Pornhub examples

[Tootsweets23]

Help, I'm looking for examples of awful videos on Pornhub, as I'm trying to get something off the ground to raise awareness of how dodgy they are.

I had an OBJECT leaflet which had a list on the back but I foolishly threw it out and can't find something similar on their website.

I also seem to remember seeing a lot of screen grabs that were horrendous, but my searching isn't throwing them up.

Does anyone know where I could find some examples or if there is a campaigner who has these stored online? I'm specifically looking for examples that are of potentially illegal or trafficked women and girls, plus that awful one of a young woman being shackled. God I can't believe I wrote that sentence.

I wish I had saved the OBJECT leaflet or screen grabs - kicking myself now.

Thanks if anyone can point me in the right direction.

You can show undeniable and major harm from alcohol use. Both serious damage to health, and as something that contributes to anti-social behaviour and violent attacks.

So is the entire drinks industry evil? You should never own a shop, or work in a shop, that sells alcohol? You should never purchase and consume alcohol, because you are supporting an evil industry which causes so much damage?

Of course it's fine to dislike a damaging vice, and want to see harms reduced or people warned. But free speech is free speech. It's not "that's not included as free speech because I think it's hateful and harmful". If you can ban speech because someone thinks it's "hateful" or "harmful" then that's the end of free speech.

Also, the sexual fantasies that people have, however exactly they develop, people don't choose to have them. They just find that they enjoy a certain fantasy. I'm not sure you can expect sexual fantasies to be politically correct; as if, no, you can't have a fantasy about being in control of a woman, because women are a traditionally oppressed group; but you can have a fantasy about being dominated by a woman, because that has less damaging connotations.

Right, yes, we want everyone's sexual fantasies to be policed that they are not too offensive to others or carry too much risk that people will be influenced in a harmful way.

Real sadism is morally disgusting of course. But domination sexual fantasy often isn't anything like real sadism.

@Zinco there’s no point trying educate feminists like this unfortunately. Apparently any woman who doesn’t enjoy vanilla sex is letting the side down and has “mental problems”.

If I punched someone in the face and had my friend film it to sell on the internet, is that 'free speech'? What pimps do to prostituted women in the making of pornography is violence.

If I sold heroin to kids and filmed it, the nature of the crime hasn't changed because I filmed it.

Women are human beings with human rights, not fizzy beverages for consumption. Can you truly not tell the difference between a beverage product and filmed rapes of poverty-stricken, drug-addicted women?

We don’t have free speech in this country so don’t associate pornography use with it.

It is naive in the extreme or cognitively dissonant at best to say your pornography use and or fetish does not say something about you. Simply because you consume it privately does not make it any less subject to judgment.

People know that and that’s why they do not talk about their pornography use. Of course it says something about you and what kind of person you are. It’s use is taken into account for criminal offending and offers insight into the psychology of users. The same is true of fetishes. Give up the idea it does not say something about a person. It does.

Britain used to regulate the use of pornography prior to the Internet meaning that became impossible. Even then this was a kind of madness, but it did limit extreme conduct of which choking is one. Please stop suggesting that this is consensual. It is not. In law, you cannot consent to your own assault even if it is claimed for your own pleasure.

The law is likely to be changed after the death of Natalie Connolly where someone’s apparent “consensual” proclivities resulted in a vile, degrading death. The man that perpetrated the injuries was not a sadist. It doesn’t matter whether he was or not. It is the action of inflicting injury or harm that matters.

What @IAmFleshIAmBone said 100%.

And I fucking hate the 'too cool for school' attitude of those who think vanilla sex is oh so dull.

@MrsHardbroom I don’t think vanilla sex is boring at all!!!! My point is non vanilla sex is not degrading between two (or more ) consenting adults

"If I punched someone in the face and had my friend film it to sell on the internet, is that 'free speech'? What pimps do to prostituted women in the making of pornography is violence."

Well the original act of violence would be illegal, and it wouldn't be acceptable to try to profit from selling the video either imo.

However, although that analogy links to some pornography, it wouldn't connect to it all by any means. Obviously some women do freely choose to make porn, as "freely" as they do any other job.

Yes, free speech doesn't mean just anything at all. You can't deliberately try to incite crime. We likely wouldn't let people profit from videos of real crime, unless they had a reasonable motive for releasing the videos. (So not to take pleasure in the criminal acts.)

But certainly I would defend things that are accused of being "hateful" as being properly protected free speech regardless. The same goes for things being harmful in many cases. If I found out, that the violence in mainstream TV and movies contributed to many of the murders and assaults that happen every year, I wouldn't then think we should have widespread censorship and strict regulation of the entertainment media.

"Britain used to regulate the use of pornography prior to the Internet meaning that became impossible. Even then this was a kind of madness, but it did limit extreme conduct of which choking is one. Please stop suggesting that this is consensual. It is not. In law, you cannot consent to your own assault even if it is claimed for your own pleasure."

I'm not sure if you can consent to choking, but I just came across a 2019 source--

uk.news.yahoo.com/violent-porn-including-bdsm-no-longer-illegal-uk-long-performers-consenting-155930303.html

Pornography depicting a number of previously banned sex acts has been made legal in England after a review of obscenity laws....

Certain types of violent porn are now permitted so long as the sex acts are consensual (focusing on ‘full and freely exercised consent’,) do not cause serious harm to participants, are not ‘inextricably linked with other criminality’ and are not likely to be viewed by anyone under the age of 18....

Strongmummy I notice you didn't answer my question.

You've no interest whatsoever in protecting women, you just keep popping up to cheerlead an extraordinarily harmful, sickening industry.
You keep telling us that "some women love... porn, watching porn, being in porn, being choked, etc..."

Do you give the smallest shit about the far, FAR greater numbers of women who are raped and abused in the name of making pornography? And then BECAUSE of pornography?
I mean, clearly not...

IAmFleshIAmBone is spot on!

You may well be correct about UK law that you can't consent to BDSM in many cases. I found sources saying that. (Although as I just mentioned, the law on violent pornography seems to have recently changed, which appears inconsistent.)

Well it seems strange to me, that you can consent to a boxing match in UK law, in which you may be killedbeaten to deathor have your jaw broken etc; but you can't apparently consent to being spanked. (Being spanked is likely much less dangerous you would think.) So that seems like a bizarre inconsistency in UK law.

I'm not going to comment on choking, as I have no idea of the risks. But certainly I think you should be able to consent to minor damage in things like spanking.

@squirrelybiscuits yes I absolutely care! Of course I do. My point is that to demonise all porn and all fetish is wrong

You can show undeniable and major harm from alcohol use. Both serious damage to health, and as something that contributes to anti-social behaviour and violent attacks.
So is the entire drinks industry evil?

TBH I'd say the industry is, really.

It's a totally false equivalence though.

We're talking about the porn industry.

Mass rape, the worst exploitation, grooming, trafficking, torture... sold to the masses for wanking to. It's indefensible to anyone with a shred of empathy.

Those of you using eg Pornhub, are you really comfortable with what you're enjoying? What you're funding, fuelling?! You need to stop and think. You're screwing yourself up too, orgasm is just about the most powerful reinforcer there is. The porn industry is a disaster for all of us.

Strongmummy this NOT ALL PORN argument is no different to NOT ALL MEN. What about the VAST majority of porn? The INDUSTRY?
And how can you EVER guarantee that the human beings you're watching whilst you wank were in this tiny minority who freely consent and totally love it? You can't.

"It's a totally false equivalence though.
We're talking about the porn industry.
Mass rape, the worst exploitation, grooming, trafficking, torture... sold to the masses for wanking to. It's indefensible to anyone with a shred of empathy."

But not everyone in the porn business is involved in "grooming" "trafficking" "torture". You are taking the worst aspects of the business there. You could get rid of the commercial porn industry completely, and there would still be amateurs willing to produce never-ending amounts, and amateur fans willing to host their own sites even if they made no profit at all from it. So it's still there on a massive scale, even if the commercial operation was completely destroyed.

Would you agree that (at least) amateurs have a right to produce and share porn films?

The ban on certain forms of pornography being reversed is still consistent with the criminal law. The line has to be that anything which could amount to an assault involving serious harm is illegal to make, possess and it is still a criminal assault. It is notable what the caveats are in the judgment.

I don’t think anyone could read it and say “BDSM” is legal. It’s legality is still governed by the criminal law.

There is some fairly explicit case law on why you cannot consent to injury in the context of sex (this is very important as an overall protection for people). You have only got to look at the “rough sex” defence issue to see why BDSM and consent is such an issue in the law. Hitting or striking someone, strangulation where there is harm inflicted is not legal, however consensual it may be. It is a risk taken by both parties - the person committing the act risks prosecution, and the person who receives it risks harm. The law looks to protect the vulnerable.

I get really fed up with confident people arguing that they need some exemptions because of their particular fetish, where, if they are right, no harm is inflicted. I’d wager though they do not really think about the wider implications for people who do not share their proclivities which are routinely shown in pornography.

@Tootsweets23

You do realise most of its acting right?

Zinco, would you say you're a feminist?

I'm trying to work out why you seem determined it's wrong to focus on 'the worst of the business'.

Are you yourself a happy 'amateur' porn creator? Or is it your use of porn that you're looking to defend? Or both?

In either case, I'd suggest considering that it really isn't about you, or others like you, or what gets you off, what you personally enjoy to do or to watch or to have done to you.
It's (rightly) about the HUGE swathes of raped, groomed, trafficked, tortured, abused women that you so summarily dismissed the importance of in your last post.

You mentioned a hypothetical complete destruction of the commercial operation. Sounds great! Let's aim for that then, yes?

I stand by my earlier statement that the porn industry is a disaster for all of us.

Glad I read this thread.

Now I know that patronising a strong independent woman is a worse crime than filming the rape of a poor or vulnerable one.

You cant tell on screen, and I'm glad to know which way I should jump.

About that 'consensual' porn:

www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a30806689/james-deen-porn-me-too/

@OneTimePrepper

You do realise most of its acting right?

Even if it is acting, what kind of person gets off on violence and humiliation of women and children? The lowest of the low.

As John Stoltenberg says "Pornography tells lies about women. But pornography tells the truth about men."

We see you.

"There is some fairly explicit case law on why you cannot consent to injury in the context of sex"

Which would be highly controversial today, and controversial even when it was decided. It's quite possible that most people today would disagree with that case law. And they have a perfectly reasonable case to disagree. Many people would think it's just wrong in theory that you can't consent to mild to moderate physical harm. They would also think we don't typically want the police going after people for the sex lives of consenting adults (and people can certainly "consent" in one sense, whether or not the consent is recognized). There is also the issue that the law is very difficult to enforce, you are only going to catch a small number of offenders; and actually, the police appear to put in very little effort in trying to enforce the law other than maybe prosecuting the odd case.

I don't personally give much weight to the opinions of a few judges. Yes it's their job to decide what the law happens to be, which they may or may not have done a fair job of. But a case law decision like that is by no means real democracy; and they aren't qualified to decide the ethics of the matter. They are only qualified to give a legal opinion, and even that is often a somewhat subjective matter, so different judges will disagree over how to correctly interpret the law.

"Even if it is acting, what kind of person gets off on violence and humiliation of women and children? The lowest of the low."

Well we could look at studies of what percentage of women have domination sexual fantasy. If it turns out that quite a few women have that fantasy of being dominated, and if they ever think about it while masturbating, or ask their partner to assist in that fantasy...

So X percentage of women are therefore "the lowest of the low"? It could easily be something like 30% or something of women that have that kind of fantasy.

That seems to me to be demonising many women when they may be perfectly nice people. You could of course say, well, we shouldn't demonize women for having the fantasy, just men; but that wouldn't appear to be consistent.

If I "get off" on violence and repeatedly killing people, in a video game, is it automatically a bad thing just because it's a simulation of evil?

"You mentioned a hypothetical complete destruction of the commercial operation. Sounds great! Let's aim for that then, yes?"

Well if the industry was so inherently corrupt, that the only way to protect women, was a complete ban on commercial pornography, then I would support a complete ban.

But e.g. imagine a webcam model that is self employed. Now I personally, have never used that kind of service, and I don't think I ever would. But it seems harsh to take away a woman's source of income by telling her "you're a victim", "you're being exploited", "this is for your protection". Maybe the industry is just impossible to properly regulate, so you need a complete ban, but then you would need a good level of evidence that it can't be properly regulated.