Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

References to underage sex on Sex board

362 replies

BenCoopersSupportWren · 23/02/2023 23:02

I haven’t been following the Sex topics in Active furore too closely, beyond agreeing on one of the early threads that it would be better for the Board to revert to the way it was - out of Active, with a longer qualifying time to be able to post.

However I’ve just read a thread which, on the face of it, is just reminiscing about posters’ ‘first times’ but which includes numerous disclosures of underage sex, including some that involved grooming, and one or two that are genuinely heartbreaking testimonies of child sexual abuse. They are particularly jarring interspersed as they are between end-of-pier type humour and jokes of others’ experience.

As I just posted there: “there is a reason most ‘mainstream’ dedicated end-user sex sites like Literotica, BDSMLR etc don’t allow stories or posts that are explicit about underage sex even when clearly written by adults, and will remove such posts when brought to the moderators’ attention. I used to work in the CJS and I’m afraid to say that such descriptions - even when expressed in short and simple terms - have currency among paedophiles. Part of my job was keeping the video testimony of CSA victims and any associated transcripts locked away so that they didn’t fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately it’s not just explicit photos and videos that they get off to.”

For clarity, by “explicit about underage sex” I mean making specific reference to, not that the material has to be particularly sexually explicit. The exact same thread would simply not be allowed to stand on Literotica’s chat forum, for example.

While there have always been examples in other parts of the site of posters making disclosures of having been abused, that is a very different thing to sharing it in a section that only the most naive or wilfully obtuse would deny will be used in part for titillation. My issue isn’t that the thread is particularly sexually explicit - it mostly isn’t, and I’m pretty broad-minded… in context. But no one could argue that “where did you lose your virginity?” is masquerading as a support / how to / informative thread; it’s for entertainment and kicks only, be the latter humour or a sexual thrill. (A few posters on that thread have been supportive to those who disclosed their abuse, but ‘support’ is clearly not the original purpose of the thread.)

IMO it is extremely remiss of MN to disregard the ‘good practice’ rules that other sex sites maintain for handling material relating to references to underage sex/CSA, both because of the type of person attracted to those sites if such rules aren’t in place and from a liability / arse-covering perspective. This, combined with the lack of any age verification or warning for that part of the site, makes it even more obvious that MN don’t understand what is involved in safely and legally hosting a ‘sex chat site’ or part thereof.

OP posts:
BaroldFromEastenders · 24/02/2023 19:15

And to be clear, this has nothing to do with your collaboration with the makers of Shreks Ear?

nothing against sex toys - everything against a company who thinks “people with wombs”, “vulva owners” and “anyone with a clitoris” are acceptable ways to describe women. But then they do have the MN seal of approval.

timing is all a bit suspect @JustineMumsnet - do you really think we’re that thick?

TangledWebOfDeception · 24/02/2023 19:14

Bamboux · 24/02/2023 19:07

This is exactly the same argument as "we don't need single sex spaces because rapists/predators will go into women's toilets anyway".

No guidelines or rules are watertight. But you can do things that make it easier, or harder, for predatory perverts to prey on people.

Exactly.

What (some) men can get away with, they will do. Every single time an inch is given.

We do NOT need to invite those men in, and SHOULD NOT lay foundations for potentially illegal or immoral behaviour to occur.

kirkandpetal · 24/02/2023 19:12

Where is the Daily Mail etc when you want them? Always quick enough to jump on and steal "bridezilla hell" or "parking wars with next door neighbour" but seemingly quiet so far regrading this explosive topic, unless I have missed something. I smell a MNHQ rat.

TangledWebOfDeception · 24/02/2023 19:11

It shouldn’t matter if there are many of us or not (not directed at what you said, just to be clear, but picking this up naturally from it). This does not require consensus.

These are very important concerns with potentially grave implications. They deserve due consideration to the law AND to what is morally right.

Even if it were only one safeguarding expert calling out the governing of this issue here on this site for women and parents/parenting-focused, at least in part, it should be PROPERLY HEEDED and robustly dealt with, at policy level - not with fluffy sounding quips that amount to very little.

Bamboux · 24/02/2023 19:07

JustWantedToSayThis · 24/02/2023 17:51

Eh? That could be said for trolls in any topic.

Break the guidelines and MN can delete/ban them.

This is exactly the same argument as "we don't need single sex spaces because rapists/predators will go into women's toilets anyway".

No guidelines or rules are watertight. But you can do things that make it easier, or harder, for predatory perverts to prey on people.

Whinge · 24/02/2023 19:07

I'm really disappointed with the response from @JustineMumsnet. I expected to be fobbed off, but at the very least I thought they would agree that the topic should be hidden from active. Sad

It's sad that genuine concerns are being ignored, and I really can't see how MN can come back from this.

BentleyRhythmAce · 24/02/2023 18:59

So disappointed with this dismissal of many users' concerns.

Orcadianrythyms · 24/02/2023 18:58

JustineMumsnet · 24/02/2023 17:20

Hi everyone. Thanks for posting - and sorry for the delay in responding. We’ve been discussing the posts here and on the myriad of threads currently running about the Sex topic pretty much all day.

Cards on the table - we put the Sex topic into Active a few weeks ago and we should have given people the heads up, so they could hide the topic in advance. Since then there has been a huge amount of feedback - most of it negative. Perhaps we’ve been naive in underestimating the impact and potential unintended consequences - to be honest we’d meant for the topic to go into active when we introduced the ‘hide topic’ feature a while back - it was an oversight that we didn’t. Then roughly a year ago we changed the time from registration from 90 days to 7 - we believe this is a sufficient delay to deter trolls and, since this change, we’ve not noticed any increase in trolling on the topic. But we accept there could be a wider knock-on consequence here with the overall tone on the boards and it’s something we’re monitoring closely.

Our primary motivation for putting Sex in Active was, as it always is in these cases, to increase visibility to this part of the site for those who need advice. We know that the sex chat threads have been referenced a lot but the majority of threads on the topic are discussing things we know are important and relevant to a significant percentage of MNers - such as post-partum sex, erectile dysfunction, and lack of sex drive. We wanted people to be able to find these threads and, hopefully, find some useful advice and support. It was never our intention to ‘sex up Mumsnet’ - we believe that sex is a pretty regular part of life and hence threads involving sex have always been posted across the boards.

We certainly acknowledge that the sex chat threads are divisive but we cannot see any evidence that it’s driving more male users to join - as far as we can see the men on the sex board are regulars who’ve been using this forum for some time, it’s just their presence is more visible.

Of course the last thing we want is to encourage a load of sex pests onto Mumsnet and I can promise you that we are monitoring this very closely and will of course have a re-think if we see any evidence of it. We’ve also pinned a notice to the top of the topic asking users not to send unwanted PMs. We’ll ban anyone who does.

The thread referenced in the OP was deleted this morning. We had several reports from posters who said they regret posting and it was clearly making a lot of people very uncomfortable so we took it down.

Please do keep letting us know if you have any particular concerns - I can promise you that every report and every post on Site Stuff is read and carefully considered.

I’ve reported you to yourself!! We all can see you just did this as part of your commercial partnership- but fair play to treating us all as idiots. Just be honest instead of trying to shame folk that they’re just uptight and repressed. Bloody pathetic!

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 24/02/2023 18:57

C8H10N4O2 · 24/02/2023 18:55

We certainly acknowledge that the sex chat threads are divisive but we cannot see any evidence that it’s driving more male users to join - as far as we can see the men on the sex board are regulars who’ve been using this forum for some time, it’s just their presence is more visible

I'm not sure that telling us that "PervyHerb - married looking for hookup with busty blondes" is actually a regular male poster on other topics under a different name is quite the reassurance we are looking for here.

They're not even specifying busty blondes, they are asking for anything female. That's the kind of comment that Justine is apparently very happy to host, for no explicable reason, married men requesting any woman to pass a slow day. It's now in the spirit of MN.

C8H10N4O2 · 24/02/2023 18:55

We certainly acknowledge that the sex chat threads are divisive but we cannot see any evidence that it’s driving more male users to join - as far as we can see the men on the sex board are regulars who’ve been using this forum for some time, it’s just their presence is more visible

I'm not sure that telling us that "PervyHerb - married looking for hookup with busty blondes" is actually a regular male poster on other topics under a different name is quite the reassurance we are looking for here.

BenCoopersSupportWren · 24/02/2023 18:54

Boomboom22 · 24/02/2023 18:49

I think if explicit talk about sex is going to be allowed then age verification will be required in law. Also it's illegal to describe underage sex as it is creating child pornography. I don't think this can be ok without safeguarding measures as its so easy for kids to register and post, also can be read without logging in.

I appreciate your (and other posters’) support for more clarity about MN’s plans for safeguarding in relation to the Sex board. Can I mention though that “child pornography” is a misleading term as it can imply consent, and children can’t consent to make porn. It’s more accurate to refer to “images/descriptions/portrayals [as appropriate] of child sexual abuse”.

OP posts:
lovem · 24/02/2023 18:53

What a strange thing to say. The response has been largely negative so we'll ... keep going?

Blink twice if you're being held hostage @JustineMumsnet!

TangledWebOfDeception · 24/02/2023 18:50

daisychain01 · 24/02/2023 18:28

What a flimsy and low barrier to entry the 7 day registration period is. The previous duration was much more credible and showed that MN took its responsibilities seriously. Very disappointing.

also how can MNHQ determine who their male registrations are? As far as I can recall I've never needed to declare my sex, just email address, so presumably that's just guesswork then? And of course a perv is always going to be honest about who they are, aren't they.....

All of this.

It’s insulting that you’d think we’d be mollified by the ‘we’ve not noticed more male posters’ line. How dumb exactly do you consider us to be?? You have absolutely no way of verifying that.

Boomboom22 · 24/02/2023 18:49

I think if explicit talk about sex is going to be allowed then age verification will be required in law. Also it's illegal to describe underage sex as it is creating child pornography. I don't think this can be ok without safeguarding measures as its so easy for kids to register and post, also can be read without logging in.

LucyLeave · 24/02/2023 18:48

Justine seems more bothered about protecting a handful of regular pervs on the sex board than the hundreds of users who don't want MN used as a hook up site.

C8H10N4O2 · 24/02/2023 18:48

BenCoopersSupportWren · 24/02/2023 17:56

Thank you for responding, @JustineMumsnet.

It reads as though the only reason the thread I reported was removed was because some people regretted posting (perhaps as a response to the post I added, which included the paragraph in quotations in my OP here?), not because you recognised that allowing a thread started for entertainment purposes only to stand which included both disclosures of having been the victim of child rape and, in at least one instance, having been the perpetrator of unlawful sexual activity with a child, was completely inappropriate.

If those posters hadn’t had their attention drawn to the ‘value’ of such descriptions to paedophiles and not regretted posting, would the thread have been left to run?

Is there a reason why you think MN’s Sex board should be exempt from the fairly basic safeguards which most other dedicated sex forums which allow chat between users on a publicly visible board - the ones I’m aware of, anyway - utilise? Age verification, a list of prohibited topics (which almost always includes underage sex), active moderation?

I'm in agreement with your posts and would also like an answer to the last paragraph.

My experience of moderating on groups which allowed sexual content was at core and assurance of basic consent management. This meant age verification, appropriate warnings, fully opt-in so that you couldn't see the discussions if you were not logged in as an age verified user who had selected to read the NSFW content. Opting in was easy but it was intentional so that members did not fall over the content because their log in had time out or a cookie wasn't set.

There were clear explanations of the type of content for anyone interested to check out before opting in. There were very clear rules on what was not allowed (underage is banned pretty much everywhere with zero tolerance). Those sections were also actively moderated rather than retroactively moderated and by a subset of volunteer mods - that proved essential to keep it a healthy and functional subject.

I hope the mods on MN who are having to wade through some of the content on the sex topic are volunteers and not just rota'd.

All of this was pretty standard minimum for any site or group hosting explicit sexual content.

lummsnet · 24/02/2023 18:39

BenCoopersSupportWren · 24/02/2023 17:56

Thank you for responding, @JustineMumsnet.

It reads as though the only reason the thread I reported was removed was because some people regretted posting (perhaps as a response to the post I added, which included the paragraph in quotations in my OP here?), not because you recognised that allowing a thread started for entertainment purposes only to stand which included both disclosures of having been the victim of child rape and, in at least one instance, having been the perpetrator of unlawful sexual activity with a child, was completely inappropriate.

If those posters hadn’t had their attention drawn to the ‘value’ of such descriptions to paedophiles and not regretted posting, would the thread have been left to run?

Is there a reason why you think MN’s Sex board should be exempt from the fairly basic safeguards which most other dedicated sex forums which allow chat between users on a publicly visible board - the ones I’m aware of, anyway - utilise? Age verification, a list of prohibited topics (which almost always includes underage sex), active moderation?

So much this.

daisychain01 · 24/02/2023 18:28

What a flimsy and low barrier to entry the 7 day registration period is. The previous duration was much more credible and showed that MN took its responsibilities seriously. Very disappointing.

also how can MNHQ determine who their male registrations are? As far as I can recall I've never needed to declare my sex, just email address, so presumably that's just guesswork then? And of course a perv is always going to be honest about who they are, aren't they.....

Clymene · 24/02/2023 18:18

Thank you for your response Justine. I've just cancelled my Premium membership as a result.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 24/02/2023 18:18

I don't find your arguments to keep it in active, nor 7 days registration very logical I'm afraid @JustineMumsnet How can people get support from it if people have to hide it not to have it in their faces all the time.

If there's not support for it, then why persist?

As others have asked, are you going to move all topics into active (unless of course they are a thread more than 30 days old, then they can now never been in active)

I'm going to think long and hard this weekend about whether I'm going to stay part of MN. It's not a decision I take likely, I've been here since almost the very start and have met wonderful friends through here. But I don't want my reputation to be associated with a site that does not take this seriously.

We've all told you how it makes us feel and how it will make others feel. If that is to be disregarded, if you are going to stick stubbornly with a plan that tarnishes the reputation of MN and therefore it's users, then I think I may need to leave. I'm only hanging in by a thread at present, because I'd be incredibly sad to lose the community of weather lovers that has built up.

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 24/02/2023 18:08

There's also such a disconnect in Justine saying 'the last thing we want to do is attract sex pests' in the same post as she says it's imperative to increase the visibility on the site of sex chat and threads about fleshlights.

TangledWebOfDeception · 24/02/2023 18:00

BenCoopersSupportWren · 24/02/2023 17:56

Thank you for responding, @JustineMumsnet.

It reads as though the only reason the thread I reported was removed was because some people regretted posting (perhaps as a response to the post I added, which included the paragraph in quotations in my OP here?), not because you recognised that allowing a thread started for entertainment purposes only to stand which included both disclosures of having been the victim of child rape and, in at least one instance, having been the perpetrator of unlawful sexual activity with a child, was completely inappropriate.

If those posters hadn’t had their attention drawn to the ‘value’ of such descriptions to paedophiles and not regretted posting, would the thread have been left to run?

Is there a reason why you think MN’s Sex board should be exempt from the fairly basic safeguards which most other dedicated sex forums which allow chat between users on a publicly visible board - the ones I’m aware of, anyway - utilise? Age verification, a list of prohibited topics (which almost always includes underage sex), active moderation?

Quoting because I agree with all of this. My previous reply concentrated on the Active threads debacle but the issues raised here in this comment are FAR more important and answers from @JustineMumsnet needs to be properly ROBUST, not just a bit of a fobbing off.

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 24/02/2023 17:58

BenCoopersSupportWren · 24/02/2023 17:56

Thank you for responding, @JustineMumsnet.

It reads as though the only reason the thread I reported was removed was because some people regretted posting (perhaps as a response to the post I added, which included the paragraph in quotations in my OP here?), not because you recognised that allowing a thread started for entertainment purposes only to stand which included both disclosures of having been the victim of child rape and, in at least one instance, having been the perpetrator of unlawful sexual activity with a child, was completely inappropriate.

If those posters hadn’t had their attention drawn to the ‘value’ of such descriptions to paedophiles and not regretted posting, would the thread have been left to run?

Is there a reason why you think MN’s Sex board should be exempt from the fairly basic safeguards which most other dedicated sex forums which allow chat between users on a publicly visible board - the ones I’m aware of, anyway - utilise? Age verification, a list of prohibited topics (which almost always includes underage sex), active moderation?

I really, really hope you get a direct response from MN about this. I very much doubt you will.

beastlyslumber · 24/02/2023 17:57

Is there a reason why you think MN’s Sex board should be exempt from the fairly basic safeguards which most other dedicated sex forums which allow chat between users on a publicly visible board - the ones I’m aware of, anyway - utilise? Age verification, a list of prohibited topics (which almost always includes underage sex), active moderation?

This is a really good question and deserves an answer, please.

BenCoopersSupportWren · 24/02/2023 17:56

Thank you for responding, @JustineMumsnet.

It reads as though the only reason the thread I reported was removed was because some people regretted posting (perhaps as a response to the post I added, which included the paragraph in quotations in my OP here?), not because you recognised that allowing a thread started for entertainment purposes only to stand which included both disclosures of having been the victim of child rape and, in at least one instance, having been the perpetrator of unlawful sexual activity with a child, was completely inappropriate.

If those posters hadn’t had their attention drawn to the ‘value’ of such descriptions to paedophiles and not regretted posting, would the thread have been left to run?

Is there a reason why you think MN’s Sex board should be exempt from the fairly basic safeguards which most other dedicated sex forums which allow chat between users on a publicly visible board - the ones I’m aware of, anyway - utilise? Age verification, a list of prohibited topics (which almost always includes underage sex), active moderation?

OP posts: