Etsy Banned Sex Toys, But It Can’t Ban Sex

This story was originally published on Forbes.com in August 2024.

Etsy, the e-commerce platform, prohibited the sale of sex toys as of July 29, 2024. In a June 27, 2024, public letter entitled “Strengthening Our Approach to Mature Content on Etsy,” Etsy Vice President of Trust and Safety Alice Wu announced the platform had updated its Adult Nudity and Sexual Content policy. The updates included limiting the sale of adult toys sold on the site, prohibiting realistic depictions of nudity, and imposing stricter criteria for listings featuring mature content. According to Etsy’s updated policy on adult content, pornography (including Playboy magazine) is prohibited, human models cannot expose their private parts (which includes their “gluteal clefts”), and the sale of sexual services and custom “content that sexualizes a specific body part” (“‘e.g. foot pics’”) are not allowed. Perhaps most impactfully, Etsy prohibited the sale of adult toys except for “non-insertable and non-penetrable adult toys and sexual accessories.”

For sellers who specialized in selling sex toys, the potential consequences were catastrophic. On X (formerly Twitter), Simply Elegant Glass, which sells, among other products, glass adult toys, lamented the decision in an open letter to Etsy. “It's hard to run a business oriented around adult products,” the thread noted. The “blanket ban” was “the lazy solution.” Now, they added, “Everything we've built on your platform will be completely nullified in 30 short days.” Free Speech Director of Public Policy Mike Stabile, wondered: “Do adults get to exist on the web or nah?” In Wu’s public letter, she asserted: “Our policies are designed to protect our global community, and maintain our position as the destination for truly special, creative goods.” But for Etsy sellers of adult toys and mature product who had long seen Etsy as a sex positive marketplace, the revised rules felt like a personal betrayal.

So, what does the new supposedly de-eroticized Etsy product landscape look like? With some sellers pivoting in how their more mature wares are sold, the platform’s products aren’t exactly wholly G-rated. A search for “sex toys” produced a plethora of listings for miniature “dong” adult toys for use in dollhouses ($4), a 7-inch carved obsidian “penis model” ($64.08), a black silicone head hood with a silicone vagina where the mouth would be ($337.69), a rainbow-colored Nicolas Cage “penis figurine” ($8), and a “Ceramic Dildo Sensual Sculpture” ($91.73). While Etsy had expressly prohibited “Materials produced by pornographic publishers (e.g. Playboy, Brazzers),” including “vintage adult magazines and films,” there were numerous Playboy magazines for sale on the platform. As for a search for “porn,” that yielded no listings at all. “We couldn't find any results for porn,” the productless-product page read. “Try searching for something else instead?”, it suggested helpfully.

Ironically, as a New York Times article, “Etsy vs. Sex,” pointed out, celebrities are having better luck hawking their erotic wares to consumers. On Gwyneth Paltrow’s goop platform, one can buy a double-sided wand vibrator ($95), a “TEACH ME A LESSON” ruler ($20), and a bottle of something called a “sex serum” ($24). According to a July 31, 2024, Etsy Inc. investor relations report, the company’s second-quarter consolidated net income was $53 million, which was down $8.9 million from last year. So far, it remains to be seen how the removal of the platform’s once copious adult and mature product listings will effect the bottom line.

About | My Book I Newsletter I X I Instagram I LinkedIn I Consulting I Email

And the Eye in the Sky Is Watching Us All

If you haven’t yet read Kashmir Hill’s frightening peek into the monetization of facial recognition, do: “The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It.” What if there was nowhere in the world you could hide?

“‘It’s creepy what they’re doing, but there will be many more of these companies. There is no monopoly on math,’ said Al Gidari, a privacy professor at Stanford Law School. ‘Absent a very strong federal privacy law, we’re all screwed.’”

Like what I do? Support my work! Buy my digital short story: THE TUMOR.

Hulk v Gawk, Ad Infinitum

But, wait! There's more. Can't get enough Hulk v Gawk? Here's the latest.

One of the jurors posted to Facebook:

Those of you that know me know I take the Bill of Rights pretty seriously. This was a clear case of invasion of privacy and Gawker cloaking themselves in the 1st amendment was insulting at best.

Denton remains confident that he'll prevail on appeal:

The number was eye-popping. But in an interview on Tuesday, Denton simply called it "an indication of the strength of the jury's feelings."

Hulk claims he and Denton met at the urinal.

The same firm represents Gawker and the New Yorker, so what does the latter have to say?

“Newsworthy” is not the same as high-minded, and while many publications would not choose to publish a sex tape, the term can conceivably protect one.

Gawker alum Elizabeth Spiers reports Denton will be appearing on "The View":

Gawker's Denton to Appear on 'The View' | Broadcasting & Cable: https://t.co/oIyqfUeQA6

— Elizabeth Spiers (@espiers) March 23, 2016

Hulk v Gawk Ad Nauseum

Now that this stage of Hulk v Gawk is over, some folks have finally written some stuff worth reading.

Definitely check out Noah Feldman's take on Bloomberg View:

Hogan offered the highly original argument to the jury that his public persona and his private one could be divorced, so that his public statements were irrelevant. But although this argument may possibly say something about the inner life of celebrities, it isn’t one the First Amendment would allow. Public figures can’t escape their special constitutional status by saying that deep down, they’re really shy.

Denton himself just dropped a truth bomb at Gawker:

Hogan’s attorneys played this state circuit court trial as a popularity contest between the local celebrity and the miscreants from New York. It was as staged as a professional wrestling bout, with victory of the crowd favorite over the “deviant” bloggers—who were held responsible for internet pornography, the dangers of search engines to children, and the indecency of what Hogan’s attorney Ken Turkel described as “Fifth Avenue” publishers—ordained from the start. It was a classic obscenity trial disguised as a test of a person’s right to privacy.

As usual, Penenberg has an interesting point to consider, which he parses on Twitter:

One of the interesting issues that arises from the Hulk Hogan-Gawker verdict is the description of the sex tape v the actual video.

— Adam L. Penenberg (@Penenberg) March 22, 2016

The NYT chats up legal scholars on the matter and John Herrman whines annoyingly:

In the last few years, digital news sites with ambition — even the ones, like Gawker, that had originally hailed themselves as being anti-establishment — have undergone something of a self-correction. Vivid videos of random bedroom romps are out; a little bit of privacy is in.

I'll offer my view tomorrow.

Hulk v Gawk Continues ...

In today's edition of Bollea v Gawker, the court watched a video of Heather Clem's deposition, in which she wept while recounting the details behind her videotaped sexual encounter with Hulk Hogan.

"I was asked to go to Mr. Bollea's room by my husband, and I did," Clem said, using Hogan’s real name, Terry Bollea.

Her recollection contradicted Hogan’s own testimony that Clem had hounded him for sex during a time when he was particularly vulnerable because of his divorce from Linda Hogan.

"Did Mr. Clem generally pick who you had sex with?" she was asked during the deposition shown to the St. Petersburg, Fla., jury.

"On the occasion that I had sex with someone other than him, yes," Clem replied.

When she realized Bubba had recorded her with Hogan she became upset and demanded the video be destroyed, Clem said. 

[NYDN]

Gawker Trial, Day Seven

I'm tuned in to day seven of Hulk Hogan vs Gawker Media, livestreamed on Gawker, of course. Currently, publisher Nick Denton is on the stand. Denton just opined of the sex tape post: "I believe it stands up to the test of time."

Gawker Trial, Day Whatever

I spent some time this morning watching a live feed of the Hulk Hogan vs Gawker Media sex tape trial of the moment. According to Reuters, one of the highlights was a debate over whether or not "Mr Bollea's penis had" any "news value." Watching the editor who wrote the post get sweated on the stand mostly made me just feel bad. Like, OMGSEX. On the one hand, I feel bad for the Hulk. On the other hand, the prosecution makes you feel like sexual curiosity is the most pathological thing possible. People are curious about others' sex lives. This is human nature. I keep flipflopping on who I think will win. Ideologically, I'm with Gawker, but they're not doing themselves any favors in the deposition department. I'm curious to see how this ends.

A Funny Thing Happened

Last weekend, our second weekend of performances, I started to get better at improv. The tide turned for me when it was my turn to sing a song during Country Jam, and the endowment from the audience was FBI agent. As the other players went, I scrambled in my head to think of an idea. A song about a federal agent who goes to Colombia to acquire cocaine and screw hookers, perhaps? It started to get confusing. To make it worse, someone else stepped forward to sing a song about Female Body Inspectors. Now, I was next. I should point out, BTW, that this was during the "for adults" later show on Saturday night. This doesn't mean everything is a dick joke. It does mean every other thing is a dick joke. Well, not really. But there were some amusing jokes about Bruce Jenner, and boobs, and whores. In any case, as it was time for me to step out and sing my song -- I should add here that I cannot sing, sound terrible singing, and am a bad singer -- I was reminded of that wise old adage: go with what you know. So I sang a song about a federal agent who watches porn on the job all day, and his favorites included "Barely Legal" and something I made up on the spot called "Wet and Lovely." The lesson here, I believe, is to be yourself and be someone else at the same time. That way you can do what you love and do something very badly, and through some odd magic, it might turn out right.

Check out THE TUMOR! "This is one of the weirdest, smartest, most disturbing things you will read this year."

Graphic Tattoos

Porn star Stoya has a blog: Graphic Descriptions.

Here, in Paris, she shows off her new tattoo:

"Jessa tattooed me; 'Negative Impact on Public Health,' quoted from the 9th circuit’s decision to uphold Measure B. The catalyst for both my politics and my writing, under my skin.

I think it’s important to remember—how I felt reading that ruling, that to parts of the world I and all sex workers will always be reduced to inhuman vectors of disease and societal ill."

[Stoya]

What Girls Are Made Of

This Girl is Made of Gunpowder and Lead. Women's Second Amendment Pink T-Shirt. BUY HERE--> http://t.co/y52JMhOQfi pic.twitter.com/jkj0b8Qbdq

— Sons of Liberty Tees (@sonslibertytees) February 7, 2014

Art, Nailed

"A video taken using a handheld camera and posted online moments later shows tourists gawping as he sits on the ground. A police car arrives, and an officer orders the man to get up. But the man cannot get up – because he is attached to the icy cobbles with a single, long nail that is driven through his scrotum and into the stones below."

[Guardian]

Here Comes Trouble

"State regulators cited a Bay Area-based adult film company over workplace safety violations, assessing fines of more than $78,000.

Cal-OSHA opened an investigation into San Francisco-based Kink Studios, which runs a network of sites, in August, in response to a complaint filed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

The foundation's complaint related to a July 31 shoot involving actress Cameron Bay, who tested positive for HIV shortly thereafter, bringing filming in the adult industry briefly to a halt. The complaint said the production involved acts 'considered high-risk for the transmission of HIV.'"

[LA Times]

THAT'S OBSCENE

Obscenity Rules

From a review of Whitney Strub's Obscenity Rules: Roth v. United States and the Long Struggle over Sexual Expression in the Wall Street Journal:

It shouldn't be surprising that progressives have certain visions of a good society and are willing to suppress speech in pursuing them. Such liberal objectives aren't different in kind from the desire to maintain a culture with limits on the expression of sexual vulgarity, a desire once expressed on both the left and right. Neither objective is anti-intellectual; both involve large aspirations that aren't reducible to arguments about short-term empirical evidence. Mr. Strub's simplistic left-right frame notwithstanding, "Obscenity Rules" shows that both liberals and conservatives are often willing to subordinate freedom of speech in their quest for what they believe to be a decent moral order.

[WSJ]