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.

@Zinco

You unhappily gloss the issue of consent in law which is in the end all that matters. I may too have opinions as to whether I agree with it, but that is not actually relevant to crime. The law has protect vulnerable people from exploitation and strike a balance as to the freedom it gives. That is more important that sexual gratification and necessarily so. I trust you agree.

I do not believe it will be controversial to have the case law decided today. It has fundamentally remained the same for 40 years. There is no case to change it to accommodate the wishes of a few people who say they are not committing any harm in the first place. If that is true, then the law does not apply to them. If they do inflict harm in the legal sense then it applies. For that reason I believe it would be affirmed. It seems likely that statute in future will ensure that the principle of English law that you cannot consent to your own assault sufficient to inflict harm remains.

BDSM consent likes to set parameters as to what an individual may agree to happen to them. But this is not necessarily legal consent and for good reasons. You will not persuade me otherwise simply because opinion is that agreeing a few boundaries beforehand is legally significant. It is not. Some BDSM people like to conflate the two.

Harm is not subjective. It can be objectively shown in many cases. If convicted, then it goes to the penalty you may receive. While an act can be motivated by sexual gratification it can still be harmful, it can still be crime.

Did zinco say if zinco is a feminist?

My money's on lib.

Quoting--

www.huffpost.com/entry/sexual-fantasies-normal_n_6081746

More than half of women (52 percent) fantasized about being tied up to obtain sexual pleasure, compared to 46 percent of men.

Between 30 and 60 percent of women described fantasizing about themes associated with submission (for instance, being tied up, spanked, or forced to have sex).

...

Women were more likely to draw a distinction between fantasy and desire, for example those who described extreme submission fantasies (domination by a stranger, for instance) also said that they did not want those fantasies to actually come true....

While the study's findings should not be viewed as conclusive across the board the survey was conducted over the Internet, and only looked at adults in Quebec the research does provide a framework for further study and a need for broader notions of what's considered typical sexual fantasy.

[End of quote]

So if people are the "lowest of the low" for having this kind of domination fantasy, it seems like it could include a sizable percentage of women.

Obviously it would only be defended as a fantasy between consenting adults.

"Did zinco say if zinco is a feminist?

My money's on lib."

Zinco did not say. Zinco's own question went unanswered.

zinco should know what to do in this situation.

zinco is a dab-hand at twisting people's words.

"I do not believe it will be controversial to have the case law decided today. It has fundamentally remained the same for 40 years. There is no case to change it to accommodate the wishes of a few people who say they are not committing any harm in the first place. If that is true, then the law does not apply to them. If they do inflict harm in the legal sense then it applies."

To deny the law is controversial, or you can't make a case for changing it, is just silly.

Quoting from a 2015 source--

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/fetish-lovers-fifty-shades-of-grey-stonewall-moment

"Fifty Shades was our Stonewall moment,” says Susan Wright, author and activist at National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF), an organisation promoting the rights for all adults engaging in safe, sane and consensual behavior. “Because of it, BDSM has burst into the mainstream media, allowing everyone to start talking about kink. Before, the media coverage of BDSM tended to be more negative, but now you can’t go on the internet without finding a new article about exploring your fetish.”

Even so, the kink community protests that it remains stigmatized and even criminalized."

[Different person:]

"BDSM is currently where LGBT was 30 years ago,” she says. “Our struggles are parallel to those experienced decades ago when gay people were also thought to be suffering from a ‘mental illness’ that needed to be cured.”

While there are limits to the comparison – BDSM isn’t about who you love so much as how – the discrimination is similar: many are losing jobs, support of families and even custody of children if their sexual preferences are revealed. In a 2008 NCSF survey, 37% of over 3,000 respondents reported they had experienced harassment, discrimination or violence.

"zinco is a dab-hand at twisting people's words"

Then point to a particular example and make a case for how words have been twisted. Just throwing out a line like that is personal attack without substance.

Fantasies in one's head/imagination are not the same as portrayals of harm "acted out" for wankers.

Not an "attack" (how sensitive you are) just an accurate observation.

"Fantasies in one's head/imagination are not the same as portrayals of harm "acted out" for wankers."

Well I deny that I have twisted anyone's words here. Yes, the context was about pornography, and not merely fantasies in the head. But what was said--

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

I believe that statement would logically apply equally to pornography or just having the fantasy in your head. Think about it. All the porn would be doing is helping you have the fantasy. It's OK to have the fantasy, but not OK to have a porn film encourage the fantasy? It's OK for a woman to have a fantasy of being spanked, but not OK for that same woman to watch a spanking film made by consenting adults? Surely in either case, it's the same: you are getting off on violence against women (in a sense). And that was the reason for why people are supposedly, "the lowest of the low". You might say that pornography has more harms connected to it. But that's not what the statement was about. The statement just said you are the "lowest of the low" if you get off on violence against women. It wasn't focused on anyone really being harmed through pornography because it said, "Even if it's acting...". So it's the mere fantasy that is supposed to be a terrible thing.

So I deny that there is an important difference here, which means I have twisted anyone's words. You can of course try to support that claim.

But even if, for the sake of argument, there was a real important difference, you may still have a similar issue. Then it's a question of what percentage of women have the fantasy, and what percentage of those women sometimes watch pornography to help with that fantasy. It may still be, a significant percentage of women are being called the "lowest of the low", when they actually appear to be perfectly nice people in many cases.

"Not an "attack" (how sensitive you are) just an accurate observation."

I would say you are simply confused that it makes much of a difference, and so you wrongly accuse me of twisting someone's words. But of course you can make that case.

Well Zinco you make a case. But it is not going to be sufficient and I think you will find the law is going to get tougher in this area, not more forgiving.

If you are right, juries will not convict. The problem with BDSM is fundamental to the criminal law. It is not going away.

Nor is the law “silly”. It has a legitimate aim of protecting the vulnerable. I doubt there will ever be an effective change since that is its true purpose. The basic principle is sound that sexual gratification does not overwhelm the jurisdiction of the criminal law is not going to change.

Why in my view is quite obvious. There is not a parallel with gay men because BDSM may actually be an assault dependent on circumstances. It is the explicit point of it - some pain for the purpose of pleasure. I am afraid though that while that is possible for establishing what someone find arousing, it does not work in crime.

Gay men were criminalised because of their attraction to other men. It is qualitatively different from an activity that explicitly engages with the prospect of physical harm. The view was thar any sexual activity between them was a crime of buggery or sodomy. The law was liberalised because there was no evidence that this was harmful in any physical sense and if it was harmful, then the criminal law of assault applied.

It is a huge leap to assume that there will ever be acceptance of BDSM as a defence to criminal activity. I suspect not, though you can advance any reason you like in your defence, and a jury may accept it, the law is not going to provide it in statute. I think it is very much more likely to go the other way.

And another thing. The idea of grown-ass men fisting one out over vids of teenage girls (or what they believe to be teens) is just so fucking ugly.

Ew.

@definitelygc The vast majority of porn depicts degradation or abuse towards women -if this were so how come the OP has appealed for help in finding examples?
There is as far as I know no study to support your assertion-and as usual in such debates these are claims without evidence.

LexMitior, I guess this is something we are just going to disagree on.

In a world where people can consent to being potentially beaten to death in a boxing match, I don't see the justification for taking consenting adults to court (prison time?), just because of something like spanking that left a bit of a mark, and the police want to see it as assault. I think the police have better things they should be doing with their time; and anyway, it's just an unfair intrusion into relatively safe and private behaviour. Locking people up for it, seems a bit oppressive to me.

My point to you is thar sexual gratification is never going to outweigh the need to protect the vulnerable.

BDSM is consensual sexual violence. While the internet has meant it’s more accessible than ever, it has not become legal.

The kind of distinctions sought by people who are into BDSM are impossible to put into law without fundamentally changing what the criminal does and what it is for. That is not going to happen for if BDSM people are right, they are within the law. If they are inflicting physical harm sufficient to be assault then that may be a crime.

This is not a new issue. And the solution is that the law stays as it is.

There is not an analogy with boxing. Boxing is a sport where both participants have the capacity to inflict harm upon one another. And a person may stop fighting at any point. The other point is that boxing is not permitted to allow people being beaten to death. It is regulated and in public.

In the context of BDSM, where one person is weaker, possibly incapacitated or unable to move, in a private place, with no assistance, no outside help, no arbiter, the law looks to protect. That is absolutely the right thing to do.

That is why the law protects the vulnerable. It understands, as I think you do, that sexual gratification is not an excuse to harm others, than harm is not subjective but objective, and than in the context of relationships involving sexual activity that one party may seek more power and obtain gratification by that means. There may be an element of coercion in a domestic setting. The law needs not just to deal with you but lots of other people with their own motivations. They should not be able to inflict physical harm and have a blanket consent defence. Again, the power dynamic of BDSM innately presents a problem because unlike boxing, one party dominates another. That is the inherent point and the vulnerability that the law addresses.

Courts consider very carefully whether to lock people up; violence is still that even if done for pleasure. You say it is not harmful, my point is that you are not the arbiter of that.

"There is not an analogy with boxing. Boxing is a sport where both participants have the capacity to inflict harm upon one another. And a person may stop fighting at any point. The other point is that boxing is not permitted to allow people being beaten to death. It is regulated and in public."

It's permitted for entertainment/sport, but there is still a real risk that people will be beaten to death or have life changing brain damage. Yes it's public, and BDSM often isn't. Although BDSM may be semi-public if carried out at an event, where others could intervene in theory.

A boxer can stop fighting at any point, but there is actually a strong pressure that they don't. Fighters damage their reputation if they are seen to quit. It may be far easier to tell a partner that they have gone too far. In BDSM you can withdraw consent at any time. Yes you can imagine circumstances where that doesn't get listened to, (as in sex in general), or people are restrained and don't have a proper way to indicate that they wish to stop. But that's BDSM gone wrong. It's not BDSM in general. BDSM may be one sided in a way that boxing isn't, but it's still consenting to something that may be much safer. That you aren't interested in spanking them back, (maybe you are...) I don't see makes an important difference.

You have to understand that you cannot start from the point that BDSM is consensual in law. You start from that point but that is wrong. The law bites on it whether you like it or not.

Boxing is regulated to prevent death. Criminal law still applies to it. It’s legal status and dynamic is entirely different from BDSM. As you must know as a proponent, the point of BDSM is to gratify yourself in the context of power exercised over another who is vulnerable. There is case law that recognises this difference. The difference is huge. The dynamic is massive. The potential for abuse is latent.

Boxing is nothing like that. It might be if you held it private, prevented any oversight and then there was physical injury. Then may be the law would bite on that as a crime. Even if were in public there might crime that applied to those circumstances.

For you, BDSM is safer. That is the point. But if you ever changed your mind, you would have it’s protection. That is the right outcome. Laws are not made for sunny moments. They apply when things go wrong; and that does happen in BDSM. There are plenty of cases where it has. It protects you on the day your “consent” finishes, your safe word is ignored, your partner hits harder than you want, and it says you are not at fault. It says, you are a victim of a crime. It does not say, you said yes, which is a huge issue in cases of rape where it is about sex, not violence.

You have got to understand that. It is not going to change. This is not about whether society cares about you, but whether as a general principle of our society we say that people can agree to their own assault for sexual pleasure. The very old principle is no.

Sexual freedom is not a right where it falls within the criminal law. BDSM means violent conduct. It is not like gay liberation. It is a fetish. Some fetishes involve being aroused the crushing of small animals by women. That is a crime too. The fact that no person is harmed there is irrelevant, as it’s fetish status. Fetish or arousal does not excuse crime.

Imo you will never circumvent the law that you can consent to your own assault for sexual gratification. It would be licence for violence against vulnerable people of all kinds. Not you perhaps, but many others.

Zinco, you keep referring to spanking, as if that's the kind of thing being discussed here.

The issue isn't primarily the 'spanking' in porn is it. It's strangling around the throat with hands, it's violently choking with dick, it's anal fisting. You think all the teenage girls this happens to on Pornhub are 'consenting'?

You're full of shit. Pornhub and its ilk are absolutely FULL of rape and abuse footage. If you're unable to see that, then there's something badly wrong with your empathy.

This is a discussion about the harms of the porn industry, not about spanking laws FGS. This is a feminist forum, supposedly.
You're derailing and obfuscating, so kindly fuck off.

Strongmummy

This is a thread about a specific site which is known to have victims.

You keep telling us it’s okay to like what you like. No one is criticising you for your preferences. What are you worried about.? Why is this thread getting such a strong reaction from you?

Zinco “ While there are limits to the comparison – BDSM isn’t about who you love so much as how – the discrimination is similar: many are losing jobs, support of families and even custody of children if their sexual preferences are revealed. In a 2008 NCSF survey, 37% of over 3,000 respondents reported they had experienced harassment, discrimination or violence.”

Why would anyone know what anyone else was doing in private, to the point that the person was discriminated against?

Holy crap you're bad at this, Zinco.

OP: I know PornHub is one of many exploitive businesses of the prostitution industry that profits mightily from recordings of children and women being raped and sexually trafficked for the sexual gratification of overwhelmingly male voyeuristic onlookers, can someone point me towards images of PornHub's rape exploitation so I may support my argument with real PornHub examples?

Zinco: What if women have fantasies of being teased with feathers, what about that, huh?

Fab article by Tom Farr from CEASE:

www.independent.co.uk/voices/pornhub-trafficking-exploitation-change-petition-sex-work-decriminalisation-a9369616.html

Extract:

"As Mickelwait claims in the Change.org petition, the websites profit directly from videos of trafficked women, including the horrific example of a 15-year old girl who had been missing for over a year, and was found because 58 videos of her rape and sexual abuse were discovered on porn sites. Further, CEASE recently spoke with a rape survivor who had discovered videos on a porn site of her assault, kidnapping and rape at the age of 14. Shamefully, her requests for them to be removed were systematically ignored by the site until she posed as a lawyer and threatened legal action.

There is often a subsequent distinction made by the pro-pornography lobby that the above cases are not indicative how the porn industry actually functions, but rather, just "a few bad apples". They are quick to point out that these are actually examples of criminality, and they are not part of the porn industry. The question has to be asked, what is hosting and profiting from videos of filmed child sexual abuse and human trafficking if not "criminal"?

The exploitation doesn't stop there – the Internet Watch Foundation recently reported that in 2019 there was a 26 per cent increase in image and video-based child sexual abuse reports compared to 2018. Apart from the fact that porn sites have directly hosted this content, the industry itself is a driving factor in the production of it in the first instance. With the combination of porn culture becoming more prevalent, porn use directly impacting the sexual "tastes" of those who watch it, and the horrific growth of filmed child sexual abuse ("child porn") as a market within the commercial trade, it does not require great feats of imagination to understand why the long-standing porn genre of "teen" is as popular as ever.

@AutumnRose1 why are you playing amateur psychologist? On the basis a previous poster said that people with fetishes have mental problems I’d take that as a bit of a criticism.

If you read the thread you’ll see my initial post was a question about whether all porn was bad.... I was then jumped upon.