When I began my career, I was eager to work with new male performers, despite being a newcomer myself. At the time, the number of available male talents in the industry was limited; most were 10–15 years older than me. As a result, I frequently worked with the same individuals, particularly within the European market. Due to this scarcity, some performers continued to be hired despite unprofessional behavior, such as poor hygiene or repeated tardiness.

In 2012, after approximately six months in the industry and with only a few published scenes, I organized my first fan blowbang. The project was produced with no formal budget. A private villa was provided by an acquaintance of Rocco Siffredi, photography was done voluntarily by a friend, and a videographer charged only 100 EUR. I handled the editing myself.

The shoot proved physically challenging. It was initially intended to be a gangbang; however, during the scene, one participant behaved aggressively, resulting in physical injury. Years later, a gynecologist inquired about trauma to my cervix. Despite this incident, I do not regret the experience, though it highlighted a fundamental risk of working with amateurs: a lack of technical knowledge, professional boundaries, and situational awareness.

Over the years, I participated in two additional fan-based orgies and conducted multiple casting sessions. One casting led to a lasting friendship and a sexual relationship that continued intermittently for several years until his death from cancer. At the time, working with new partners represented both sexual exploration and professional curiosity.

However, in recent years, increasing regulatory pressure and informal censorship within the industry have significantly altered the risk calculus associated with working with new performers. From a legal standpoint, producing adult content generally requires verification of age through two forms of identification and a signed model release. Nevertheless, under the expanded discourse of “consent,” mechanisms designed to protect performers from exploitation are increasingly being used retroactively to contest previously consensual and compensated work.

Consequently, production companies have become far more reluctant to work with unestablished performers, preferring recognizable names that present lower reputational and legal risk. This risk aversion is particularly evident among companies with significant visibility outside the adult industry.

Such entities face heightened exposure to public backlash, deplatforming, or financial sanctions due to allegations that may arise long after production. In many cases, requests for content removal are motivated not by coercion or harm, but by changes in personal circumstances, such as entering a new relationship, family pressure, or parenthood, despite prior informed consent and remuneration.

Additional uncertainty arises from evolving financial and legal frameworks. Payment processors such as Mastercard and Visa periodically revise their compliance requirements, rendering previously valid documentation insufficient. Furthermore, some jurisdictions have introduced laws allowing performers to request the removal of content for which they were already compensated.

For example, in Japan and North Carolina, performers may legally demand takedowns without demonstrating contractual breach or misconduct. From an economic perspective, this undermines the stability of production investment: it allows a worker to receive payment while subsequently nullifying the product of their labor.

Such policies function as a form of indirect censorship by increasing financial and legal risk within the adult industry. Notably, these regulations do little to address piracy. While legal platforms may remove content or producers may face criminal penalties, illicit distribution often continues unchecked.

Governments have demonstrated limited effectiveness in dismantling illegal hosting and distribution networks, and content frequently circulates through encrypted messaging applications and social media platforms.

Legislation such as the “Prevent Sexual Exploitation of Women and Minors Act” or the “Adult Video Appearance Damage Prevention and Relief Law” does not meaningfully prevent the nonconsensual redistribution of content. Instead, it may create a false sense of security among inexperienced performers, who may assume that participation carries no long-term responsibility because content can always be removed later.

This perspective weakens professional accountability and undermines sustainable production practices. My personal experience with fan-based productions reflects these broader structural issues. While some encounters were positive and memorable, the majority were professionally problematic.

Inexperienced participants often struggled with basic performance requirements, including maintaining arousal, controlling ejaculation, or respecting physical limits. In some cases, I sustained accidental injuries; in others, I was compelled to remove content from platforms such as OnlyFans when participants later sought to withdraw consent after extended periods of public availability.

Notably, such requests were not limited to complete amateurs but also involved performers who had previously worked with major studios.

In light of these experiences, I have become increasingly cautious. For my independent productions, I now limit collaborations to performers with whom I have established trust and prior working relationships, particularly when financial investment is involved.

For me, pornography is not merely a form of labor but a deliberate lifestyle choice rooted in personal autonomy and sexual self-determination. I am the first woman in my family to openly exercise sexual freedom and to challenge normative assumptions about female sexuality.

While fan-based performances once served as a meaningful form of sexual and artistic exploration, current regulatory, legal, and cultural conditions render such practices disproportionately risky. I hope that future policy discussions will move beyond moral panic and symbolic protectionism and instead focus on effective measures to combat genuine exploitation, coercion, and nonconsensual distribution—rather than imposing constraints that ultimately harm both performers and producers.