The Pornography Paradox

Reformers fear that ever more outré sites are warping users' desires. But transgression has always been part of the appeal.

- Laura Kipnis

Content, some say, wants to be free; so, reportedly, do we. At any rate, such conclusions jibe with at least 9 billion visits a month to porn websites and "tubes," where professionals and amateurs upload sex videos for others to stream, at any hour we please, at no monetary cost. As many reading this presumably already know. (Not judging.)

Is nonstop free pornography liberating, or is it shackling, leaving us less humanlike than ever? This is one of the contemporary conundrums that the sociologist Kelsy Burke explores in The Pornography Wars: The Past, Present, and Future of America's Obscene Obsession. The answer depends on how you define "us," because those producing the stuff, as is true of other content providers laboring in the digital sweatshops of our time, are barely scraping a living together. Though Pornhub alone gets more visits a month than either Netflix or TikTok, according to one online guide for budding porn entrepreneurs, a video garnering 1 million views will net its producer roughly $500.

Unlike back in the 1970s and '80s-the heyday of XXX-rated features with multiday shoots and catering budgets, of ample profits and thriving stars the new porn economy generates its revenues primarily from ads, accruing to site owners, not performers. The subscription site OnlyFans produces big paydays for a few stars, but elsewhere the story for workers is depressingly familiar, and porn performers are doubly screwed, so to speak. They're kept busy, as Burke details, creating new content-one-on-one interactions with customers in "camming" sessions, for example to supplement the content they're barely being paid for. But even that material often finds its way to free sites.