Girls Do Porn

If you have ever been on PornHub you may have heard of the channel, Girls Do Porn, which was very popular when it was available online. Girls Do Porn is a porn production company that is being sued by twenty-two women, all who claim that they were told that their videos would not appear online. The production company now has to pay millions of dollars in damages for coercing women into porn, among other charges, and the owner is facing child pornography charges too. PornHub did not remove the content until recent months, even though the court case was going on for a long time before its removal from the site. However, streaming services like PornHub do not appear to care about whether these videos are available legally or illegally through their sites. The viewers do not seem to care either, that these production companies – who admit to lying to women so that they film sex scenes – either. Girls Do Porn is not an outlier in the porn industry, because that is not how this industry works. This case, however, reveals something more sinister and it is that coerced content is big money in this industry. 

 

The basic setup of the videos revolved around women performing sexual intercourse in the format of the casting couch (which was really a bed) or in more colloquial terms the videos focused on amateur girls having sex on video for the first time. The company continued producing content and recruiting more women into the business, even as the trial was ongoing, meanwhile one of the company’s videographers was testifying about being told to lie to women about the distribution of their films. These women were promised that the videos they were coerced into filming would not be posted online or widely distributed. They were told the videos they recorded would be available through a limited DVD release, yet they were immediately uploaded onto the internet, including porn streaming services. The company’s owner, Michael Pratt, main videographer, Matthew Wolfe and main director and actor, Ruben “Andre” Garcia, were all accused of proposing these films as modelling work, not porn, then in the hotel rooms these women were coerced into having sex on camera.

 

Girls Do Porn was a ‘Pornhub Content Partner’, they had a contractual agreement that benefited both companies, through the channel and the streaming service gaining views and advertising. The website can be taken down and streaming services can remove the company’s content from their websites, however, Pornhub still holds videos produced by Girls Do Porn. It’s not just Pornhub, if you look hard enough on XVideos and xHamster, you will find content by Girls Do Porn. These videos had millions of views. It just goes to show that very few care if it is coerced content at the end of the day. What is deemed to be good content to the uploader totally negates any ethical implications. These platforms are dependent on user reports to moderate their site. On Pornhub it puts the claimant at risk, too. The DMCA request means the copyright owner’s name is released in lieu of the disabled content and becomes public record. The claimant’s filing can also be forwarded to the uploader which puts them at risk. This could be an abuse survivor, a victim of revenge porn or someone finding non-consensual videos being leaked. Even the women pressing charges were doxxed and harassed by viewers of Girls Do Porn using forums like PornWikiLeaks. 

 

As a ‘Pornhub Content Partner’ these videos would be publicly promoted for years and would gain tens of millions of views. Michael Pratt, Matthew Wolfe and Ruben “Andre” Garcia have now been charged with sex trafficking by force, coercion and fraud. The administrative assistant, Valerie Moser, was charged with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking alongside Pratt, Wolfe and Garcia. The company is not an embodiment of the entire industry; these women were filmed then exploited for money. Girls Do Porn, in reality was a criminal operation, and it shines a light on this very dark area of pornography. This area is also becoming increasingly normalised. It suggests how coercion has been accepted on these porn streaming services, it is desirable, and is even anticipated in scripted scenes from legitimate production companies. 

 

It must also be remembered that the women suing Girls Do Porn are not representative of porn actors. Against the perpetuated narrative in mainstream culture, pornography is perceived as the problem, and it is not. The problem that is being exposed here is exploitation. There needs to be further discussion on the porn industry – both those taking part in the process of producing it and those consuming it. 

 

There have been several attempts at banning the Girls Do Porn content online. Reddit has banned r/girlsdoporn. It was a popular subreddit for posting and reposting Girls Do Porn links and clips. The company has also been prohibited from using or distributing any of the plaintiffs’ likeness and videos. Although, these attempts are rather futile, because these videos are still easy to find. With searches on Pornhub, XVideos and xHamster, there were hundreds of listings. You can even find them in compilation videos. It is quite a popular genre on Pornhub as it showcases a particular fetish or performer. These types of videos can help users bypass the system which is trying to remove the videos of the plaintiffs. 

 

Did this case have any impact on Girls Do Porn or its streaming partners? No. These companies are still generating millions of views. These videos even come with ad revenue. There are people who are still trying to upload Girls Do Porn content to the internet. This is a reminder of how there is profit to be made off of abuse – scripted and non-scripted. These videos that focus on coercion, or revenge porn, is a significant part of these pornographic streaming services. These sites are dependent on non-consensual pornography since they are widely popular with its viewers, and in turn, the site owners. It is cheap to produce and even free with users uploading pirated content. Girls Do Porn shows that there is no reason why these sites would want to remove its extremely profitable content no matter the source.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *