Future of porn (and this site) is really uncertain right now…

[rawTOP]

As I mentioned in my thread about blocking the state of Louisiana - Utah has been blocked for a while now because they've been aggressively anti-porn. Well, one of the Senators from Utah just introduced legislation that will do two things…

1. Require sites with porn to verify the age of visitors.
2. Redefine "obscenity" to include 99% of porn.

You can read about it here: https://www.xbiz.com/news/270761/utah-republican-senator-mike-lee-introduces-bill-to-outlaw-all-porn-nationwide

Age verification (#1) has a whole host of problems. The UK has been trying to figure out how to do it for YEARS and they keep failing. In their case their idea is to have ISPs ban sites that don't comply, but that's becoming more and more impossible technically. Once "Encrypted Hello" matures and is widely deployed it will be almost impossible.

The issue for a site like this one (and my other porn sites) is expense. I'd either have to pay a service to vet every visitor to the site, or I'd have to do it myself. Both are cost prohibitive and the number of visitors who'd jump through the hoops is miniscule so the drop in traffic means less revenue - which makes it even more cost prohibitive. There's no way this site or my porn sites could continue in anything close to their current form if that happened.

But the real problem is that the guy wants to redefine what's "obscene" (#2). Right now only things like scat and blood are clearly obscene. Most porn is just a form of free speech / sexual expression. But his new definition of "obscene" is basically anything that has the primary purpose of giving you a hardon - which means pretty much all porn. If his bill passes it means all porn will need to have some aspect of "artistic merit" or other form of legitimacy. If you ever watched Paul Morris' original "What I Can't See" it's weird because he juxtaposes the blindfolded cumdump with a guy alone in a room jacking off. The compare and contrast between those two extremes made "What I Can't See" somewhat of a documentary - or a kind of editorial on male sexuality. That approach gets around the new definition. The problem is we have decades of content that don't meet the new definition. And distribution of those older videos will become a felony.

As you can see this is FAR beyond the silly, amateurish game of whack-a-mole that UK conservatives are trying to play. This is full-on "American Taliban" or the US version of Iran's Morality Police. It's actually criminalizing porn.

The problem is that the bill is likely to get a lot of Democratic support. Take a moment and read the article in Deseret News about the bills (Deseret News is a well-respected, Mormon-affiliated newspaper) - it's all about "protecting the children". What Democrat is going to pick pornography over protecting children? I mean Kamala Harris co-sponsored FOSTA/SESTA which was a disaster for sexual freedoms and has made the lives of sex workers far more dangerous. The Democrats are better than the Republicans on sexual freedom, but they're not great. So it's actually likely that this bill will get a fair amount of Democratic support.

As a result I won't be surprised if it passes. Then there will be lawsuits. But those will end up at a stridently conservative Supreme Court. This entire thing started because Clarence Thomas asked Congress to redefine obscenity back in 2020. He knew that with a different definition of obscenity he could outlaw porn. So the legal challenges are doomed to failure - all they'll do is delay the inevitable. As stupid and trite as it sounds, outlawing porn will be to men what Dobbs was to women. In some ways it may be worse since porn is part of the daily life of most men - so the effect will be felt constantly.

 

So what happens if it passes? Well, we're all kinda fucked. Presumably the idea of a paysite could still survive. They'd just have PG-13 pics and videos on the tour. BUT will Visa & Mastercard want to process the transactions now that the content has been legally declared "obscene"? Even certain types of piss play can cause sites to lose Visa/Mastercard right now because they might be obscene. If the credit card companies pull out of adult, then you're left with crypto - but it's against the terms of service at places like Coinbase to use their service for porn. Zelle won't be an option since that's organized by banks that don't want to be involved in porn either (even when it's not legally obscene).

Assuming some sort of payment service is available a company like MindGeek (which owns most of the major tube sites including PornHub as well as many paysites including Sean Cody) could possibly survive. They would have their own age check service (they already built it when they thought the UK was going to mandate it), and there would be enough content on their free and paid sites to make it worth the hassle for guys to get verified. But I don't see a viable solution for all the little sites (like mine).

Move to another country? Maybe - but we're talking felony-level offenses and most countries have extradition agreements with the US.

 

This kind of existential threat is why I've come down really hard on right wing comments on this site the last few years. This was sadly predictable and if you voted Republican over the past ~decade you brought us to this point. When Trump got elected I said at the time that the danger was what he would do the courts. Well, it's happened. All I can say is "fuck you if you voted for Trump!" (or you didn't bother to vote).

🤞

[ellentonboy]

I am very curious as to the future of porn that is available online today.  What happens to it all, and what happens to people who have paid subscriptions to adult web sites?  Are they out of luck?  I can't imagine this just allowing individuals who paid for an adult web site to suddenly find themselves without content.  It is just like stealing.

How does everyone else feel on this subject?  What are the legal ramifications and what do those who paid for adult content do if they suddenly find themselves facing a blank screen?

[DallasPozzible]

I’m just spitballing, but could many porn sites cooperate to create a consortium to provide a common site for age verification for all member sites?

[hntnhole]

5 hours ago, rawTOP said:

All I can say is "fuck you if you voted for Trump!" (or you didn't bother to vote).

Not much difference between the two that I can see; two sides of the same damn coin. 

[UKFFBBBtm]

I mean that is a truly ridiculous bill (I'm UK based). The mere suggestion that any bill or law introduced to "protect" children is a load of crap, it's purely and simply a way for the repressed rightwing to try and control the masses. Some of the most depraved and kinkest people I've known have been rightwing supporting douchebags. 

59 minutes ago, DallasPozzible said:

I’m just spitballing, but could many porn sites cooperate to create a consortium to provide a common site for age verification for all member sites?

The potential issue here based on the proposed bill, from what I understand, is that if they redefine what is "obscene" porn in the US (where a lot of studios are based) will have to revert to being softcore. No more piss, bb, fisting, deepthroat gagging, BDSM, pup play etc. Everything will go back to light sucking, safe fucking with no view of penetration or any dick in arse, will just be rolling a condom on and then simulated fucking just like the old days.

Why this extreme? Because the rightwing church leaning trump supporting enthusiasts will deem anything that isn't a man and a women in softcore pornography perverted and will try to claim it is obscene to "protect the children".

I work in the Credit Card industry, and I can tell you that most, if not all, Credit Card companies don't want age verification checks built in to porn and other adult entertainment websites. The amount of additional work, complaints, disputes and Chargebacks that it would create would be ridiculous, this is also why Acquirers (the companies that facilitate a merchants ability to take Credit Card payments) don't want it either. Mastercard and Visa don't want it either.

As Rawtop has said, the UK has been unable to get any form of law passed to impose age restrictions on adult sites for probably close to a decade now. Whilst we're technically 4 countries (each with slightly different laws in some cases), laws like this would usually apply to all four countries if the law was passed. Unless the US made it federal law, I can't see how the US is going to impose any such restrictions where all 50 states agree to implement it at a state level.

There is nothing in these laws that protect the children at all. I don't know why politicians and a lot of adults think that children are stupid. A lot of teenagers around the world know how to access things they should be able to access, such as adult sites, and know how to do it safely, securely and secretly. If the laws are passed, "children" will find a way. 

If the redefinition of obscenity law is passed, America's porn industry will die overnight whilst the studios relocate to another country like Germany of Netherlands where pornography laws are a lot more lax and set up shop there instead. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by UKFFBBBtm
spelling

[ejaculaTe]

9 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

I am very curious as to the future of porn that is available online today.  What happens to it all, and what happens to people who have paid subscriptions to adult web sites?  Are they out of luck?  I can't imagine this just allowing individuals who paid for an adult web site to suddenly find themselves without content.  It is just like stealing.

How does everyone else feel on this subject?  What are the legal ramifications and what do those who paid for adult content do if they suddenly find themselves facing a blank screen?

Somewhere on the web page when you signed up for Porn-Is-Us were the Terms of Service. In fact, in all likelihood you had to click on a box indicating you had read and agreed to the terms. I'd hazard a guess that the terms of service contain a provision on this subject. I'd also hazard a guess that the upshot of any discussion in the terms of service is "you [the subscriber] are screwed." I know I'd only buy a 6 month subscription from now on.

[TaKinGDeePanal]

They know they have us over a barrel, as an attack on the freedom to express oneself sexually is never going to be met by any meaningful mass protest, move for injunction, or ballot box determination.

The real problem and thread running through all of this is the current VP. Is it any wonder that having shown herself to be in favour of vigorously prosecuting a racist set of laws when she was a DA, then votes for a law that would vastly reduce the income of workers from a certain industry via the FOSTA-SESTA Act, and would most likely to provide the casting vote if a ban on this freedom (which - unlike shouting "fire" in a movie theater - is actually a relatively benign adjunct and extension of people's First Amendment rights) is to be introduced? She's shown that she especially abhors black women (the income for those who rely on sex work would be affected even more than the short-lived decision last year by OnlyFans to exclude certain types of content), even though she and POTUS scream from the rooftops that they aren't racist. She needs to realise that the laws of her land and not supposed to be driven by the puritanical anti-female culture of that of her mother (which had been proven to be the most dangerous country in the world for women). 
The Most Dangerous Countries in the World for Women
[think before following links] https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/169394/ajindalt1.pdf?sequence=1
[think before following links] https://whyy.org/segments/fosta-sesta-was-supposed-to-thwart-sex-trafficking-instead-its-sparked-a-movement/
The consequences of FOSTA-SESTA

BTW, for any of you who question the "political angle" of this response, you may rest assured that I'd be saying exactly the same if the other side of swamp dwellers had the keys to that greyish building at 1600. Remember who ORIGINALLY introduced FOSTA-SESTA.

As for age verification through Credit Cards, there have been two massive data breaches in Australia as at late. One of the managers at my work saw $10,000 removed from his credit card in 6 hours when his details were leaked online. MASSIVE headache for him - and the other potential 13.8 million customers of two companies in Australia (Australia has a total population of 26 million). Imagine what would happen if everyone's personal details were stolen if a CCV site was hacked ...

[Oldercumslut]

My problem is that I've read way to much dystopian science fiction.  My brain can not come up with anyway this all turns out positive.  Only saving grace is I'm old and not getting much sex anyway.    Although one of my side hustles is as a boudoir photographer.  I'm betting some of my work will meet someones definition of porn.  I already limit my portfolio.

 

[hntnhole]

21 hours ago, UKFFBBBtm said:

There is nothing in these laws that protect the children at all

And the reason is, protecting children is not the main focus.  Repressing people that disagree with their heavily modified (some would say perverted) "religion"-based excuses to hate other folks is the main focus.  Thus, forcing the corrupt belief-system many pinheads pretend to ascribe to - with the sole purpose of maintaining power - is the vehicle by which these people hope to continue squatting on top of the pile of human miseries their forefathers created, and which they continue to support.  

[PozBearWI]

Both sides bring valid points for different reasons.  

Certainly we want to protect our children.  However seem to have shifted way to far into the "It takes a village".  

Sex is villanized.  And I think that is fine.  If you don't care for something don't do it.  But just because "you don't care for something" doesn't mean I do as well. 

Currently each political party lives at its wingtips.  We're on a trajectory IMO towards representation of the majority should be met over all representation being for the minority.  We've been here before and we'll be here again.  Onus though is on us to work to stop legislating against an individuals right to think and make choices for themselves.  It has been interesting to consider our social/political trajectory over the past few years.  My hope is that we get to choose for ourselves what we consider our "line" to be.  

 

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Both sides bring valid points for different reasons.  

Certainly we want to protect our children.  However seem to have shifted way to far into the "It takes a village".  

Sex is villanized.  And I think that is fine.  If you don't care for something don't do it.  But just because "you don't care for something" doesn't mean I do as well. 

Currently each political party lives at its wingtips.  We're on a trajectory IMO towards representation of the majority should be met over all representation being for the minority.  We've been here before and we'll be here again.  Onus though is on us to work to stop legislating against an individuals right to think and make choices for themselves.  It has been interesting to consider our social/political trajectory over the past few years.  My hope is that we get to choose for ourselves what we consider our "line" to be.  

The fundamental problem is that (some of) those who want to protect children see no problem with erring on the side of blocking legal content for adults - in other words, if it comes down to a system that blocks everything potentially harmful to children from them, even if that system also blocks legitimate, legal content for adults, they're perfectly okay with that system. The problem, of course, is that such a system raises huge first amendment problems.

When such systems are proposed, it's hard to rally opposition because the right wing has no problem labeling all such opposition as "pedophiles" and "groomers". It becomes a battle very few people are willing to fight. And even politicians who know better, who know it can't work the way they're proposing, will vote for it because there's literally no value in voting against it. If you oppose it, even for good reasons, you're targeted as anti-children, anti-family, and so forth. Especially this is a problem for prosecutor-types, many of whom know that these laws won't do much to solve the problem at hand but which cannot, politically, be opposed. 

[UKFFBBBtm]

I find it odd that they're trying to implement laws to restrict something that has caused zero mass killings/murders but the mere suggestion of implementing additional check or waiting periods for firearms, the cause of multiple mass killings/murders, is all of a sudden unconstitutional and an infringement on their rights.

What about protecting the children then?

[BootmanLA]

49 minutes ago, UKFFBBBtm said:

I find it odd that they're trying to implement laws to restrict something that has caused zero mass killings/murders but the mere suggestion of implementing additional check or waiting periods for firearms, the cause of multiple mass killings/murders, is all of a sudden unconstitutional and an infringement on their rights.

What about protecting the children then?

Sadly, in this country, the only "right" that the right-wing considers absolute, unequivocal, and not subject to any limitations is the right to own and carry guns. Anything else is a right that is subject to restrictions, like free speech, free press, free association, and so forth (in the view of so-called "conservatives").

[ErosWired]

Sexual expression and sexual outlet are basic human needs. Porn has been around for a very long time (the Romans took the trouble of painting it on their walls in places, some of which have survived since antiquity), and survived the Victorian Era. Why? Because humans are sexual animals, and the idea that any form of legislation can prevent people from seeking out sexually explicit content is absurd. It’s like trying to sweep the tide back out to sea with a broom.

Not that this imbecile congressman isn’t going to try. And he might even succeed in changing the meaning of ‘obscenity’. After all, the Anti-Saloon League managed to get Prohibition on the books. Look how well that worked. It didn’t stop anyone from drinking, it just drove it all underground until some people got tired of not being able to tax the liquor everybody was buying anyway, and repealed the damn thing.

The porn industry is, by some recent estimates, worth from $6 billion to $15 billion annually. Billion with a ‘B’. If a politician attempts to wipe an industry with that kind of weight out of the economy, there are people who will start applying political pressure behind the scenes, because money trumps morality every time - if not sooner, then later.

It might get passed, and cause a good deal of trouble for a while, but it won’t last because human sexuality is not going away, and will find its outlet. Sex is like water that way…and water always wins.

On 12/17/2022 at 3:26 PM, JimInWisc said:

Sex is villanized.  And I think that is fine.

Villainizing sex isn’t fine, it’s stupid. Every human being on the planet needs sexual outlet in some form, so villainizing sex does nothing but make a villain of everyone. And if everyone’s a villain over it, then no one is. Think for a moment about all the individuals and organizations, even governments, who have done their damnedest to stamp out porn over history.  The sum total of all their massive, combined effort has still left us with the ability to take three seconds to open a website and begin viewing a 20-minute popper training compilation featuring dozens of highly explicit clips of homosexual fucking. They accomplished not a hell of a lot, it would seem.

This may make things difficult, and must absolutely be resisted, but porn will find a way. It always has.

[PozBearWI]

9 hours ago, ErosWired said:

 

Villainizing sex isn’t fine, it’s stupid. Every human being on the planet needs sexual outlet in some form, so villainizing sex does nothing but make a villain of everyone. And if everyone’s a villain over it, then no one is. Think for a moment about all the individuals and organizations, even governments, who have done their damnedest to stamp out porn over history.  The sum total of all their massive, combined effort has still left us with the ability to take three seconds to open a website and begin viewing a 20-minute popper training compilation featuring dozens of highly explicit clips of homosexual fucking. They accomplished not a hell of a lot, it would seem.

This may make things difficult, and must absolutely be resisted, but porn will find a way. It always has.

I agree ErosWired.  It is stupid, but it is fine for people to make their own choice, and if they want to consider sex evil; I suppose that is consistent with their equally stupid "original sin" crap.