<i>Hostile and Saw film franchises are direct outcomes of insex</i><p>Absurd. I&#x27;m sure it was an influence, but let&#x27;s not forget that the century kicked off with videos of things like Al Qaeda terrorists sawing off Daniel Pearl&#x27;s head and horrific ethnic cleansing abuses in the Balkans. To think that these would not have been on Eli Roth&#x27;s radar and ascribe it all to a porn site strains credulity.<p><i>legally-dangerous aspects (plots&#x2F;scripts)</i><p>Do please explain your theory of what makes these legally dangerous. I am sure you have more legal knowledge than I, a law school dropout, but I&#x27;m interested enough censorship and first amendment issues that this claims seems highly questionable.<p>Also, it&#x27;s wrong unless it&#x27;s based on some very recent news. I may as well admit I&#x27;m somewhat into SM myself and so I&#x27;m familiar with Kink.com&#x27;s output, though I don&#x27;t consume much porn. Last time I looked they were still doing things with plots, albeit the very rudimentary plots that amount to little more than verbal foreplay to set up the scene for the sexual activity. Now, I have no professional or personal relationship with them (although I have loose acquaintances with several people who have worked or performed for the firm) and don&#x27;t find their offerings very erotic, but I fail to see why you would think it falls outside the bounds of first amendment protection, unless you are of the opinion that no sane person could consent to engage in sadomasochistic practices.