WARNING - This site is for adults only!
This web site contains sexually explicit material:
The Economics of Regulation
The adult entertainment industry has a clear interest in keeping explicit content accessible only to adults. Children don’t pay for pornography, and pirated material already costs legitimate creators thousands of dollars every month. I personally spend hundreds more removing stolen videos from illegal websites. If all explicit material were truly locked behind a paywall, legitimate creators would generate more revenue — just as adult entertainment did during the “Golden Age” of magazines, VHS tapes, and theaters.
OnlyFans’ success demonstrates this principle. It thrived because it presented itself as a mainstream social platform, while explicit content remained available only to paying subscribers. This balance between visibility and controlled access created a sustainable ecosystem for adult creators.
The Real Purpose Behind Age Verification
Current governmental efforts to enforce strict age-verification for adult content seem less concerned with protecting minors and more aligned with advancing digital identity systems. These measures accelerate the normalization of online surveillance and the erosion of anonymity — all under the pretext of child safety.
In practice, these systems don’t work. Teenagers today are digitally literate and easily bypass verification using VPNs, proxy servers, or offshore websites. Only companies in the U.S., U.K., and E.U. are likely to comply with these laws, while unregulated platforms abroad will continue to ignore them. As a result, children curious about sexuality will gravitate toward illegal and unmoderated sources, where consent and legality are not guaranteed.
The unintended consequence is paradoxical: the harder you make it to access legitimate adult material, the more traffic flows to unregulated and potentially exploitative platforms. No government can realistically track or ban every illegal site, and VPNs make such restrictions meaningless. The only effective solution is education and parental supervision, not blanket prohibition.
California stands out as an exception. Its recent law requires device-level age verification — meaning verification happens on the user’s device rather than through ID uploads or facial recognition databases. This approach could actually reduce exposure while preserving privacy — a rarity among recent policy attempts.
Cultural Contradictions and Early Sexual Narratives
A deeper cultural contradiction underlies the debate about age verification: societies differ sharply in what kinds of sexual information they deem acceptable for children. In many contexts, children are exposed early to religious or moral teachings about purity, virginity, or sexual sin — often before learning basic anatomy or concepts like consent.
I was seven years old when I first learned about “virginity” at catechism classes. At that age, I knew nothing about menstruation, reproduction, or anatomy. The taboo around discussing sex in scientific or healthy ways coexists with an uncritical acceptance of moral or religious indoctrination.
“Purity culture” is a striking example. Events like “purity balls,” where girls pledge their virginity to their fathers, are publicly celebrated as moral education. Meanwhile, comprehensive sex education — which focuses on consent, emotional literacy, and health — is often denounced as corrupting. Even religious texts contain graphic sexual narratives, yet these are freely accessible to children without restriction. The real issue, then, isn’t sexual content itself, but who controls its interpretation and dissemination.
The Legal and Moral Paradox of Adolescent Sexuality
Most countries set the age of consent between 14 and 18. This means societies implicitly recognize that adolescents are capable of sexual activity and even reproduction. In some jurisdictions, minors can access reproductive healthcare; in others, abortion remains heavily restricted. Yet the same societies that tolerate teenage sexuality legally often treat the mere depiction of sexuality as morally dangerous.
This contradiction reveals that public morality is less about protecting youth and more about maintaining control over sexual knowledge. The panic around exposure to sexual imagery reflects discomfort with autonomy and modernity — not genuine concern for children’s wellbeing.
A Rational Path Forward
If we truly care about the mental and sexual health of young internet users, we must move beyond political theater and adopt evidence-based policies. That means comprehensive sex education, digital literacy training, and realistic parental tools — not ID-based surveillance systems that funnel curious young users toward darker corners of the internet.
Protecting children should never be an excuse to dismantle privacy, empower data brokers, or entrench government surveillance. We need laws that work in practice, not ones that sound good in campaign speeches. The future of a safer internet depends on rational policy, scientific understanding, and respect for human curiosity — not fear.
You’ve raised men to find consent unexciting, and now you complain about the consequences. Feminists often point fingers at men, shouting about the patriarchy, but they forget that bad ideas have no gender. Urging men to suppress themselves, after teaching them that consent isn’t sexy, leads nowhere.
A woman who takes the initiative, who says where, how, and when she wants it, is judged as too aggressive, not exciting, a “slut.” Too easy a conquest, no thrill. On the other hand, a woman who needs to be “conquered,” whose consent must be coerced or sexually corrupted, is seen as more desirable. And the wife? She has to please others before she pleases you. She must be a “good girl,” which basically means repressed. And why not brag about it to other men online: “She’s a slut, but only for me.” Not for herself, because, you know, sex and pleasure are for guys!
In 2025, so many men still suffer from the Madonna-whore complex, and part of the blame lies with the women who raised them. Stop playing the victim when you’re part of the problem. After years in my career, I still hear that what I do, out of free and consensual choice, “isn’t real sex” or “can’t really please me.” This is basically denying the existence of my female sexuality. People would rather believe I’m forced to do porn, that I do it for money, or that I’m a “slave to the patriarchy.” Anything goes, as long as they don’t have to admit a woman might enjoy fucking. Because if I don’t enjoy it, it’s more exciting for them. Or they say my husband is a loser for being with a “slut” like me.
Yet, these same people get off on stolen content, photos, or videos taken without the victim’s consent. You blame pornography because it’s an easy scapegoat: it’s all porn’s fault, not the misogyny of your mother! Yet porn is the only context where women openly enjoy and talk about their sexuality. Stop playing the victim and let’s call men who engage in revenge porn what they are: not predators or opportunists, but losers. Losers who can’t get turned on by consenting women. The best way to strip them of power is to nullify their actions, to take away the thrill of hurting us, of making us feel violated. You posted an intimate photo of me without my permission? Who cares, mine’s like everyone else’s.
Phenomena like revenge porn won’t end as long as people are fired, shamed, ridiculed, or stalked just for expressing their sexuality. As long as we think a woman who embraces her sexuality like a man can’t be a good mother or teacher, as long as we treat sex as a mystery to be hidden and fail to educate people about owning their desires, we’ll keep promoting rape culture: the one where consent isn’t exciting.