Personalised Progressive Porno
Authors: Joseph Kaela , McCoy Ruby 
Published: August 2024

Introduction
The year 2018 saw drastic shifts in fan spaces where fan works, such as art, fiction, and videos, were once widely, openly shared, including those containing sexually explicit content, a.k.a. porno. Major catalysts were the highly contested United States legislations Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), which addressed the liability of host sites for content shared by users. Shortly after, similar legislation appeared around the world, including Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021. In response, Websites once popular with adolescents, which were well known for the proliferation of fan works, reconfigured their terms and conditions to exclude porno. This ousted previously thriving communities, especially lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other related communities (LGBTQ+), who feared overcorrections would be exclusionary of content about sexuality and gender, broadly. This begs the questions, what drives this kind of legislation and how might it impact LGBTQ+ adolescents who often have fewer spaces for identity exploration? Building upon work by other researchers, this article asserts that there may even be potential benefits to the types of personalised and progressive pornos shared in online fan spaces, related specifically to identity development, sex education, and representation.
Fandom and Porno
Fan works make up a critical portion of the digital landscape that adolescents around the globe interact with every day. While not all fan works are pornos, sexually explicit material does exist on many platforms used by fans to share these transformative works (TW), including platforms which largely appeal to young people despite an overall mixed-age user base (McLelland 108–109). A fan work is considered transformative when it alters canonical events (what actually happened) in a franchise, or real life, in some meaningful way (Jenkins 47–48). TWs, unlike mainstream porno, have the benefit of being more personalisable, as they are created by fans, for fans, usually with some ability to interact with the material via embedded engagement features on the social media sites where works are hosted (McInroy and Craig, It’s Like 242–243).
Also, unlike mainstream porno, fan-produced porno (FPP) has historically been created and shared by women, often utilising third-wave feminist critique to address sexual agency and shift away from the male gaze, thus creating more space for discussions about consent and sexual freedom (McLelland 111). FPP is additionally more likely to explore transformative elements that are more inclusive of LGBTQ+ content creators (McInroy et al. 632–633). While fan-produced TWs, including FPP, can be based on anything around which fandoms form, media properties most likely to inspire these works typically hold less connection to the real world, such as those based in fantasy, science fiction, and the supernatural (Hardin). This is because media properties already removed from reality more easily lend themselves to transformation. Further, the worldbuilding elements of these genres already address themes of body, agency, and belonging that women and LGBTQ+ fans are unlikely to find in other mainstream media, porno or otherwise.
In spaces where adolescents are consuming FPP, they are not just passively being imprinted upon by sexually explicit material. Rather, adolescent fans contribute towards critical discussion and self-exploration via their own active production and distribution of porno through TWs (McLelland 103; McInroy and Craig, It’s Like 240). This differs from mainstream porno, which is produced by studios for adult-only audiences, often relying heavily on the male gaze and regressive tropes about sex, gender, and sexuality which do not explore agency, nor emotional or physical safety. This is not to lambast mainstream porno, simply to state that most of it is not produced with women or LGBTQ+ people’s specific wants and needs in mind. Mainstream porno, unlike fan works, is also not made with intent to heavily interact with its fans in the same way, in most cases. It certainly does not intend to interact with young fans, as that would clearly violate related legislation. There are porno conventions, just as there are pop-culture fan conventions, but fannish behaviour and critique is culturally distinct in both. FPP, by contrast, is both interactive and benefits from being about fictional characters, meaning it has the potential to subvert some, though not all, labour and obscenity laws (McLelland 109). Ostensibly, if the subjects of the work are not real, they cannot be exploited, creating a different ethical landscape from that of mainstream porno, including ethics related to consumption by minors.
Fan-Produced Porno and Law
Laws related to youth and porno are relatively new, showing up en masse in the 1970s and evolving based on contextual factors dictating the role of children in social life (McLelland 103–107). Legislation is also commonly intertwined with anti-porno social movements, with the dawn of laws against porno in the 1970s occurring, in part, through the split of anti-porno and pro-porno feminism (Bracewell). According to Lim et al., several academics have noted that “supporters of censorship of pornography historically have been more likely to be older, female, religious, sexually or politically conservative, more likely to show gender role stereotyping, and less likely to have ever seen pornography” (669). This is important because, as previously noted, fan works may be intended to directly challenge moralistic discourse in favour of third wave, pro-porno, feminist schools of thought, which tends to run counter to viewpoints of the above groups of people in every way except the overlap with higher interactivity of women.
One of the first high-profile cases brought to court involved imagery fitting the definition of a TW. The image in question was a sexualised illustration of Rupert the Bear, a then-popular children’s character, published in Oz Magazine in an issue for young people by young people (McLelland 102–103). The artist, a fifteen-year-old boy, noted during the 1971 court case against the magazine’s editors that he drew it specifically as a countercultural statement designed to challenge the hypocrisy of the very adults it appeared to offend (McLelland 103). A major criticism of obscenity laws, in addition to being anti-feminist or anti-counterculture, is they are too contextual, and thus may over-reach without actually protecting youth at all (Al-Alosi 159), as was critiqued in the above case (McLelland). Consequently, recent attempts at legislation have focussed heavily on trafficking and other potential harms that are less politically divisive.
The early 2000s and 2010s saw moral panics and Website-specific strikethroughs related to minors’ online citizenship and FPP (Hunting, McLelland), but without sweeping, associated legislation until 2018. While new laws were implemented throughout the world, over several years, the beginning of the end for Websites hosting FPP, specifically, started in the US with SESTA/FOSTA. The original intent of both acts was said to be reduction in human rights violations, specifically human trafficking. In her review of the history and implementation of SESTA/FOSTA, Cotterill notes that proponents claim exorbitant decreases in trafficking as a result of the legislation, yet fail to look at the full picture, ignoring ways in which business simply moved from one site to the next (28). She also points out the reality that the biggest drop came when Backpage.com, a main focus of the legislation, was taken down, something that occurred before SESTA/FOSTA were passed, accomplished through existing legal actions that did not require additional legislation. Despite this, similar laws were enacted elsewhere, including Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021.
One of the Websites impacted upon the most by anti-porno and trafficking legislation around the globe was Tumblr. In 2018, Tumblr was one of the most heavily utilised sites for fanworks and LGBTQ+ communities (Byron 338–347). The implementation of SESTA/FOSTA led to Tumblr overhauling their terms and conditions to ban FPP (Pilipets & Paasonen 472). While Tumblr does still exist at the time of writing this article, it no longer occupies the same space in the cultural milieu of fandom communities, which now favour newer sites like Archive of Our Own (Ao3) and Discord, with features created to bypass legislation (Floegel 90). While these sites evolved to subvert government censorship, it is important to note that their design approaches do not always do well to protect adolescents against other potentially harmful biopolitics, such as racism (Floegel 92).
More recent debate about laws impacting on FPP, especially in online spaces, centres on laws which target the use of fictional characters specifically. Given that TWs, by definition, utilise pre-existing characters and sometimes depictions of real people, it is difficult to detangle fan works from the intended target of many of these laws, which have largely arisen in response to anonymous deep-fakes, or other imagery created using artificial intelligence (Popova, Reading). Certainly, there are ethical dilemmas worthy of public and legal debate with regards to the likenesses of celebrities and other public figures, used without permission, in sexually explicit renderings. However, when overly restrictive laws are put into place, especially with regards to fictional characters, adults may, intentionally or unintentionally, limit the agency of young people and adults alike to engage in meaningful social commentary and discourse (McLelland 113–115).
Retrospective analysis of existing laws also suggests that they are largely ineffective due to underutilisation, as well as legal loopholes that stop prosecutors from successfully charging social media and Internet sites (Cotterill 27–28). Further, sex workers’ rights and advocacy groups assert that SESTA/FOSTA do more harm than good, taking down Websites these workers use to maintain social networks which can be leveraged to improve safety on the job (Cotterill 28). Legislation also does not appear to recognise, nor express interest in, the voices of young people in online content creation and dissemination, creating legislation based on dominant moral interests of adults as opposed to seeking evidentiary support of real harm (McLelland 107–114).
Investigating Harms of Porno
Perhaps one of the most important questions about porno, including FPP, is whether it actually causes harm, necessitating legislation. Attwood et al. note relatively little academic evidence that access to porno is universally harmful to young people, and identify ways anti-porno discourse misses opportunities to delve into responsible consumption as part of normative sexual development (3753). In a systematic review, Vertongen et al. found that “research has functioned under highly homogenised presumptions about adolescent pornography use and its effects”, meaning results about the potential harms of porno are inconclusive at best (430). These authors discuss that what has been found suggests that adolescent engagement with porno is variable across time, as well as interrelated with sexual and social maturation (433). They also note that, while some adolescents appear to use porno to inform real-life sex practices, this is not without the same speculation and critique used by adults who purport youth need to be protected from that which they do not yet understand (438). On the contrary, youth seem to understand the difference between porno and real-life sex just fine. Lastly, the authors note that when harm is present in the research, it is most often correlated with pre-existing comorbidities and dispositions in relation to violent behaviors (436). In other words, some young people probably shouldn’t consume violent porno, but risk is most prevalent for those who are already predisposed to enact violence for other reasons. There does appear to be some correlation between age of first sex and exposure to porno, though in a recent systematic analysis, Pathmendra et al. explain that most studies showing this contain substantial enough limitations, in both design and measurement, that causal inference cannot be made (5).
It is also important to consider what young people themselves are saying about porno. In a synthesis of thirty qualitative studies on young people and porno, Peterson et al. found use of porno by young people was considered normative, with utilities related to “pleasure, information, and instruction in the absence of sufficient sexuality education” (171). Distress caused by porno was specific to microaggressive, misogynistic, and violent content (195). Youth in the studies analysed reported a lack of spaces to discuss what they viewed with trusted adults, thus leaving little room for corrective experiences when harm did occur (195). To be clear, the issue here was not consumption of porno, but the inability to then discuss with trusted adults. According to Lim et al., in a survey of Australian youth, the majority do believe in some, reasonable legislation, and do recognise that pornography may be harmful to some, but not all, people (668). The majority of support for legislation in the study centred on reducing depictions of violence and increasing the visible use of safer sex practices (668). It should be noted that violence is sometimes a recurring theme in certain genres of FPP. However, in many cases, violence in these pornos is more contextualised (Popova, Dubcon) than it would be in mainstream porno, and can be largely avoided by utilising filters on newer host sites.
With little evidence of universal harm caused by porno, one might ask a secondary question – whether social media, through which FPP is shared, are harmful. Despite popular discourse suggesting they are, research findings are nuanced. According to Valkenburg et al., there is some consensus that active social media use (e.g., engagement) may have benefits over passive social media use (e.g., scrolling), with passive social media use being more apt to cause harm (530–531). Similar to studies about the harms of pornography, however, these authors note that studies about social media use are theoretically flawed and fail to capture the full scope and diversity of use (544). In a qualitative investigation of social media use by young people in Australia, Cooper et al. note scholarly work recognising that “adolescents and young adults develop their identities, aspirations, social supports, and autonomy via online social networks, and nurture intimate peer relationships” (536). These authors also note that online and offline relationships appear interrelated (549–551). All this suggests that social media, like porno, may be playing a normative role in the lives of adolescents, which adults should seek to better understand as opposed to broadly legislating against.
Investigating Benefits of Fan Produced Porno
One potential benefit of FPP is its utility as an educational tool, especially among LGBTQ+ young people. Delmonaco and Haimson found that youth already rely on online spaces, such as those containing FPP, to obtain accurate information about sexual health (832). Gameson et al. investigated the roles of online sex self-education by teens through use of porno vs. classroom education, and found that while straight participants were more likely to search for information on pleasure and entertainment, LGBTQ+ teens were more likely to search for information related to identity discovery, confirmation, and affirmation, things not necessarily covered by school curriculum on sex education (461). Importantly, teens in this study also explored material within both spheres in dynamic ways which built off one another (481–484). This suggests a role for FPP as a dynamic tool, rather than an obstacle to formal education.
McInroy et al. found additional evidence that LGBTQ+ youth utilise online fandoms to more safely explore identities, as well as challenge/transform popular narratives about identities, both through social media discourse and TWs such as FPP. McInroy and Craig found LGBTQ+ youth who participate in fandom also reach identity milestones earlier and quicker and use a broader variety of sexual and gender identity labels (Online 187–191). Further, due to widespread challenges to healthcare access for LGBTQ+ youth, social networks like these appear to be important in circumventing geopolitics in order to receive necessary health care (Edenfield et al.). Dym et al. found that online fanfic spaces also self-organise in a way that supports trauma recovery through the construction of shared narratives, thus additionally offering a structure for informal mental health support (5).
Through qualitative analysis of 3,665 survey respondents, McInroy et al. discovered that, while imperfect, those engaged in online fandom communities found they offered more realistic depictions of queer life and sex than mainstream media (637–638). Using the same data set, McInroy and Craig found that fandom specifically offered LGBTQ+ people safe, customisable experiences which greatly benefit this marginalised population (It’s Like 239–240). These authors noted, even for those who reported fandom did not contribute to LGBTQ+ identity development, fandom participation was seen as valuable (242). Transgender and gender-diverse people specifically appear, through fandom communities and TWs, to explore beyond the “wrong body narrative” to more holistically explore body politics and transgressive experiences of bodies not otherwise represented broadly in media or the classroom (Duggan & Fasekas). This ability to safely explore has real-world implications that translate into medical and mental health interventions, which often rely on an individual’s ability to explore gender and body in order to make informed medical decisions.
There also appears to be a broader societal benefit to FPP. Enriquez and Lippert argue FPP is worthy of both study and archiving, especially given the role of women and gender-diverse people in producing content which presents important dialogues about sexuality and gender, and unquestionably contributes to the proliferation of genres like science fiction in popular media. They specifically cite how once-banned pornographies in the US are now considered commodities among book archivists, arguing that FPP has similar cross-cultural value as an artifact (193). Like others, they note ways in which fandoms increase diverse representation through the production of fan works, something Cook and Joseph note can translate into real-world fan activism that results in changes to mainstream media (56–57).
Conclusion
With little evidence of widespread harm caused by porno broadly, and emerging evidence of the importance of FPP in normative development, education, and representation in the digital age, especially for LGBTQ+ youth, legislators and researchers alike should consider who the rule of law in anti-porno legislation is really protecting. We encourage more reasonable legislation and other safeguards based on evidence, not emotions, drawing on needs expressed by young people themselves, who should be seen as both active consumers and producers of FPP. To accomplish this, better research is needed which considers nuances of porno use, the role of TWs, and the collective perspectives of adolescents who engage with porno. With this, safe consumption of porno, including FPPs, could be incorporated into classrooms and other dialogues with trusted adults, offering a nonpunitive option that may be more effective than legislation which has largely failed.
References
Al-Alosi, Hadeel. “Australia’s Child Abuse Material Legislation: What’s the Artistic Merit Defense Got to Do with It?.” Criminal Law Journal 42.3 (2018): 147-159. <https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20180904001254>.
Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. “Online Safety Act 2021.” Federal Register of Legislation 23 Jan. 2022. <https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text>.
Attwood, Feona, et al. “‘I’m Just Curious and Still Exploring Myself’: Young People and Pornography.” New Media & Society 20.10 (2018): 3738–3759. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818759271>.
Cook, Tanya, and Kaela Joseph. Fandom Acts of Kindness: A Heroic Guide to Activism, Advocacy, and Doing Chaotic Good. Dallas: Smart Pop Books, 2023.
Cooper, Spring Chenoa, et al. “A Qualitative Exploration of Young Australians’ Lived Experiences of Social Media Use and Sexual Agency.” Sexuality & Culture 28.2 (2024): 534–553. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-023-10131-w>.
Cotterill, Diane. “The Impact of Social Media, the Internet, and Legislation on Online Minor Sex Trafficking.” Journal of Digital Life and Learning 3.2 (2023): 18–45. <https://doi.org/10.51357/jdll.v3i2.226>.
Delmonaco, Daniel, and Oliver L. Haimson. “'Nothing That I Was Specifically Looking For’: LGBTQ+ Youth and Intentional Sexual Health Information Seeking.” Journal of LGBT Youth 20.4 (2023): 818-835. <https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2022.2077883>.
Duggan, Jennifer, and Angie Fazekas. “Trans Fandom.” Transformative Works and Cultures 39 (2023). <https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2023.2521>.
Dym, Brianna, et al. “'Coming Out Okay' Community Narratives for LGBTQ Identity Recovery Work.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3 (2019): 1–28. <https://doi.org/10.1145/3359256>.
Edenfield, Avery C., et al. “Always Already Geopolitical: Trans Health Care and Global Tactical Technical Communication." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 49.4 (2019): 433–457. <https://doi.org/10.1177/004728 1619871211>.
Enriquez, Sandy, and Andrew Lippert. “Fandom and Sexuality in the Archives: Collecting Slash Fan Fiction and Yaoi/Boys’ Love Manga.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 31.2 (2020): 182–201. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/27095651>.
Floegel, Diana. “Porn Bans, Purges, and Rebirths: The Biopolitics of Platform Death in Queer Fandoms.” Internet Histories 6.1-2 (2022): 90–112. <https://doi.org/ 10.1080/24701475.2021.1985833>.
Gamson, Joshua, and Rosanna Hertz. “'But Everything Else, I Learned Online': School-Based and Internet-Based Sexual Learning Experiences of Heterosexual and LGBQ+ Youth.” Qualitative Sociology 46.4 (2023): 461–485. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-023-09550-w>.
Hardin, Carolyn. “The Transformable Canon.” Journal of Fandom Studies 11.1 (2023): 59–79. <https://doi.org/10.1386/jfs_00071_1>.
Hunting, Kyra. “Finding the Child Fan: A Case for Studying Children in Fandom Studies.” Journal of Fandom Studies 7.2 (2019): 93–111.
Lim, Megan S.C., et al. “‘Censorship is Cancer’: Young People’s Support for Pornography-Related Initiatives.” Sex Education 21.6 (2021): 660–673. <https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2020.184513>.
McInroy, Lauren B., and Shelley L. Craig. “Online Fandom, Identity Milestones, and Self-Identification of Sexual/Gender Minority Youth.” Journal of LGBT Youth 15.3 (2018): 179–196. <https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2018.1459220>.
McInroy, Lauren B., and Shelley L. Craig. “'It’s Like a Safe Haven Fantasy World': Online Fandom Communities and the Identity Development Activities of Sexual and Gender Minority Youth.” Psychology of Popular Media 9.2 (2020): 236–246. <https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm 0000234>.
McInroy, Lauren B., et al. “Online Fandom Communities as Networked Counterpublics: LGBTQ+ Youths’ Perceptions of Representation and Community Climate.” Convergence 28.3 (2022): 629–647. <https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211032377>.
McLelland, Mark. “Young People, Online Fandom and the Perils of Child Pornography Legislation in Australia.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 22.1 (2019): 102–118. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877917704927>.
Pathmendra, Pranujan, et al. “Exposure to Pornography and Adolescent Sexual Behavior: Systematic Review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 25 (2023): e43116. <https://doi.org/10.2196/43116>.
Peterson, Amy J., et al. “Young People’s Views on Pornography and Their Sexual Development, Attitudes, and Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Qualitative Research.” American Journal of Sexuality Education 18.2 (2023): 171–209. <https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2022.2096163>.
Pilipets, Elena, and Susanna Paasonen. “Nipples, Memes, and Algorithmic Failure: NSFW Critique of Tumblr Censorship.” New Media & Society 24.6 (2022): 1459–1480. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820979280>.
Popova, Milena. Dubcon: Fanfiction, Power, and Sexual Consent. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2021.
Popova, Milena. “Reading Out of Context: Pornographic Deepfakes, Celebrity and Intimacy.” Porn Studies 7.4 (2020): 367–381. <https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2019.1675090>.
United States Congress. “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017.” Senate – Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 115th Congress. <https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693>.
United States Congress. “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017.” House – Judiciary; Energy and Commerce. 115th Congress. <https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865>
Valkenburg, Patti M., et al. “The Associations of Active and Passive Social Media Use with Well-Being: A Critical Scoping Review.” New Media & Society 24.2 (2022): 530–549. <https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211065425>.
Vertongen, Robyn, et al. “Pornography and Adolescents: Unraveling Dominant Research Assumptions.” Porn Studies 9.4 (2022): 430–444. <https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2022.2114532>.