I'm not supporting this, just trying to explain why not actually posting porn is no workaound to satisfy the ads company.
They are being banned for who they are, even if the decision is being delegated by Instagram to angry members of the public.
For instance, the article mentions Cinderella Jewels, which has a new account showcasing her "pole journey". NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/p/B4xM_b4AtC-/ and her Youtube banner: https://yt3.ggpht.com/L6jM6xMK_QBRZieP8x8f8_f6x1BYQi30_K7WGL...
Here is Bloggeronpole showing "body positivity", while complaining they won't let her post a video of her working out in a bikini NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2td-HPgzDP/
Here is Ginger Banks' instagram, who claimed in the article: "I've never posted explicit images on Instagram. But even a picture of me wearing leggings could be extremely provocative to someone, and worthy of being reported": NSFW: https://www.instagram.com/thegingerbanks/ and here you can support her art, for just 100$ a month you can help end the stigma that is surrounding sex and view art that makes you question yourself: https://www.patreon.com/GingerBanks (NSFW).
Once the wealthy and powerful know everything there is to know about you, they can take any arbitrary decisions they want against you - in all places, online or offline. They can effectively "ban you from society" just because you did something they may not like.
Worse yet, that "something" may be decided by an "AI" they created and there will be no recourse (people dealing with Google/Facebook "support" probably know what that means).
See also The Apple.
Wasn't sex outside marriage a felony in Utah until recently? Pretty sure the sharia wasn't applied there…
My point is that the American puritan roots are still alive and kicking, both in conservative circles obviously but also liberal circles with people getting "distressed" at the sight of any kind of eroticism in art or entertainment.
These are all clues that sex is taboo. We can't even have honest conversations about it and it causes a bit of obsession with it devoid of healthy attitudes.
> believe the polytheistic are much open minded regarding sexuality than the monotheistic ones
Not really, it depends on whatever religion. Hinduism, 3rd largest of all religions and largest polytheistic religion, makes a big deal about premarital virginity of women, at least in all the major branches/sects of it.
Though, taking Germany as an example, you might run into legal troubles if you make a nuisance of yourselves knowingly or on purpose. 
Americans are considered pretty prude, uptight, and christian fundamentalist when it comes sexuality here, while US citizens can have quite the culture shock and think us crazy. The laws surrounding sexuality are really just the tip of the iceberg.
How long did the drama over a nipple being shown during the egg ball final last?
This is what these “grand unified theories of American prudery” miss — the US isn’t a uniformly prude nation; it’s just a very large and diverse one. It contains people who are very prude as well as people who are the opposite — it contains people who write in to the FTC to complain about not-quite-nipples on TV, but it also contains the sort of people who thought that showing a 40 year old woman’s saggy boob during an afternoon football game was a good idea in the first place. It contains people who complain about porn, but it also contains most of the global porn industry.
There is a fine line between what is somewhat accepted and what not. And porn usually is on the other side of it.
You can see all of this. the "sex" has to walk a line so as not to become vulgar .... but a run-of-the-mill piece of art will get more attention if it is being modeled by a pretty woman or shirtless man than if shown alone. Or if it is of a nearly naked woman (but a nearly naked man is vulgar).
I don't know, the first two pages of Google if you enter "sex does not sell"? I could have linked contents, but I think I'll let you do the homework.
It is pretty obvious that it does at times, even if we are aware of the biases. Of course, getting it wrong hurts and there is lots of nuance.
...well gee, let's look what I wrote...
> ...I'm pretty sure that "sex sells" as a general statement has been debunked a while ago
See that bit about "as a general statement"? I never wrote that it _never_ sells.
No, but one just has to take a screenshot of exactly that and send it to brands for brands to pressure Instagram and co to drop pornstars. Most brands have very clear policies when it comes to ad space. These are the kind of policies that triggered the "adpocalypse" on YouTube a few years ago, where prominent advertisers dropped YouTube after being made aware (by the main stream press, the irony of this news article), that their products were advertised in the middle of sexually suggestive videos, terrorist videos and what not…
So it's funny the BBC is complaining about individuals reporting content they don't like on Instagram when outlets like the BBC did the exact same thing against YouTube a few years ago.
Is it really? We see this often said but usually no one links to any data.
Porn stars and sex workers should be celebrated instead of being ostracized.
There aren't many other professions who contribute as much to reducing stress and fulfilling the fantasies of so many people across the world. Most sex workers do it without any thanks and barely make enough from it to survive. Not only they have to brave a constant risk of disease and violence, they have to carry this outdated stigma throughout their lives, not only for themselves but also their families, even after they quit.
We're not talking about just 'sex', we are talking about the creation of entertainment media were a person is paid to have sex with another person/persons. I wouldn't call it a 'natural act'.
I used to be totally fine with porn, and to some extent I still am, however I do see it as a problem as well.
First off I think that the ease with which really hardcore porn is increasingly accessable today means very young kids are able to get their first views of sex being extremely warped. This creates expectations of what sex is that many are likely uncomfortable with, but will perform because porn has made it 'the norm'. Add to this how most porn turns sex into something borderline mechanical and/or centered around a fetish, which makes perfect sense from a 'product standpoint', but it also means that practically all porn sells the whole idea of sex as merely people using eachother to 'get off'.
The second problem I have is with the industry and its employees, I can't recall any ex-porn worker having anything good to say about their previous profession, instead what I've seen described comes across as a really shitty situation, where many turn to drugs in order to make it through 'shoots' and then again to forget.
Instead of blaming porn, easily accessible or not, we could mention the role of parents or even schools that could be more involved with sex education.
>I can't recall any ex-porn worker having anything good to say about their previous profession, instead what I've seen described comes across as a really shitty situation, where many turn to drugs in order to make it through 'shoots' and then again to forget.
Well, maybe if this population was not constantly vilified and ostracized, things would go better for them.
This can be said about the "mainstream" showbiz industry as well. Remember all the child stars with ugly adulthoods?
As for spawning fetishes and promoting unrealistic expectations, again, you can say this about a lot of mainstream media too.
Critics of porn seem to ignore other industries with the same problems when singling out porn for these criticisms, because !!sex!!
I don't know exactly what the fetishes/unrealistic expectations you say mainstream media is promoting, but I doubt they have as direct impact as porn does.
As for mainstream showbiz, I certainly don't hold it in high regard either, but I do think it does better than the porn industry. Basically I would be very hesitant about my kid going into showbiz, meanwhile I would do anything in my power to dissuade my kid from going into porn.
Coming from Australia, I find the whole anti-nudity-sex view of US extremely bizarre.
One one side Netflix and friends have figured out that Booms, Bullets, Bucks, Boobs and Butts are a golden formula. Like most HBO series involve some form of nudity.
On the other side the big media mafias are heavily censoring totally normal things.
Toxic masculinity and macho-isms, submissive femininity and repressed sexuality, hard-to-maintain body types, glamorizing hazards like fast cars and wreckless driving or acting like an asshole.
Much has been said elsewhere about and against these topics.
Thats just due to ignorance. Watch the two documentaries of After Sex ends.
And I think there can be some truth to that. Culture often was defined by the absence of anything sexual, since it was believed to adhere to higher forms of aesthetics instead of intrinsic sexual urges.
I think everyone should decide what constitutes the correct balance for themselves. It is just that these transgression of shame are mostly attributed to sex workers to their disadvantage.
But there aren't only happy sex workers and I think it isn't difficult to comprehend why people might want to refrain from engaging in intimacy with sex workers at all. Because to them intimacy cannot be reduced to stress relieve or their own fantasies. I don't think it is that bizarre.
But it is a huge problem if sex workers get penalized because they transgress your own personal boundaries.
I'm from a highly religious, Middle-Eastern culture. In the backwaters of this backwater, it's unthinkable for a male and female to even hold hands in public, let alone have a friendly greeting with a peck on the cheek.
Nobody would think even once about such acts in Western societies.
Now consider violence: people, in every culture, generally don't feel uncomfortable about depictions of violence in media.
Violence is presented as glamorous as soon as children are conscious of their environment. Through toys, comics, cartoons. But none of them dare to show even a kiss or a romantic relationship.
Why do you think that depictions of injury and death are considered more socially acceptable than the depictions of love and the act of creating life?
Can it not be reversed?
> Culture often was defined by the absence of anything sexual, since it was believed to adhere to higher forms of aesthetics instead of intrinsic sexual urges.
Imposing communal rules upon sexuality is more likely a form of control over mating rights:
By denying potential competitors' access to mates, we hope to increase ours. Almost all animals do this, we just codify it into our social constructs.
And this fact is very apparent when you consider that the ruling classes of cultures which repress sex, never really follow their own rules.
Other cultures have their own taboos regarding sex, of course, but it seems only the Judeo-Christian religions regard sexuality (in particular, female sexuality) as inherently evil or corrupting, certainly more so than violence, which is often seen as noble because it's linked, Biblically, with divine justice.
I'm not sure where you read this but it's terribly wrong. There's an entire book devoted to the beauty of marital relations (Song of Songs), and Paul explicitly commands married husbands and wives to give themselves to their spouse (that is, sex).
I'm aware of at least one instance where a puritan wife in the 17th century went to the congregation with a complaint that the husband was not having sex with her. The husband was rebuked for it.
Christianity regards sex as intimate and reserved solely for marriage; beautiful within that boundary and wrong outside of it.
Female sexuality is seen as responsible for the fall of humanity. The first wive of Adam was evil and did not listen, and Eve corrupted Adam into biting the apple. After that, female sexuality and will was something to be contained and cleaned:
> But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
> Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
> When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean.
It's generally bad form to parade speculation as fact.
>The first wive of Adam was evil and did not listen,
The first wife of Adam according to the Bible is eve. Perhaps you're referencing some work of Jewish mysticism, which would be totally irrelevant in a discussion on the Bible and what Christian's believe.
Your post is a bit of a mess of misconceptions and misinformation. Ritual uncleanliness occurs in the OT for a huge number of things, including for male emissions, birth (both male and female), skin infections, and generally contact with blood / any bodily fluids... It's concerned with whether one has been involved in things of the world, which is improper for one wishing to approach an entirely otherworldly God.
But such context tends to be lost when is more concerned bashing religion than with understanding the text.
Christianity regards all forms of sexuality except one to be sinful, and that exception only counts if consecrated by ritual. That's equivalent to considering sex to be sinful by default.
We're not discussing "rituals around sex" in the general case anyway, absent any historical or cultural context. We're discussing the Judeo-Christian complex, specifically the way its rituals have influenced Western cultural beliefs about sexuality, and how those rituals have encouraged the demonization of perfectly healthy and natural forms of sexual expression.
And as soon as you assume intention and purpose behind the creation of things, it is a given that some actions and uses will be deviations from those intentions.
The Bible lays out restrictions on sex because it starts with grounds above and claims that sex has a purpose higher than just the fulfillment of the individual(s) involved.
You can claim that these are just man-made restrictions for whatever ignoble purpose, but that's begging the question somewhat by dismissing the fundamental and crucial claims here without engaging them. IF the Bible is correct regarding God and creation, such restrictions are logical implications.
One, you have the not-so-uncommon addiction to porn. Because of the wide and free availability of porn content today, it's very easy for a person that's susceptible to addiction to fall into a vicious hole.
Secondly, it can lead to spreading aggressive, potentially dangerous fetishes. I might be wrong about this, but I think a lot of the dangerous fetishes wouldn't necessarily exist (or at least wouldn't be so popular) if it wasn't for them being so readily available on the internet.
Sex workers would be an entire discussion topic on its own - but I think it's safe to say that the information available on the dark net crosses all lines - from legal to human rights.
I'm not suggesting we should shun it or disallow it completely - but I think celebrating would also be an extreme that's not worth the consequences.
You can say this about anything. Movies, video games, the internet, alcohol, sugary foods, fast cars, social media upvotes.
> Secondly, it can lead to spreading aggressive, potentially dangerous fetishes.
Again, this statement can also apply to things like violence in movies and games. And much has been said against that kind of reasoning :)
> I'm not suggesting we should shun it or disallow it completely - but I think celebrating would also be an extreme that's not worth the consequences.
I didn't mean literally celebrating like parading them around on a palanquin, but treating them with respect at the very least.
Create an environment that at least allows some discussion about it, instead of indignantly shutting these topics down upon hearing the first syllable.
What about movies, music, books, games, sports?
Why do you think porn stars should not be treated like any other actor, artist, author, musician, developer, sportsperson?
Almost every culture guilts people into remaining in unsuccessful relationships and makes people feel like a failure if they have to break off a relationship.
A lot of the things we do and consume are poor, distant derivatives that barely resemble the real thing. Pornography is easily among the worst offenders.
Again you bring technology into it, when spectator sports have existed long before the first Colosseum.
> Pornography is easily among the worst offenders.
If you go your school league game, you're not doing sports but you hang out with people from your community. Modern professional sports are much like pornography: completely empty in both regards.
Again, why do you think they're any different from movies, music, books, art, or any other form of entertainment you approve of?
Surely you find joy in something? Why do you believe people should not find joy in sports or porn?
It's like asking someone how can they approve of steak and disapprove of marshmallows. As if they were the same thing because they both provide some calories and can be eaten.
So this is a story to tell:
Rush - Theatrical Trailer
Conor McGregor: Notorious - Official Trailer
But when I watch it play out in real time it's not a story?
Porn has storylines. And I suggest watching WWE :)
> It's like asking someone how can they approve of steak and disapprove of marshmallows.
It's like a connoisseur of steak condemning the consumption of marshmallows for made-up hypocritical reasons.
Same with marshmallows. They're food, technically, but a poor, distant ersatz of a real meal. Both in taste and nutrition.
Saying this will make people, including any trans friends you have, go "hmm" at you if you're not careful.
There are probably cisgender people with this as a kink, but the concept is almost exclusively promoted by people who fear trans women and think transitioning is all about sexual gratification. Which is complete nonsense.
Besides...it's just another kind of transformation fantasy even for those hypothetical cisgender people. It's harmless. It's not a dysfunction unless you're some kind of weird prude who thinks sexual fantasies are dysfunctional. Go off and imagine yourself as some fantastical creature being gently, consensually railed by a dragon. It's fun.
If you think company does wrong, just fight with them in a same way.
In other words, why I should demand from local bar to serve me a kosher beer? They feel like it is not profitable for them to serve all kind of minorities (or even some majorities depending on type of bar) and I should be ok with that.
It's just a manner of time until this platform will fall.
One could make the same argent about mill or mining work. Maybe even the military? I don't think the adult entertainment industry averages 22 suicides a day.
But those professions are OK because they're reputable?
When you start making rules for/against certain activities "for their own good", you need to be extremely circumspect, especially when these are consenting adults. Just because you feel strongly about something being bad for you doesn't mean it's your place to make the call for someone else.
This was linked in the original article. Do you have any better solution?
I personally know two originally fashion models I had photoshoots with that later turned to porn and subsequently to escorting and now they are shadows of their former selves and I don't think they will make it through the next 5 years. If you didn't see what happened to them you probably could be indifferent or be even "enjoying it".
if you feel that strongly about it, then spend your free time educating people about it.
but activities which don't affect anyone but the individuals who are choosing to participate should not be regulated by the state.
the article you linked has a tragic outcome, but I suspect you're not in favor of ending military service, law enforcement, long-haul trucking, underwater welding, or working in an oil field (all of which have meaningful risks). Let's pass laws to keep industries safe, but it's hypocritical to prohibit one of these and not the others based on some paternalistic notion of what's best for the individuals involved.
* I think your last paragraph was an edit, and I'm sorry about your friends' experience. It sounds genuinely terrible. But without more detail it's impossible to speak to those circumstances. There are people in all walks of life who are predatory, and the individuals have to be protected by the law when they say "no!", but it's an overreach to say that because some people wish they said "no" when they didn't then we need to prevent others who might have been happy with that choice from having the option. By that reasoning, we would have to ban all employment, because a boss manipulated you into trading your youth for a dead-end job at $15/hour.
They're not the ones making a decision at all and what I describe is exceedingly common.
Look especially at "Cause of Death" and "Age". So similar to STEM folks, right?
And that site only lists the dead porn actors, not the ones who are still alive.
It was a bad idea when the left applied it to popular right speakers, and it is a bad idea when the right applies it in their misguided quest/troll to make society more puritan, help a brother incel escape the clutches of e-prostitution and try for a real girlfriend.
Viewed in a certain light, these accounts are nothing more than fronts for digital prostitution, all carefully made to guide people to one of their profitable monetizations. Even Youtube allows "performers" to use their suitable-for-work videos to advertise their Patreon, where kids can buy the bath water or access to lewd Snapchat of their favorite cosplayer or ASMR star.
This is not about sexual liberation, and platforms shunning porn stars. It never was. It is all about trolling/culture hacking these very gameable report buttons. It is what happens when you allow a vocal activist minority to moderate your platform. The BBC reporting it as a crackdown by big evil business (completely ignorant of the real cause, or the 1000$ per month blowjobs these stars are offering one click away) tells you we still have a way to go with investigative journalism. Big evil site owners used to pay Ginger Banks (the first time I saw her, she was live streaming her vagina from a public library PC), they love all the attention and engagement these women bring.
If the owners kick them off their platform, it is because they risk breaking the law or have their hand forced by activism/trolls. Anything else is eating into their business.
All it would take is for someone to open source a decent image browsing/payment transfer application, stick it on Github with a decent license that allows for re-use of the code, and 'services' like Instagram and Facebook will die the deserved death.
This is only a thing because the OS vendors are gate-keeping, and because they work hard to make it more and more difficult for people to write and distribute apps themselves...
Here is where things break long term. When Visa and Mastercard decide to not do business with you it is time to start your own payment system.