Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevenwoo | Hacker News Reader

It a little weird to me to call it porn, all of the described bespoke videos include nothing of what could be considered a sexual nature (to the conventionally minded I suppose )- you could display them on network TV in the USA when children are watching without the FCC's wrath (unless they showed the women peeing graphically and they really didn't describe the nun video very well). They sound more like customized therapy videos.

View on HN

I think the idea is that the viewer is presumed to be getting a prurient thrill out of the video, even if it is filmed in a way that only works for that one person.

The graphicness depends on the customer's request, but can of course be very explicit. A common euphemism in the community is colors such as "yellow", "red" and "brown", which I'm sure you can figure out what they correspond to.

Thanks for the clarification. The writer should have been more clear like you - or maybe I was too literal into thinking what was written was everything.

Portfolio for the company discussed in the article: https://anatomikmedia.com/portfolio/

Plenty pornographic.

I suppose they're only "safe for TV" because they're so unusual to be custom-made in the first place. The moment your preferences move away from sex, most of the market abandons you. So long as they have a sexual significance to the people who pay to view them, though, I would call them porn.

What do you mean by most of the market abandons you?

I'm actually confused on this one.

Well there's no "women in heels stomping on stamp sheets" section on pornhub, is there?

Oh, this is with regards to 'porn' still then.

The women stomping on stamp sheets bit is female domination which has always been very niche. Niche sites generally don't find themselves on pornhub because (a) their viewers like the site enough not to do that and (b) since their audience is so small, they can't afford to let it be satisfied 'for free' elsewhere.

Also I should clarify... the women stomping on sheets video likely involved a lot of verbal dirty talking as well, or provocative shots. If you actually watched it, you'd figure out its porn fairly quickly even if you weren't aroused by it.

> female domination which has always been very niche. Niche sites generally don't find themselves on pornhub

You've got to be kidding. If not, then go to PornHub, and type "femdom" in the search.

They are nice because of the volume produced and demanded versus that of more mainstream interests. This doesn't mean their content is non existent on mainstream sites, merely that the majority of it is still controlled under the paysite.

You're moving the goalposts. At first you said it's not on those large websites at all; now you're saying that it is, but most of it is still on paysites, and that's where most of the clientele goes.

Coincidentally, you're still wrong about that latter claim. Do the same experiment, except now do it in Google video search, and disable safe mode. Look at the number of the results. Do you seriously think that this amount of free content is not enough for a lot of people?

> You're moving the goalposts. At first you said it's not on those large websites at all

No. taneq said that. I'm not taneq. In fact taneq said that in response to me asking someone else a question.

I said "Niche sites generally don't find themselves on pornhub because .... ".

I think I equivocated quite a bit there to the point that my goal posts can be mounted on roller blades without changing the nature of the game. :)

> Do you seriously think that this amount of free content is not enough for a lot of people?

No.

Source: The company I work for sells this exact same content to a lot of people.

At least in my head, proprietary data and work experience is going to trump Google video searches and rhetoric.

My apologies for identity confusion

I know that there are companies that sell this type of content to a lot of people. This doesn't contradict the statement that the majority of people who are looking for that type content, can find what they want for free. It still leaves plenty of people to sell paid content to. Based on the amount of content I can see even from cursory looks, this seems likely.

Now, if you have access specifically to market research data that contradicts that - then I stand corrected.

sadly, no

Funny, I expect that if one marketed such services as "customized therapy videos," one would confront immediate objections that the service was facilitating heinous pornography.

I think it is because the only examples in the article are the outliers.

There is a short mention about how you can wing a jerk off instruction, which indicates that other parts of their work is pornographic in nature.

The big problem with this piece is that it doesn't discuss how much fit the bill of sexual porn and how much is hardly recognisable as pornography.

Yeah, I found that confusing, unless The Guardian is just being extremely coy?

I'm guessing it's because the economy of paying people to make titillating videos of somehow-not-actually-sex is far more puzzling (and interesting in a non-prurient way) than the economy of paying people to make titillating videos of sex

Precisely because this doesn't even cross the minds of the conventional, fetishists commonly "challenge" teens and young children on YouTube to, unwittingly, create fetish material for them. This phenomenon is up there in the top 5 most troubling things I've learned about the Internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com