came across this platform after being directed to the twitter feed of some Industry actors who gave away their new subscriptions/product profits to help COVID front line workers get PPE or Meal on wheels etc...
I thought that it was quite fascinating seeing an independently operated and curated content management solution work so brilliantly given the landscape.
There was this Porn actress who started accepting Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies for her content and performances [1] after she saw how much more lucrative getting rid of the middle man/studio was.
Porn is a saturated Market, I mean its absurd just how much of it exists when you think about it, and yet many of them not only turn a profit on these platforms, but can also do good in the World with the resources they acquired. Which, wherever your position is on Porn, cannot be denied to be a beautiful thing. I bought Asa Akira's book after she gave her money from Pornhub account subscriptions to help with COVID in NY [2]. I would have never bothered to do so had she not done so, as she's been on many podcasts and the content is already free on Youtube, thus proving the model works.
There was this Bitcoin based cam-girl (foxxxy) in the early days of Bitcoin community that said it best when trying to crowdsource something called Sean's Outpost and Satoshi's Forest after Pensacola, FL police made Homelessness illegal: Tits once fed the World, and they can do it again!
"Everyone is making music at home now. Will the music industry survive?"
"Everyone is making software at home now. Will the software industry survive?"
Yes, these industries survive - they just changed. The market just has new competition at lower price points, which improves competition and forces the higher end producers to invest more rather than keeping so much profit.
On the low end, if you wanted to build this stuff yourself and go direct to market, you can - but then you always could. This kind of event just means there's MORE competition on the low end, which also forces low end producers to up their content quality (or go for more niche subject matters) if they want to attract an audience long term.
I have absolutely no problem with porn. But as Louis CK said, you could alphabetize the world’s cumulative porn collection from A-Z and sit a newborn baby down and push the play button, by the time he’s dead at 100 he wouldn’t have even gotten through the anal category. So if porn has to pause for a while I thing we can survive.
Porn video quality increases a lot year to year. There are probably multiple lifetimes worth of 90s porn out there and I bet almost no one watches it now besides as a curiosity.
It's not just video quality either but style. I've noticed that a lot of modern porn tries to have an amateur aesthetic but with high technical proficiency. Compare that to old professional porn where they were still trying to go for some kind of "hollywood of porn" style.
I'm sure tastes will continue to change and this generation's porn will lack the novelty future generations crave.
>So if porn has to pause for a while I thing we can survive.
porn has been kind of invisible driving force pushing tech innovation forward like for example internet speed before Netflix, etc. ( i was a teenager in USSR back then so i can only suppose that it was also a big consumer for the top tech in publishing industry before Internet), so i'd not be surprised if in the case of coronavirus it will also play a role in advancing and adapting the tech to the new conditions.
And while we can definitely "survive" while comfortably WFH for our nice tech salaries, i don't think those people, at least majority of them, are that lucky.
Many years ago the internet allowed anyone to post their own websites, blogs, and comments on forums. Sites like Buzzfeed quickly blurted out "Oh noes, now that anyone can publish, will the publishing industry survive?" As we all know, the publishing industry was forced to change (and because it didn't, it has suffered mightily) but proper news sources still hold their value.
Just because I can make a porn video at home doesn't mean anyone will want to watch it. Pro models, proper lighting equipment, video editing equipment, and production knowledge all have value because the amateur stuff is mostly horrible.
The rare gem will be noticed. There are a few citizen blogs out there that are very much worth watching. The crappo ones faded into obscurity.
In the meantime, just like crappo publishing houses that refused to adapt and were pushed out of business, the pro porn industry will be forced to up its game. A good thing.
> Sites like Buzzfeed quickly blurted out "Oh noes, now that anyone can publish, will the publishing industry survive?"
...
Wait, Buzzfeed, which was founded, as a website, in 2006, was concerned about the rise of blogs, personal websites, and forums, all of which were going into decline by 2006 with the coming of social media? Buzzfeed didn't even employ journalists til 2010 or so.
It's interesting that you use the publishing industry as a good example. I thought that news companies have been experiencing revenue declines for decades, leading to consolidation and increased partisanship in the big players. Personally, I don't pay attention to mainstream news anymore because I don't trust them and they make me anxious.
Are you kidding me? What happened to the news industry I would not describe as "survival" - there used to be ~200k journalists in the United States. Now there are ~20k
> Pro models, proper lighting equipment, video editing equipment, and production knowledge all have value because the amateur stuff is mostly horrible.
Don't forget marketing. Professionals have money to spend on heavy marketing campaigns, amateur don't.
Have you seen the emerging signs that this ‘Pro model’ porn industry is a dangerous and predatory place that almost always puts the mental health of it’s (often very young) women‘s participants at risk? If you are into ‘Pro model’ stuff, have you read about ‘Pro model’ porn actors like James Deen, and other male porn stars, who are raping their female co-actors [1]? That the culture that has emerged is damaging many women’s health to the point that there is now a rise in female porn actor suicides (‘Pro model’ ones) [2]? It seems to me that this male porn actor behavior often comes out of a sick sense of entitlement and sexism, which I believe may be related to childhood neglect. As well as the pressures of America’s corporate culture which places a heavy focus on traditional gender roles - the simplest sign of this being visible in mostly non-existing paid parental leave policies for new parents, compared to say the Netherlands, or Denmark and Sweden.
I believe this sick sense of entitlement can also be found in the people who watch these ‘Pro model’ movies, who I believe are fooled by the shiny veneer, and who remain unable to see the ruthless true nature of this industry that lies beneath it.
I prefer user submitted homemade porn over ‘Pro model’ porn any day. Unfortunately even that is changing now too, as a lot of production costs now go into making ‘Pro model’ porn seem homemade.
Have you seen the Rashida Jones porn industry documentary ‘Hot Girls Wanted‘ [3]?
“In pedophile culture, I often catch men in public checking me out with eyes full of lust, until they see the hair on my legs — at which point, they resort to a theatrical display of disgust. I’ve eavesdropped on groups of college-age guys talking about how they won’t perform oral sex on a woman if her labia are too prominent. One man who had been pursuing sex with me for three years, suddenly changed his mind when I revealed that I do not, and will not, shave off my pubic hair. In other words, many men stop being attracted to me when reminded that I am a woman, and not a young girl.
Surely all of these men, who have a “preference” for the aforementioned qualities in women, aren’t pedophiles by the strict definition of the word. But it seems that a high number of men, likely as a result of deep cultural conditioning, find many of the same things attractive in a woman that a pedophile would find attractive in a girlchild. Small labia, tight vaginas, intact hymens, baby-soft skin, hairless limbs and vulvas, eternal youthfulness, tiny frail bodies… As tumblr user reddressalert wrote, “how do we not recognize that this is essentially a description of a baby or a toddler?”“
> Have you seen the emerging signs that this ‘Pro model’ porn industry is a dangerous and predatory place that almost always puts the mental health of it’s (often very young) women‘s participants at risk?
"Almost always" is a strong claim that requires more than a couple of anecdotes to back up. I am in full agreement that there have been problems in the industry, perhaps even at elevated rates, but your claim is specifically that such problems are widespread and systemic.
> I believe this sick sense of entitlement can also be found in the people who watch these ‘Pro model’ movies, who I believe are fooled by the shiny veneer, and who remain unable to see the ruthless true nature of this industry that lies beneath it.
Again, I think you're assuming a bit too much without backing up this claim.
> Surely all of these men, who have a “preference” for the aforementioned qualities in women, aren’t pedophiles by the strict definition of the word.
I would really not change the rather strict definition of this word.
> As tumblr user reddressalert wrote, “how do we not recognize that this is essentially a description of a baby or a toddler?”“
This is also the description of what the media and society pushes as qualities a women should possess…I don't think you can blame men for that when they have been told for years that this is what they should be looking for.
Do you really think it's more likely that "big porn" has astroturfing accounts that go around and downvote people like you who claim it's a money-laundering campaign, rather than commenters unhappy that you have no sources to back up your claims?
No. I think the typical HN commenter participates in a debate where the boundaries are narrowly and firmly defined by officialdom, and that any discussion outside of those boundaries will be treated as heresy.
But hey, nice job putting words in my mouth.
As for evidence, you also have bing and google. There’s no shortage of it.
> I think the typical HN commenter participates in a debate where the boundaries are narrowly and firmly defined by officialdom, and that any discussion outside of those boundaries will be treated as heresy.
On Hacker News, presenting speculative claims without evidence to back them is unpopular, yes. I have desire to put words in your mouth, but I felt that there wasn't all that many ways to interpret a downvoting ring and an exposé you say this points towards.
To respond to your additional edit: presenting your claims and telling me to search online for evidence to support it…is not helping your point, nor is it really what I meant when I asked for you to support your claims.
I just realized that I missed a word and now my sentence means the opposite of what I want it to. For posterity, I meant “I have no desire to put words in your mouth, but…”
I tried googling various subsets of keywords from your claim, and your comment is the #1 hit, and the rest are completely unrelated. Can you be more specific? Saying it's on bing/google doesn't exactly narrow it down.
If you keep tabs on the history of organized crime, the general unwillingness of payment processors to deal with the porn industry, the quality of advertisers on porn sites, and the logistics of the porn business in general, it is a very obvious conclusion.
But I'm not a journalist, and I'm not going to scrounge through all of my books for a post that's probably going to get flagged and removed anyway. I'm sure the good journalists will eventually pick up the slack. There's bound to be another Robert Caro out there for this generation. We just have to wait and see.
> If you keep tabs on the history of organized crime, the general unwillingness of payment processors to deal with the porn industry, the quality of advertisers on porn sites, and the logistics of the porn business in general, it is a very obvious conclusion.
It's not quite obvious. Payment processors won't work with it because of its high rates of chargebacks and other messiness, advertisers don't want their products next to that content; not sure what you mean by "logistics" or what this has to do with organized crime.
So you don’t see the organized crime tie-in when there’s obstacle after obstacle in billing and revenue, high bandwidth and storage expenses, a product that is in such oversupply as to be practically worthless, in a space that is mostly opaque and privately held, and has ties to organized crime all the way back to the Betamax days?
I'm aware of those things, but I'm not sure exactly what it is you're claiming. Why don't you just spell out what this "obvious conclusion" is? Exactly who do you believe is bankrolling the porn industry, and for what purpose?
IMO, you're being downvoted not because of the position you're taking, but for being coy about clearly explaining your theory.
I'm not accusing you of bullshit. You haven't even made any claims that are specific enough to be proven true or false. I don't see how you could be vindicated when you haven't actually claimed anything.
You can be upvoted on HN for pretty out-there theories, but you have to actually make a good case. Talking vaguely about a conspiracy and telling people to google things will get you downvoted.
For whatever it’s worth - you have to be a member on HN for a while to even be able to downvote - and I very rarely do. I downvoted here not because I disagree or am not interested - but because this thread went nowhere and you’ve euclidiated nothing.
We shouldn't accept Porn being freely available online. Instead, we should require all sites to charge for content, minimum $5/month, with 10% of that being collected as sales tax.
Sites that do not comply will be blocked.
This will ensure that children cannot access them, and allow people to control their pornography addictions.
I don't agree with the downvotes because I feel you presented a point that's worthy of debate.
> This will ensure that children cannot access them
A. Kids will just steal their parents credit cards or logins.
B. The responsibility for raising children is the parents and not credit card companies. Things that make people better parents will work far better, like creating economic systems that don't require two parents to work and be unavailable to their children.
> and allow people to control their pornography addictions.
A. $5 a month won't work. People continue to smoke and cigarette packs are generally more expensive than that per pack.
B. Why should those who are not addicted pay for those who are?
A: Stealing a credit card is an order of magnitude more difficult than just getting a mobile phone and typing 'pornhub.com' into the address bar.
B: How do you police something which is so easy to access? We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography? Why don't we require ISPs to provide free DNS-level blocking for residential broadband and mobile phone services?
It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to. This is something that should be managed centrally by ISPs, enforced by Government regulation.
C. $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price.
D. Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation.
B. I’m not in favor of governments policing drugs the way they’ve been going about it and I’m even less in favor of them having the power to censor the Internet.
I’d rather my kids, even at 9 and 11, stumble across pornography than grow up in a world where the government decides which sites are allowed to be in DNS.
C. No addict will be slowed by $60/yr price tag for their addiction. You’re not forcing anyone to confront their addiction in any meaningful way.
D. I’m not in favor of protectionist rackets even for businesses that I think should be allowed to operate.
> Stealing a credit card is an order of magnitude more difficult
For signing up for porn sites, it's really not very much more difficult. Steal card from parent while sleeping, enter numbers in form, now you have access. It's a small hoop to jump through and lots of people do it for identity theft purposes.
> How do you police something which is so easy to access?
You really can't.
> We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography?
Access to drugs isn't the same as telling me what to do in my own house with an Internet connection and device I'm paying for.
> It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to.
Your kid has a phone, a tablet, and a PC. 3 devices which you bought/owned, not really a lot of work. If you have the problem of your kid having too many devices, you also have the means to pay someone to do it for you.
> $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price.
It would have to be way higher. Honestly if I'm extremely addicted and use porn 5x a day, $5 a month is a bargain.
> Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation.
I don't know. Amateur content is a top category on many sites I think.
Probably the number one thing anyone concerned with exploitation could do is destigmatize and legalize sex work, and provide a decent social safety net so people are less tempted to commit desperate actions to survive.
Morality questions aside, this wouldn't practically work.
It would require pretty much uprooting and destroying the internet entirely. It's too easy to share "free" porn pictures on any website. We'd have to go from a free internet where anybody can make a website to a locked down version where you apply for a permit first.
I suspect 90% of teenagers currently go to fairly safe porn sites like pornhub, rather than diving into murky underworlds of bestility c, child porn, and sites requiring things like 'nudes for porn' or something.
You're not going to stop teenagers getting porn, or adults for that matter (in the 80s kids were sharing dad's playboys)
Because there's evidence of harm from those, significant in some cases, and a discussion of proportionate measures that can be taken?
This is largely what's missing from the discussion of sex work in general, a clear view of what is and what is not harmful; to whom it is harmful; and what might reasonably be done about it. The argument that sexual material was harmful per se collapsed somewhere around the Lady Chatterly trial.
There is plenty of evidence of harm from porn usage, it hijacks the brain in a similar manner as hard core drugs. [0]
The social consequences are pretty obvious, satisfying fundemental bioligical needs through artifical manner degrades what those desires are meant to achieve: family formation, marriages, which it inhibits forming or ruins those that already exist.
Go spend some time on the no-fap sub-reddit to see the massive positive change that occurs when men quit consuming porn. Porn is a tool for social control, pacification and weakening culture [1], it is not empowering for either side of the equation.
If this wasn't true, it wouldn't have been used as a form of psychological warfare like it was in this situation [2].
I find it quite interesting that TED apparently felt it appropriate to include this disclaimer:
> NOTE FROM TED: This talk contains several assertions that are not supported by academically respected studies in medicine and psychology. While some viewers might find advice provided in this talk to be helpful, please do not look to this talk for medical advice.
I'm sorry, but not providing any actual evidence to support your claim, then saying it's "common sense", "stupidly obvious and self evident", then calling anyone who even argues the point an addict or arguing in poor faith checks about every box in the "how to make it hard for people to actually continue a discussion with you in good faith" list.
How is it "poor faith"? I legitimately believe it to be true.
Moreover, if one conducts the experiment on themselves, porn usage then no-fap...they would observe the effect themselves. Not ever attempting to do so then defending porn is itself a bad-faith argument.
Many of these cultural type of debates have wider philosophical/political baggage that precludes and unbiased discussion. Often it just comes down to what one thinks of a certain thing... like that porn usage is degenerate and unhealthy. What would a study do to oppose that argument?
Do you doubt that the researcher in the video found evidence of brain effects similar to narcotics? No matter what evidence was presented, TED would say the same thing as they have a political angle to defend.
You are welcome to believe anything you like, but when you try to convince other people of your viewpoint you must provide supporting evidence for it, while refraining from doing the things I mentioned. I do appreciate that your claim is actually testable, so that is a plus, although I cannot say that experimenting on myself is a great idea nor am I sure what effect I should be searching for. An actual study may have a hypothesis like "porn usage causes an increase of rates of depression or success in relationships" and then you could actually measure that and try to see if there was an actual difference (keeping in mind that such topics are often difficult to study, because people often lie and social sciences are often fuzzy anyways.) By the way, the "effects similar to narcotics" isn't really that great of a qualifier; for example, any pleasurable experience releases dopamine, whether it be hard, addictive drugs or spending time with your family. It would be absurd to try to continue an argument on that, wouldn't it?
This is a distinction of degree then perhaps. But you're on the right track. Spending time with your family is a good thing. Pursuing more drug usage and porn usage is not, not least of which because they'd probably lead to less "spending time with family" or no family at all.
That drugs and porn occupy your time, and reward you for it, and again, in an extreme way (large reward.. not just "reward") is the entire point.
>nor am I sure what effect I should be searching for
That you are even considering what you should be searching for is commendable. Most people here wouldn't even take the time to run the thought experiment or grant that self experiment is valid evidence. Nor would they go read no-fap discussions listing countless, endless examples of drastic improvements in individuals lives from before/after.
>keeping in mind that such topics are often difficult to study
Yep. And there are a lot of variables. See why waiting for a study is kinda silly? We don't need it. Though I'm sure there are or could be some good ones, those searching for the perfect one when self experience would show them all they would need, or 500 anecdotes. Again, it's self evident for anyone who puts in a bit of time willing to consider. Those that want to rationalize their unhealthy behavior will hold out, perpetually, for study.
Persuading those people is a lost cause. I think we can just take the heuristic of looking at how endless supply of novel, virtually "real" (to the brain) sexual stimulus is something never before existing in human history. We can point to delay and decline in marriage, birth rates, and family formation. Stories of teenagers and young children being exposed to hard core pornography early and finding themselves with a habit that leads to depression, anxiety, apathy, marriage problems for adults etc. They're out there. Nobody wants to do this study, but we can use our common sense and intuition anyways.
It's poor faith because it means anyone engaging with you has to drag themselves through the mud, either silently accepting your characterization that they're an addict or posting a defensive disclaimer that they're totally not.
Sure.. maybe my point is I'm certainly not looking for a debate with someone that would deny it. I wouldn't view them as a serious person, because of the self evident nature of what we would be "debating"
If you don’t want to hear from someone who doesn’t agree with you, I agree you’re not looking for a debate. The word instead is preaching.
(There’s not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it’s a quite different activity with a propensity to convince primarily people who already agree with you.)
This won't work. Kids are inventive and can still get around that. Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide that karate videos should be blocked because... violence. Or, we may wake up one day and find that we can't access the Wikipedia pages about chemistry anymore, because kids can read them and then make dangerous experiments! Reading all those Wikipedia articles can also be an addiction too, (which I seem to have btw...! God forbid from having your kids find a site called Hacker News! ;-))
Instead, how about supervise your kids when they go online?
Of course it would work (to some degree). We massively decreased the usage of cigarettes by regulation and taxing. With harsh enough fines and punishments as well as social pressure, decreasing porn usage would be easy to achieve.
>Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide
These types of "this" vs "that" decision-making is done all the time. We ban and punish child-porn usage.
Various forms of "hate" speech is booted off the internet and "canceled" in culture all the time is it not?
We can do it, it's just that many people here don't want to.
One important difference to note is that people do this in the privacy of their homes all the time, and we certainly will not be banning that. The only thing you would be banning is having a camera pointed at it. The other vices are not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn.
It would be very easy to regulate the ability to make money easily (platforms, payment systems, public websites/corps) producing this content and therefore decreasing the supply.
The bigger picture is the social/cultural conversation around porn usage. It is very accepted, promoted even, by many communities and elements within our society. If there was an honest conversation around this usage would decline. The "no fap" community is an example of this and I think they have had successes changing minds around porn usage as an unquestionable good.
This does also get into political viewpoints on public good and individual freedom, and where that line is drawn.
>not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn
Don't know what this means. Authorities cannot have knowledge of every instance of law breaking that occurs maybe?
Doesn't change its illegality or the punishment if this is discovered.
The problem is that is fairly difficult to buy drugs, and we heavily regulate the tools, process, and techniques necessary to produce and consume them. In contrast, every person has the tools to make porn on or attached to to themselves, and putting any sort of restrictions on this would be extremely unpopular from pretty much everyone.
By the way, there are a couple of countries that do ban the production and distribution of porn. I would suggest taking a look at how well that works out for them.
Clear evidence implicating oneself of a crime (if it was made a crime) would seem to me to be a limiting factor in porn usage after regulation. This would stand in contrast to all the other vices that are regulated. The thing itself would implicate. This is all a question of commitment to enforcement... but it surely is possible.
>putting any sort of restrictions on this would be extremely unpopular from pretty much everyone.
No, but this might reflect the difference in circles you and I find ourselves in. Go on twitter and search for porn ban (or similar permutations) there is a huge contingent supporting this sort of change of culture. I guess I don't disagree than any sort of national referendum within, say, the US in 2020 probably would fail. It wouldn't have failed a few decades ago, I guess the rapid change is something to think about.
If this argument has been made for decades, then it is a bad argument that has been made for decades.
> I don't understand why
OK, let me try to explain. I'm not against pornography. I'm also not a prude -- if consenting adults want to have orgies, or wife swap, or insert baseball bats into body cavities, or get slapped and yelled at, go for it!
I'd bet that 90+% or more of people's first exposure to sex is online videos. While there are certainly videos that show realistic sex, the vast majority are highly unrealistic and set incredibly weird expectations about what is normal. A lot of what is shown on video is bad acting, not happiness.
To distinguish itself from from other videos, makers are always trying to find some new or more extreme boundary to push. A lot veers into extreme power dynamics -- boys learning about porn should not have the expectation that women like to be choked or spit on, or have jackhammer anal sex. Girls shouldn't have the expectation that that is what boys expect of them.
As an adult you might say, hey, a lot of those scenarios are just entertainment, eg, those step siblings are obviously in their 20s, or obviously women don't like having 100 men ejaculate on them, but to children where this is their first exposure to sex, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some.
This is spot on. I am horified at what my kids will learn as normal from watching porn when they later get access to it. There is so much garbage out there that is pushing the notion of normality that they will be utterly confused. Im not a prude either but I find “deepthroat” as utterly disgusting, someone is chocking and gagging and makes me vomit. And yet, Ive seen girls who learned to enjoy it because that makes them normal to their peers while they secretly don’t like choking or gagging. This is just one example, there are way more. Im so happy I grew up and former with less access to porn.
I really dont know what the solution can be for this other than curating what types of videos they could watch. Some of the stuff is dangerous too
You're quite right. Thanks for pointing it out. Upvoted.
OK, here's what he said "but I find “deepthroat” as utterly disgusting".
There's no space for the fact that some women like that, or that even if they don't, adult film workers are doing a paid job. Not all oral sex involves choking or apparently being forced. But that's a blanket condemnation based on him being "disgusted" and ignoring the nonsexual violence in mainstream media.
He goes on "I really dont know what the solution can be for this other than curating what types of videos they could watch"
So back to curating sex videos but ignoring extreme graphic nonsexual violence?
This discussion doesnt exclude violence but we are focusing on the topic at hand.
Second, I dont know if you notice but people copy any type of behaviour that is seen more, the type of thing becomes normalized, and as an example was the deepthroat that women can’t possibly enjoy, but do it anyway because it somehow becomes expected of them to do so, some even start enjoying the act even though it is not pleasant, it’s a coping mechanism...
Violence on TV is obviously affecting our society for sure, and violence suffered from the same capitalistic fault to maximize profit, violence initially sold well so it produced exponentially more until the last dime could be extracted out of it.
If no financial incentive is behind any of these “memes” then maybe the better ones become normalized and the effects on society are less nocive. Speaking broadly ofc.
> people copy any type of behaviour that is seen more, the type of thing becomes normalized
Yeah. Like extraordinary levels of violence on TV that the audience becomes accustomed to it and simply don't see it any more whereas porn...
> as an example was the deepthroat that women can’t possibly enjoy
Wut really? Hint: women are people and some like different things, including that, unforced. You've really never met...? This smacks of the old view that women couldn't possibly enjoy sex and it was forced upon them unwillingly by those horrid beastly men.
In you penultimate sentence you appear to be accepting media violence as a given. So fight back.
You seem to not want to understand on purpose and keep on telling me I take violence on TV for granted. I am not, I told you already, we’re talking about porn.
Women feel lesser if they do not perform certain things that are in fashion, some kind of peer pressure. Who sets that fashion? Who is sick to want a women choke and gag on a man’s penis? You enjoy vomit? I dont think it has a place in healthy sexuality.
And let me explain what I mean in the last paragraph of my previous comment: the extreme commercialization typical of capitalism is responsible for amplifying these memes, normalizing new things that are degrading for some and hence exploitative in nature. What are you fighting back about? Are you just a contrarian?
You’re the deepthroat defender, I don’t know who’s weirder. I continued this out of politeness by the way, I don’t find you very worthy of conversation, I just thought I would open an idiot’s eyes
I almost completely agree with what you say here (so upvoted) but it's what you don't say that I find disturbing.
You've outlined what can be unpleasant about porn (eg. slapping women or choking them, however consensual I won't watch that) but you seem blind to the (albeit simulated) violence, sadism and killing I alluded to in mainstream films which can be far, far worse. I personally know it isn't real but to borrow and slightly amend your own sentence...
"but to children where this is their first exposure to violence, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some"
You can see the bad parts in porn, but not see the worse in films that children are freely exposed to? How come?
The person I replied to specifically said "I don't understand people who think this way (about porn)," and I addressed that specific point.
The issues of ultraviolence in mainstream movies is its own issue and can be discussed on its own terms. Porn has its own issues and be discussed on its own terms. Yes, both are film media, but that is about all they share in common.
It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2.
> It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2.
I'm saying it's exactly that it is. Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn (I'd claim), and I'd also claim, as evidenced by the strangely skewed responses here, that some people are blind to one nonsexual violence but oddly sensitive to the other, porn.
If someone has a fundraiser for cancer, do you tut tut them and say malaria kills more people than cancer, and it is disturbing that your pamphlets about your cancer cause don't even mention mosquitoes?
If you think it is a competition, then OK, we simply disagree. If someone has a fundraiser for some cancer cause I may donate even though malaria kills more people every year.
"Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn" is what I said. That is because 'Mainstream nonsexual violence' is bad and pornography has very little harm in it, if any, though there are areas I don't want to see (so what children may see I grant they may find disturbing in their ignorance).
Whereas both cancer and malaria are unquestionably very bad things.
But that you are willing to equate porn with cancer is to me most disturbing of all. Well, maybe you didn't mean it that way. I don't know.
Edit: let me put it a different way; there can be no upside to cancer, unlike porn.
I think smartphone addiction is way worse. As for the rest we already have more than enough controls imposed by self righteous imbeciles. Please spare from yet another one.
But how exactly you craft the legislation to go after these specific requirements while respecting the 1A and not begetting a host of other security concerns is a genuinely interesting legal/technical challenge.
And it could be that privacy is already shot to hell and I'm just too stupid to grok that, yes.
As governments begin to lose tax revenue due to everything moving to digital platforms, running beyond their borders, the new politicians born in this century will figure it out. You can be certain of that. (Death and Taxes)
Or perhaps somebody will create a Star Trek style economy. :-)
(shame Gene Roddenberry never explained that in detail)
I don’t think that makes sense. I can create “porn” right now with a pencil and paper and upload it to the internet. Is it a creative expression, or porn? It’s both probably. I would suggest this doesn’t work out if you believe in free speech.
It feels like they're saying basically now people are doing the whole thing themselves (soup to um, nuts, as it were). Directing, lighting, shooting, and being in the films. It seems like these are great skills to learn and differentiators! I wonder if this might inspire a new generation of not only porn making but film making as some of these people may eventually end up doing other things?
The ending of "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmakers Apocalypse" (filmed during the shooting of Apocalypse Now, 1979):
Francis Ford Coppola: To me, the great hope is that now these little 8mm video recorders and stuff have come out, and some... just people who normally wouldn't make movies are going to be making them. And you know, suddenly, one day some little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart, you know, and make a beautiful film with her little father's camera recorder. And for once, the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed, forever. And it will really become an art form. That's my opinion.