Talking About Sex Online Shouldn't Be Illegal
Porn sites and other online spaces with adult content are fun; they’re also important sources of community and information.

Kayden Kross, an adult film entrepreneur and a former business partner of mine, sent me a text message a few months ago. She was excited—she was seeing a community of straight dudes gather on Deeper, the power exchange and BDSM-themed website she owns, to discuss their sexual preferences, turn-ons, and other various tastes. And she was seeing this across other platforms too. This felt rare to her, and groundbreaking to me.
When I asked Lucie Fielding, a mental health counselor in Washington state, how many spaces she was aware of for straight men to have these conversations, she said "Oh, not many—unless we're talking incels—there's got to be stuff on Reddit, but apart from that, these are such important forums. Because there's such a societal pressure for men not to be talking with one another about these things." But on platforms like Deeper, PornHub, and other online providers of adult videos, the comments section is just that sort of conversation.
Kross described the communities as having creeds of acceptance, giving examples such as "The 'don't yuck my yum' thing. It's agreed upon that so long as you are not saying something that is a political minefield, it is not OK to dog on someone else's expression of what they're there for. And when people do, even if it's something where you can't imagine anyone would be into that, you'll see people rush to that person's defense. There's very much this understanding that in order for this to work, everyone has to agree not to add shame to the pile."
And it isn't just sexuality being shared. Someone might say, according to Kross, "'My dog died today.' And then someone else will chime in with, 'Oh, I'm so sorry.' And then the person will say, 'I had no one,' and 'I'm alone.' And then someone else would be like, 'Well, I would have given you a hug if I was there.' We all know, there's this kind of idea of traditional masculinity, and the expectations are that men don't really talk about their feelings. And the fact is, in the comment section, when you're anonymous, you're not subject any longer to expectations, right? That's why we have trolls. But it's also why you end up with these kinds of conversations that, you know—otherwise, who would you have them with?"
But these conversations, like so many others, are at risk of being censored out of existence. New state laws requiring verification of consumers' ages threaten to wipe out small producers and scare off subscribers concerned about threats to their own reputations in the event of a data breach. Laws like SESTA/FOSTA have made promotion of adult entertainment—already an uphill battle—even more starkly difficult, reaching as far as those Reddit communities Fielding mentioned and causing many subreddits about sexuality to shutter. And payment processors and banks have been denying adult workers access to financial infrastructure for decades.
Why does freedom of speech and freedom from shame matter in this context? According to Fielding, "Shame tells us that we are bad. That our desires are bad, that our pleasure isn't valid. And the relationship between shame and isolation is that when we feel that we are bad or that there's something to be ashamed of, we withdraw because we don't want to share that.… That leads to social withdrawal.… It means that folks are trying things in very risky ways, because they don't have the community around them." One example is choking—without proper safety and risk-informed consent, this risky activity can turn deadly with alarming ease.
Ali Joone, my former boss at Digital Playground and the originator of the virtual sex video game genre in 1999, recalled consumers using the CD-ROM version of Virtual Sex with Jenna to share the ways they'd used the technology to live out fantasies of directing Jenna Jameson in a point-of-view porn film. Joone was pleased by this usage, "To me, it's all about how do you make connections? How do you make people create connections even through [something] like commentary? We're wired to connect, to communicate with each other and people." Sexuality is a big part of human life, yet conversations about it are often silenced.
No matter what regulations are passed, sexuality will continue to be expressed, and pornography will continue to exist. But the more these communities are stamped out, the harder people will have to work to find each other and the wealth of information about how to explore their fantasies more safely and with higher risk awareness. The federal and state governments, as typical of the past few decades, continue to pass laws that hurt freedoms while failing to achieve their stated aim of protecting children.
Porn can fester, driven offshore and underground, contextless and removed from both communities and educational resources, fostering shame and isolation. Or it can thrive—along with consumers of such media—in relative sunlight, embedded in a web of discourse, information, and empathy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And above we have Reason's defense of pedophiles, their allies and enablers. Sorry hon but if you absolutely need to talk to minors about sex and in secret form their parents, you are what is wrong with society. If the grooming and sexual exploitation of children isn't your goal then the pivot into the underage rules is a complete non-sequitor.
The point is that rules for verifying age are a threat to anonymity. We know that service providers cannot be trusted to keep personal information secret—there are data breeches in the news all the time.
And of course that is why it is vital to you and her to expose kink to children as early and often as possible. Cool story Jared.
Next you'll be arguing that the existence of wrongful convictions prove that laws against rape and murder shouldn't exist.
You're an idiot.
In other breaking news, water is wet. SJ is utterly obsessed with kids and sex. Whether anyone else is talking about it or not, they always are. They should really seek professional help. That, or get a job at the multiplex where their projection skills would actually be helpful.
What paragraph did you see that in?
His tinfoil hate-hat caught it right between "Reason.com endorses murder and torture" and "libertarians bless human necrophilia and cannibalism." He has a VERY special tinfoil hate-hat, which can see things most of us can't even dream of!
SJ sees any defense of free speech as an embrace of child molesting. I'm not sure how, but they conflate attempts to protect the privacy of adults to endorsing child molesting. And dog forbid anyone should suggest that maybe teenagers should have access to honest and factual information about sexual issues. That can only mean that they want to rape kindergardeners, give them sex changes, or maybe both. I'm not sure how SJ can even sleep at night with the hordes of kiddie diddlers lurking under their bed.
Why bother to actually read articles? It's much easier to skip directly to arguing with the voices in your head.
Age verification isn't going to do dick to stop people from accessing porn and it sure as fuck isn't going to stop trafficking or the ridiculous grooming shit.
At best its going to 1) increase the cost to do business, 2) give the government another cudgel to beat people over the head with, and 3) probably cause wide swaths of the internet to just not operate in certain places.
Note to foreign readers: Mystical collectivists frame future-tense speculation as if it were observed fact in order to reinforce their faith in what they struggle to not disbelieve. The record shows nuclear private utilities and free-market LSD have exactly the same risk, namely zero. Yet half this fact is filtered out by prior brainwashing of Kleptocracy dupes, the part depending on the party. Libertarians look at the existing record and measurements.
How the fuck is me saying that age verification won’t work and here are some foreseeable consequences unlibertarian OR “mystical collectivism”, Hankie?
He doesn’t know. His brains might be even more mush than Biden’s.
Don't people realize that it is the shame that makes the kink interesting?
Take away the shame, and you just have to escalate to the next level what is still shameful.
They're creating a system that promises to devolve into the most degenerate child abusing ends.
Hey Jessica!
I think I'm on your side on this topic in a generic sense... but how did you get from "you have to be an adult to use online porn sites" all the way to "talking about sex online shouldn't be illegal"?
That's quite a leap.
That’s quite a leap.
I can forgive you for not wading all the way through the shit screed but that's nothing: "Why does freedom of speech and freedom from shame matter in this context?"
Half the paragraphs are between obvious lies (intentional, first hand, or other) and completely pointless meandering. She's, at best, as much a libertarian as ENB and, at worst, specifically not a libertarian at all. It's like getting libertarian thoughts from Asia Argento.
It’s like getting libertarian thoughts from Asia Argento.
Is that the one where the people listening to them are found hanging in a hotel room-suicide?
I think it is a pizza made from a tofu-based hard cheese substitute.
I'm sorry I doubted you for a second. I actually thought you were about to say something sensible. I should have had more faith is your ability to double down on the stupid.
I may be wrong, but I think the thinking is: words on a screen aren’t actually harming anyone any more than a cartoon or video game.
"important sources of community and information."
Like Nextdoor?
More like Onlyfans.
"Talking About Sex Online Shouldn't Be Illegal"
As long as it's adults and consensual I don't give a shit. But soliciting minors or planning rapes. No.
Spontaneous rapes are more fun.
Lol
A VPN is fast becoming a must utilize.
It's easier than maintaining multiple logins and passwords.
This article was worse than anything sarc, or Mike Laursen, or maybe even SQRLSY has published.
Starting at:
Kayden Kross, an adult film entrepreneur and a former business partner of mine, sent me a text message a few months ago. She was excited—she was seeing a community of straight dudes gather on Deeper, the power exchange and BDSM-themed website she owns, to discuss their sexual preferences, turn-ons, and other various tastes. And she was seeing this across other platforms too.
AND YOU FUCKING BELIEVED HER??!?! BY YOUR OWN ASSERTIONS IT"S THE FUCKING INTERNET?!?! DID SHE DRIVE YOU AROUND TO EACH OF THEIR HOUSES OR DID YOU JUST ASSUME "WELL IT MUST BE TRUE."
The demonstratively stupid lesbian clusterfuck only gets worse from there.
I had a little trouble getting past "straight dudes".
Sooooo... product placement ad for "Deeper"? The whole thing is just an attempt to place "Deeper" (which I assume nobody has ever heard of) on the same plane with "PornHub" (which I assume everyone has heard of).
"Sooooo… product placement ad for “Deeper”?"
Pretty much. This reminds me of when Nick ran a couple of interviews which were essentially advertisements for some chick with an OnlyFans site.
"She's libertarian and this is where you can see her nekkid."
Do people even still use pornhub anymore?
Pretty sure it's still a thing, and a much bigger supporter of free speech than most of the Reason commenters.
I often look for life advice on the PornHub comment section.
Russians go there to advertise for conscripts, and I hear they now offer gun ads--after the video sissies caved and set fire to 1A.
The book-burning Comstock laws of 1873 have just been revived by the Republican appointees. Any redneck with a gun can legally hunt pregnant women for bounty in Texas, just like in 1860! Both Kleptocracy parties have a hand in this and any and all laws that let men with guns hunt people for looking at the wrong things. Lawyers fees, fines, bail bonds, imprisonment, all feed on this like racial collectivism at an Alabama Beatles records bonfire. Only voting for a platform that demands repeal brings a glimmer of hope for repeal.
I was hoping for a rant about Comstock from our poorly programed Hankbot.
"Comstock"
The villian from Bioshock Infinite?
In reality, the video game villain represented as being a Southernor is loosely based on Anthony Comstock and American Moralist Bureaucrat from New England (CT, NY, NJ). In the video game and/or Hank's head, who the fuck knows.
We shouldn't even have age verification for sex work.
>> everyone has to agree not to add shame to the pile.
Sure, why not. Detach yourself from concepts like “right and wrong” or “good and evil” – and you justify whatever depraved hedonism you want!
It’s like that scene from Pinocchio, where he killed the Talking Cricket and then went off with Fox and Cat without hesitation or regret and never looked back.
Wait, is that how the story went?
>> Shame tells us that we are bad. That our desires are bad, that our pleasure isn’t valid. And the relationship between shame and isolation is that when we feel that we are bad or that there’s something to be ashamed of, we withdraw because we don’t want to share that.… That leads to social withdrawal.… It means that folks are trying things in very risky ways, because they don’t have the community around them.
Because sometimes they shouldn’t.
If you’re socially withdrawing because you’re having some sick and twisted fantasies, GOOD. That IS something you should be ashamed of. That deserves no community. That “pleasure” isn’t valid, your desires ARE bad – and society should not only condemn you for it, but ostracize and possibly even jail you for it.
Now I hear you whining, “But it's consensual!” Bullshit. The groomers are hard at work “educating” children to make it precisely that. Consent to the depraved doesn't make it any less depraved. Or wrong.
But it’s also missing the point. Shame (like pain) is a barometer of right vs wrong; good vs evil; true vs false. That reflexive feeling of, “This isn’t OK, I shouldn’t be doing this,” isn’t some socially conditioned thing. It’s reality trying to remind you that you’re defying it.
You remember that scene from Atlas, with Ken Danagger?
“Couldn’t you at least name an heir of your own choice?” “I haven’t any choice. It doesn’t make any difference to me. Want me to leave it all to you? He reached for a sheet of paper. “I’ll write a letter naming you sole heiress right now, if you want me to.” She shook her head in an involuntary recoil of horror. “I’m not a looter!” He chuckled, pushing the paper aside. “You see? You gave the right answer, whether you knew it or not.”
Because sometimes they shouldn’t.
Yes. A lot of libertarians can't wrap their heads around the idea that just because most things should be permissible, it doesn't necessarily make those things good or right.
A private company should be permitted to censor it's clients and employees, but that doesn't make it right. An amputee fetishist should be permitted to mutilate his body, but that doesn't make it alright. A person should be allowed to become addicted to meth, but that doesn't make it alright.
Society should be allowed to mock, ridicule and inveigh against stupid, perverted and dangerous things even if they're not preventing them.
It's illegal to talk about Alcohol.
It's the first law about alcohol.
The first book mass produced on a Gutenberg press was the Bible. The second was a pornographic story.
Well, the Bible certainly isn't appropriate for children. All of the violence and sexual depravity is bound to warp their little minds.
Motion pictures went straight to porn. Videocassettes went straight to porn. 1/3 of all internet transactions are porn. Pornhub is now the most visited site on the internet. It used to be NASA.
The politicians have a fine line to walk. The public loves it's porn.
Porn producers claiming to care about making sure porn addicts have as many porn forums as possible to discuss their pets, and that’s why we can’t have strict age verification. Also, shame is bad.
Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with people in the porn business having no scruples and wanting to get developing, impressionable brains hooked on their products and services from as early an age as possible and not caring how their chosen industry has an overwhelmingly negative impact on people’s lives.
Only people who have never met real men in real life would think that men can only express emotions in anonymous forums because of 'muh societal expectations'.
In real life, if your dog dies, your buddies come over, help you bury it, and then hang out and have beers with you.
These people are not flocking to porn sites because of 'tradition masculine societal expectations'. They are flocking there because they're porn-addicts with no real-life social bonds - because they spend all their time on the internet playing games and cooming.
Now, if you'll excuse me, Jagged Alliance 3 is calling;)
>New state laws requiring verification of consumers' ages threaten to wipe out small producers and scare off subscribers concerned about threats to their own reputations in the event of a data breach.
Nothing listed here actually makes talking about sex on the internet illegal.
It threatens *online porn* - yes. And, honestly, I have mixed feelings about that. Free speech, yes, but online porn is, frankly, a scourge.
But its not going to affect your Discord server.