Smut Sales are Booming

[Kelliezgirl]

A quick Google search for "crackdown on sex websites" will answer your question.
Dozens of articles about new legislation and restrictions.

I get a whole bunch of stories talking about the FTC cracking down on sites that aren't following the rules regarding child porn and non-consensual pornographic pictures.

I mean if you are in favor of kiddie porn and revenge porn... then I guess that's a problem.

 

[SmilingLez]

I get a whole bunch of stories talking about the FTC cracking down on sites that aren't following the rules regarding child porn and non-consensual pornographic pictures.

I mean if you are in favor of kiddie porn and revenge porn... then I guess that's a problem.

I read an article recently about the Google Play store no longer supporting AI apps that hint at child porno.

 

[Britva415]

I don't doubt that there is a crackdown. We all know about new age-verification legislation, and about our very own Literotica's preemptive elimination of the Illustrations in the Illustrated category, to get out ahead of potential regulation.

However, what I would need to see, before becoming persuaded that there is a smut boom driven by prohibition, would be evidence that the smut consumers OP referred to are in fact reacting to real or perceived prohibition.

My prediction would be that, even if there is a boom, it isn't because the consumers have experienced or anticipated a crackdown. I bet they're largely not even aware of, or at least see themselves as unaffected by, the porn-site age-verification legislation, or any other "crackdown" tactics which might be occurring.

Hypothetically.

What else is there?

 

[old_prof]

I get a whole bunch of stories talking about the FTC cracking down on sites that aren't following the rules regarding child porn and non-consensual pornographic pictures.

I mean if you are in favor of kiddie porn and revenge porn... then I guess that's a problem.

Except pornhub is effectively in what three states now? Four?

And this is not a new effort. Meese (Reagan's AG) spent much of his term trying to ban Playboy and Penthouse. It just flares up when a certain party gains control in Washington. But of course they are never the one's trying to ban things, so I must be wrong with this.

You are drinking too much of that kool-aid if you think that kiddie porn is what they are going after,,

 

[Britva415]

You are drinking too much of that kool-aid if you think that kiddie porn is what they are going after,,

Yet, that is their present rhetoric to begin the slippery slope.

Are we supposed to believe that smut/romantasy consumers are reacting to that? Why would they?

For that matter, your hypothesis predicts that the crackdown would cause even more CP proliferation and consumption. That's a bit of a tangent, but, is there data showing that that's happening?

 

[Off_base]

I get a whole bunch of stories talking about the FTC cracking down on sites that aren't following the rules regarding child porn and non-consensual pornographic pictures.

I mean if you are in favor of kiddie porn and revenge porn... then I guess that's a problem.

I was pointing out the information.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I read an article recently about the Google Play store no longer supporting AI apps that hint at child porno.

Seems like a reasonable stance to take.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I think smut as a term of art is enjoying a boom. Romance, including explicit romance, has always been a powerhouse. I think some of what's happening is that the style of euphemistic purple writing is seen as passe -- writers aren't calling dicks purple-headed warriors anymore -- so the inherent smuttiness of mainstream romance is a little more obvious. And as sex is more normalized, titillation becomes harder. Lesbian fiction was scandalous, now it's not. BDSM in fiction was brought fully into the mainstream when Fifty Shades blew up. So now to get the same effects as a simple blowjob in 1975 you've gotta have your innocent protagonist get double-penetrated by a minotaur and a handsome tender prince whose dong turns into a dragon (not a dragon's dong, an actual dragon, complete with wings).

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Except pornhub is effectively in what three states now? Four?

And this is not a new effort. Meese (Reagan's AG) spent much of his term trying to ban Playboy and Penthouse. It just flares up when a certain party gains control in Washington. But of course they are never the one's trying to ban things, so I must be wrong with this.

You are drinking too much of that kool-aid if you think that kiddie porn is what they are going after,,

Or maybe loosen up the tinfoil hat.
We can't prosecute kiddie porn and revenge porn because "slippery slope"?

 

[old_prof]

Yet, that is their present rhetoric to begin the slippery slope.

Are we supposed to believe that smut/romantasy consumers are reacting to that? Why would they?

For that matter, your hypothesis predicts that the crackdown would cause even more CP proliferation and consumption. That's a bit of a tangent, but, is there data showing that that's happening?

I think many people know that is not what they are banning. Ask people in states who now need VPN's to get to Pornhub. Or who can no longer get anything more than a PG rated romance in their library. Despite what they try to spin, people do see what is actually happening. At least people who try to have their eyes open.

 

[old_prof]

Or maybe loosen up the tinfoil hat.
We can't prosecute kiddie porn and revenge porn because "slippery slope"?

This is not a slippery slope argument. Stop creating straw men. I have no problem (and am fully in favor of) prosecuting kiddie porn. So is almost every politician and prosecutor. There is no more prosecuting of that happening now than there ever has been. That's a complete non-sequitur and diversion. The real attacks are going against material that the supreme court has repeatedly found completely legal. If you don't see that, you need to start following what's actually happening. I'm not particularly defending PornHub either, other than their right to provide their service. But the reality is that they are no longer available in multiple states because those states chose to make it that way. Not because of any kiddie porn or snuff or anything else. Because the leadership of those states do not believe that consenting adults should be allowed to access them. However you want to divert from that is your business. But that is the world we live in.

And it does extend to explicit romances now too. At least one state (louisiana?) recently enacted legislation designed to pull all books that are at all explicit (over half of all romances would fall in this category) from all public libraries. If they can figure out how to ban them from being sold, I have little reason to doubt they will try. And the national politicians are working on how to apply Comstock to any form of erotic material, written or visual.

 

[Britva415]

I think many people know that is not what they are banning. Ask people in states who now need VPN's to get to Pornhub. Or who can no longer get anything more than a PG rated romance in their library. Despite what they try to spin, people do see what is actually happening. At least people who try to have their eyes open.

Well, it still sounds like a guess.

I'm not convinced that, if there's a boom, it's driven by prohibition.

All these romantasy readers getting recommendations from TikTok probably don't see themselves as being affected by these measures or by ones they anticipate in the future.

I could be wrong in that impression, but your guess is just as evidence based as mine, so far as you've demonstrated, anyway.

 

[old_prof]

Well, it still sounds like a guess.

I'm not convinced that, if there's a boom, it's driven by prohibition.

All these romantasy readers getting recommendations from TikTok probably don't see themselves as being affected by these measures or by ones they anticipate in the future.

I could be wrong in that impression, but my guess is just as evidence based as yours, so far as you've demonstrated, anyway.

Admittedly, pure speculation. I don't know what segment they are actually talking about and how much it is really growing. You are absolutely right there.

I don't know how many people actually follow what is going on enough to notice the crackdown and so will react to it. I bet a lot of people do in Utah, the first state to lose access to Pornhub (and ironically the largest per capita consumers of it previously). And if books actually are coming off shelves in Louisiana. I bet people who get books from the library are away as well. I think that one may be tied in court challenges right now.

 

[Off_base]

Fewer people are dating and having sex. Marriage is down, the number of women having children is down.
Everyone is busy being shitty and mocking each other.
If there's an increase in smut revenue, maybe it's because more people are lonely and seeking alternate sexual outlets online.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This is not a slippery slope argument. Stop creating straw men. I have no problem (and am fully in favor of) prosecuting kiddie porn. So is almost every politician and prosecutor. There is no more prosecuting of that happening now than there ever has been. That's a complete non-sequitur and diversion. The real attacks are going against material that the supreme court has repeatedly found completely legal. If you don't see that, you need to start following what's actually happening. I'm not particularly defending PornHub either, other than their right to provide their service. But the reality is that they are no longer available in multiple states because those states chose to make it that way. Not because of any kiddie porn or snuff or anything else. Because the leadership of those states do not believe that consenting adults should be allowed to access them. However you want to divert from that is your business. But that is the world we live in.

And it does extend to explicit romances now too. At least one state (louisiana?) recently enacted legislation designed to pull all books that are at all explicit (over half of all romances would fall in this category) from all public libraries. If they can figure out how to ban them from being sold, I have little reason to doubt they will try. And the national politicians are working on how to apply Comstock to any form of erotic material, written or visual.

All the prosecutions that came up when I searched were for child porn and revenge porn. You made a slippery slope argument with "that's not what they are really after..."

Pornhub CHOOSE to pull out of multiple states because they CHOOSE to not abide by the restrictions imposed by those states. To be specific, age verification. They don't have a "right" to provide their service without following the laws in the state to which they are doing business.
Or would you say that gun companies have a "right" to do business in say... California while not abiding by that states particular restrictions?
What about tobacco companies?


As for public libraries... so tax payers should be forced to pay for things that they find objectionable? Nonsense. You have no "right" to a library carrying any particular book, and that isn't a ban.

 

[stickygirl]

There are lots of efforts right now to clamp down on smut, mostly by select states in the US, but there are movements here at the federal level and someone was complaining about similar pushes in the UK recently. This has been an intermittent topic across multiple threads for the last six months or so. An uptick in consumption is the natural response to that pressure.

A quick Google search for "crackdown on sex websites" will answer your question.
Dozens of articles about new legislation and restrictions.

All these clamps, crackdown and pushes make me wonder if we're talking about bdsm in particular?

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Romantasy is Fantasy's Episodes 7-9. Way to ruin a genre.

Hardly. Fantasy is just as popular as it ever was.

 

[Off_base]

All the prosecutions that came up when I searched were for child porn and revenge porn. You made a slippery slope argument with "that's not what they are really after..."

Pornhub CHOOSE to pull out of multiple states because they CHOOSE to not abide by the restrictions imposed by those states. To be specific, age verification. They don't have a "right" to provide their service without following the laws in the state to which they are doing business.
Or would you say that gun companies have a "right" to do business in say... California while not abiding by that states particular restrictions?
What about tobacco companies?


As for public libraries... so tax payers should be forced to pay for things that they find objectionable? Nonsense. You have no "right" to a library carrying any particular book, and that isn't a ban.

Every time the govt enacts new legislation that targets a handful of bad actors, by restricting the freedoms of everyone, the "slope" gets more slippery.
You seem to be fine with the govt making rules because they don't think you're sufficiently protecting your kids from porn.
I don't share that opinion.

What people find objectionable is subjective. I'm a taxpayer too, and I definitely don't want YOU to decide what I can read in my local library.

Try speaking for yourself instead of lecturing others on what to think.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Hardly. Fantasy is just as popular as it ever was.

But now it's got girl cooties on it. And a fella can't even enjoy a proper Man Fantasy novel any more without being plagued by the knowledge that someone, somewhere, is reading the Wrong Kind of fantasy.

RUINNNNNED.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

But now it's got girl cooties on it. And a fella can't even enjoy a proper Man Fantasy novel any more without being plagued by the knowledge that someone, somewhere, is reading the Wrong Kind of fantasy.

RUINNNNNED.

If anything, the explosion of the romantasy sub-genre means fantasy is growing.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Every time the govt enacts new legislation that targets a handful of bad actors, by restricting the freedoms of everyone, the "slope" gets more slippery.
You seem to be fine with the govt making rules because they don't think you're sufficiently protecting your kids from porn.
I don't share that opinion.

What people find objectionable is subjective. I'm a taxpayer too, and I definitely don't want YOU to decide what I can read in my local library.

Try speaking for yourself instead of lecturing others on what to think.

Yes, what people find objectionable is absolutely subjective. If a group of people has decided they don't want their tax dollars funding something, and have acted through their duly elected officials to ensure that doesn't get funded... well that's how democracy is supposed to work.

Libraries make all kinds of decisions about what they will and won't stock on their shelves. There is no requirement that it align with your particular views.

 

[TheLobster]

If anything, the explosion of the romantasy sub-genre means fantasy is growing.

It is "growing" in an analogous manner to how video gaming "grew" because people started playing on their phones.

In both cases, it's not an actual growth; it's just the umbrella getting stretched unreasonably wide.

 

[Off_base]

Yes, what people find objectionable is absolutely subjective. If a group of people has decided they don't want their tax dollars funding something, and have acted through their duly elected officials to ensure that doesn't get funded... well that's how democracy is supposed to work.

Your group finds certain literature unworthy of tax dollars, and leads an effort to have books that they don't like, removed from libraries.

Libraries make all kinds of decisions about what they will and won't stock on their shelves. There is no requirement that it align with your particular views.

Huh?
Isn't your group trying to do this very thing?

I don't think we're going to agree on this subject. I'm for smaller, less intrusive government. And I'm definitely not for small groups groups using political power to dictate the rules.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

It is "growing" in an analogous manner to how video gaming "grew" because people started playing on their phones.

In both cases, it's not an actual growth; it's just the umbrella getting stretched unreasonably wide.

Why gatekeep?

 

[YmaOHyd]

Why gatekeep?

It's not like their publication is being prevented. It's just a classification thing.

To me, there's a distinction between romantic fantasy and romantasy. For better or for worse, in my (limited) experience, romantasy is basically YA fantasy writing plus standard genre-romance levels of sexual content. It's like light novels for 20somethings rather than teens. People who are looking for non-romantic fantasy aren't (again generally and again in my experience only) going to get much out of romantasy.