PornHub in trouble..

[MayorReynolds]

My problem with "Cuties" is they used real underaged and underdressed actresses to make their 'point.' All the articles defending it and saying the backlash wells from a conservative ideology are on sandy ground, because the actresses are criminally underage and the camera seems way too interested in them. Others may find literary merit in it, and it is no longer any of my business to judge anyone on what speaks to them. For me, personally, my hands are washed of it.

MindGeek ignored a real problem even as media attention blew up about PornHub, and the end result was a kick in the nards from payment processors.

On the other hand, I worry about this becoming a slippery slope. It's one thing when there is obvious illegal activity that continues to go unmonitored, but I wonder where we go from this to Visa and MasterCard becoming the fun police.

It's not automatically illegal to write fiction about under-age sex, no, and there are plenty of examples out there in mainstream punishing. But neither is it automatically safe. His stories were ruled to be "obscenity" without enough literary merit to be protected by the First Amendment.

I remember this dude and this case. He got busted hard enough for his directory folder, but IIRC they later found some very bad other stuff on his computer.

No, text is not real people, and it might appeal to folks for reasons other than them simply being disgusting perverts (in retrospect, some of the feedback I've seen toward posters trying to skirt the Prime Directive over the years might have been on the rough side). HOWEVER, text can still get you in trouble, and someone is always. Always. Coming for you, no matter who or what is in charge. I am a firm believer in the horseshoe theory. I also understand why Laurel keeps a tight lid on the golden rule. Priority One is always the money. But if she lets her guard down it also attracts people that will tarnish the site's image, and not long after that the powers-that-be will turn their eye toward this place.

 

[horrorotic]

They're getting rid of the small 'community' accounts that haven't been around long enough to build big followings and a good reputation.

For me this is also an exercise to avoid upcoming stricter revenge porn laws. If you can't prove the women having sex in the video knows she's being filmed and you have the right to put the video up, no video. Not a bad thing at all.

But two points.

Will this extend to a site like this? All the pics put in ampic thread of women that may not be putting them there, but its their husband or BF or ex? All the stuff in the other pic threads that amateur porn and not pro pics and vids lifted from Porn sites will Lit be hld accountable for those and have to start screening...which in a case of a site like this will lead to the easier solution of no more ampic threads

Going further, no laws are altruistic and meant to protect anyone. These new copyright laws are in place to ensure the little people and indy creators in every genre from porn to music to yes, erotic e-books, can no longer make money so all the major money companies can go back to being the only ones who can.

This is what amazon has been waiting for, an excuse to eradicate all indy published e-books so the Big six and their ilk are once again the only game in town.

They started with Porn because few will defend it, they made up stories about Pedo material to get people outraged(But NYT raves over Cuties) and not care what's happening.

So because everyone will lie down for this, they will now have more control to move forward. The adage about censorship is true for a reason, they come for them, then they come for you.

Guess over turning net neutrality wasn't the nothing burger they wanted you to think it was, it was the first step in destruction of indy creator owned content in all forms. Its sweeping across you tube as we speak.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Will this extend to a site like this? All the pics put in ampic thread of women that may not be putting them there, but its their husband or BF or ex? All the stuff in the other pic threads that amateur porn and not pro pics and vids lifted from Porn sites will Lit be hld accountable for those and have to start screening...which in a case of a site like this will lead to the easier solution of no more ampic threads

I think Lit has already punted that issue down the road. I don't hang out in ampics, but my understanding was that the pic threads there have the same rules as elsewhere, explicit photos can't be hosted here, only shared by links to other sites. So it's more of an issue for the sites who host those images than for people linking them here.

They started with Porn because few will defend it, they made up stories about Pedo material to get people outraged(But NYT raves over Cuties) and not care what's happening.

Pedophilia and also human trafficking, which is another popular excuse. (Weird how the "anti-trafficking" lobby always seems to be concerned with sex work and never with agriculture, which is where the real trafficking problem is... but I digress.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

My problem with "Cuties" is they used real underaged and underdressed actresses to make their 'point.' All the articles defending it and saying the backlash wells from a conservative ideology are on sandy ground, because the actresses are criminally underage and the camera seems way too interested in them.

When you say "criminally underage", what laws do you think were broken?

 

[MayorReynolds]

When you say "criminally underage", what laws do you think were broken?

Well there is underage and there is very underage. Neither are good, but in this case was an intensifying adjective. They were fucking eleven.

I don't know about "laws" specifically being broken but when you parade them in front of a camera with not much clothing on, to create a product for millions to access and consume for profit, you're paving a road to hell regardless of the intentions. And there are one or two people making the decision in those girls' lives to put them on the camera: their freaking parents.

And it wouldn't be as much of an issue if these girls were CG or animated and not real people. People seem to forget that characters are played by actors who are also actual human beings. In this case, children.

Also: "We're going to have minors dance undressed in front of a camera to make a point that this is a bad thing" is like saying, "We're going to shoot someone in the face to make a case against murder."

 

[Bramblethorn]

Well there is underage and there is very underage. Neither are good, but in this case was an intensifying adjective. They were fucking eleven.

You're equivocating here. Eleven certainly would be way under-age for sexual consent, but that's not relevant here since none of the child actors were having sex. The issue is whether eleven is under-age for a child to act in a film about sexualisation of minors, and that's a much more complicated question.

I'm going to assume here that we all understand that it's legal for children to wear sexy outfits, and that it's also gross and problematic. Stuff like that should be publicly criticised and challenged, and film is a powerful medium for doing that. By the nature of the medium, it's hard to criticise something without depicting it...

And it wouldn't be as much of an issue if these girls were CG or animated and not real people. People seem to forget that characters are played by actors who are also actual human beings. In this case, children.

...okay, so the issue here is not so much the depiction per se as the use of real children to play those roles?

CG is great for putting dragons in blockbusters but not for putting realistic people in a real-world setting on a budget. It might have been possible to do this as an animated story, but that requires different skills and resources, and when the point of the story is very much about how kids dress in RL, animation risks undermining that - people are used to receiving animation as caricature.

So there are pretty good reasons why a director might prefer to make a film like this with real actors.

Using child actors certainly does raise ethical challenges (a whole heap of them, even before getting to any controversial content), and film-making has been wrestling with that for a long time. In this territory, it's come up with films like "Taxi Driver" and the "Lolita" adaptations.

By my understanding, the film-makers followed established practice for child actor welfare. They had a child psychologist present to monitor the kids' welfare, they talked through the story and the research behind it closely to make sure that the kids understood what was happening and why this stuff was in the movie.

As Doucouré points out, these are kids who already encounter that kind of sexualisation in everyday life, without any of those safeguards in place. It's hard to see how a few weeks of acting with safeties in place presents much of a psychological risk relative to what those kids and millions of others will experience all through their childhood - which is the problem the film is tackling.

And again, I'll note how revealing it is that this film, which does at least criticise the sexualisation of minors, gets targeted by people and organisations who are completely mum on all those kiddy beauty pageants, in a country where many states still consider ten years old "over-age" for getting married.

 

[NotWise]

And again, I'll note how revealing it is that this film, which does at least criticise the sexualisation of minors, gets targeted by people and organisations who are completely mum on all those kiddy beauty pageants, in a country where many states still consider ten years old "over-age" for getting married.

To me, this seems utterly irrelevant. But then, the strong reactions against the movie seem to be aggressively moralizing and unrealistic.

 

[RandolphCockburn]

I had been pretty much only using Xhamster for some time. But a Lit friend was talking about some stuff on Porn Hub so I tried them again. I was pretty shocked at some of the things I saw. I think they have since taken down those vids. I saw things like plastic bags over heads, wax being poured in places that could seriously damage or kill, and yes, maybe even underage. Those were just clips of what appeared to be older, sometimes black and white movies. These appeared to be underage males. I also saw one video where the comments said it had to be a snuff film. If it was, they cut it off before that part but it was seriously disturbing.

Is this serious? Who the dickens would get a kick out of torture anyway?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Is this serious? Who the dickens would get a kick out of torture anyway?

There are sickos out there that do. I don't have any names, but there are and you might be surprised who does.

 

[RandolphCockburn]

There are sickos out there that do. I don't have any names, but there are and you might be surprised who does.

I'd rather not know. I've already lost three galleries in XHam for having the "teen" label...

 

[Emirus]

To delete or allow

Pornhub have allowed the first video (Ransom Day 2 - Plastic Bag Smother) to remain despite it shows a man (apparently) about to be murdered, if a ransom isn’t paid, by putting a plastic bag over his head.

https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5db995795384d#1

The second video (Bijou headscissor domination) has been deleted by Pornhub (no plastic bag involved) despite right at the end there is a disclaimer showing the two actors obviously alive.

https://pornzog.com/video/10761194/bijou-headscissor-domination/

I fail to see the logic in those decisions. Everyone has their one opinion regarding porn on the internet and I agree entirely some of that which is available is deplorable but if you are going to use restraints in any situation there has to be consistency.