Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask supporters of porn to read this

608 replies

SmileEachDay · 29/10/2019 16:25

meaww.com/missing-teen-adult-video-pornhub-modelhub-snapchat-periscope

A missing 15 year old girl was spotted in videos hosted by Pornhub. Those of you who are “ok” with porn - are you “ok” with this?

The sentence the man involved in making the videos is for another thread, but is shocking.

OP posts:
SmileEachDay · 01/11/2019 17:07

@PBo83 I still really want you to explain to me why women and girls aren’t a class...

OP posts:
PBo83 · 01/11/2019 17:38

@smileeachday They are a 'class' in terms of being a classification of people based on a common attribute. Your use of 'class' however was quite clearly an attempt at dividing men and women on a level other than sex. So, yes, you're right, you can use sex to differentiate 'class' but the addition of 'class' rather than just saying "girls and women" is clearly an attempt to make this issue a female vs male issue and thus garner the support of the 'anti men' brigade.

Lessthanzero · 01/11/2019 17:41

Why do the other industries also not require banning?

Because the exploitation of women is one of a whole host of issues with porn.

BertrandRussell · 01/11/2019 17:42

“ is clearly an attempt to make this issue a female vs male issue and thus garner the support of the 'anti men' brigade.”
It’s perfectly usual and neutral to use “class” to mean “group or category” Men as a class behave or are treated in this way, women as a class behave or are treated in that way. No value judgement at all- just a debating short cut.

SmileEachDay · 01/11/2019 17:45

PBo83

Porn hurts women and girls both individually and as a class, is what I said.

I absolutely believe it hurts the female class in ways specific to them.

I don’t know what you mean by “anti man brigade” - I am no such thing and I’d thank you not to make assumptions about my motivation. 👍🏻

OP posts:
PBo83 · 01/11/2019 17:51

OK, maybe I misunderstood the use of the word 'class' but I did feel it was an unnecessary addition to "women and girls". That said, if you genuinely believe that porn is a massive issue then it's classless (I.e. there are men/boys involved as much as women/girls).

BertrandRussell · 01/11/2019 17:52

Porn hurts men and boys as a class differently to the way it hurts women and girls

SmileEachDay · 01/11/2019 17:54

OK, maybe I misunderstood the use of the word 'class' but I did feel it was an unnecessary addition to "women and girls". That said, if you genuinely believe that porn is a massive issue then it's classless (I.e. there are men/boys involved as much as women/girls)

The issues porn causes for the female class are specific to that class. It is not classless - I do actually believe it causes issues for the male class also but they are different.

Thinking about damage for individuals v classes of people is really important, IMO.

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 01/11/2019 18:03

I promise that @SmileEachDay and I are not the same person. There are at least 2 of us that share this view.....

PBo83 · 01/11/2019 18:11

I promise that @SmileEachDay and I are not the same person. There are at least 2 of us that share this view

I don't think anyone believes your the same person. It's perfectly possible for two different people to express the same view (whilst simultaneously insulting, in a very offensive way, the many MANY people who may not agree with you). But, hey, you planted your flag on the moral high ground so you must be right eh?

SmileEachDay · 01/11/2019 18:13

whilst simultaneously insulting, in a very offensive way, the many MANY people who may not agree with you)

What have I said that is insulting? I mean “rape apologist” is insulting, but in the case of the poster I levelled it at, also true.

OP posts:
PBo83 · 01/11/2019 18:20

I've been called a 'rape apologist' on this thread with no good reason. Not sure if it was you but, even if it wasn't, I've not seen ANY actual 'apologists' on this thread

frostedviolets · 01/11/2019 18:23

What have I said that is insulting?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the outright accusation that everyone who watches porn clearly doesn't care one iota for the wellbeing of abused women?!?!

No one here is in support of abuse.

That would be why we are all calling for greater regulation (in all areas,not just porn) to stamp out abuse and protect vulnerable people...

SmileEachDay · 01/11/2019 18:23

PBo83 it wasn’t me. I’ve said that three times, all to the same poster and have reported each time.

OP posts:
PBo83 · 01/11/2019 18:26

@SmileEachDay OK, cool. In which case, I'm sorry as I thought it was you.

SmileEachDay · 01/11/2019 18:28

No worries Smile

OP posts:
PBo83 · 01/11/2019 18:30

@smileeveryday We still disagree though....Grrrrr! Grin

BertrandRussell · 01/11/2019 18:31

Frankly, if you’re insulted by the suggestion that you might be colluding with exploitation or trafficking, that’s your problem, not mine. The moral high ground you refer to is pretty bloody low, to be honest. “This thing I like, but in no way need, is potentially exploitative. Fair enough- I won’t do it any more”

JamieVardysHavingAParty · 01/11/2019 18:37

I notice chocolate and similar keep coming up again and again in this thread, and it's beginning to really bother me

A lot of the phrasing implies to me that the writer themselves don't make an effort to seek out fair-trade chocolate or coffee, have never even heard of the Good Shopping Guide and do fuck-all to think about the impact of their shopping habits. And because that is their approach, they assume the rest of us are gormless ostriches too.

If I'm wrong, I do apologise.

If I'm right, go and buy yourself some Tony's Chocolate. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony's_Chocolonely

PBo83 · 01/11/2019 18:37

Frankly, if you’re insulted by the suggestion that you might be colluding with exploitation or trafficking, that’s your problem, not mine. The moral high ground you refer to is pretty bloody low, to be honest. “This thing I like, but in no way need, is potentially exploitative. Fair enough- I won’t do it any more”

So you live 'off grid', grow your own food, make your own clothes and have never bought imported goods? Oh...and you've never (NEVER) looked at anything photographic? Never?

Well done.

I wish I could be as virtuous as you. Of course I don't need to, I just need to say I am and suddenly I'm a superior human being Hmm

SlightlyWizened · 01/11/2019 18:39

By disagreeing and arguing our case we are 'insulting' you?

So bad things happen in other industries so it's ok to carry on using any and all of them? Is that what you're saying?
I try and avoid products and services that I know or even just suspect use exploitation. Many MN users avoid well known products and services because of their reputation.
As I said upthread paedophilia, rape, murder, have happened for millennia that isn't an argument for them to continue. Likewise pornography and now it's worse because of the internet. Throughout history women in particular have borne the brunt of sexual exploitation, violence and commodification. Times change, society moves on, practices that were normal 2000 years ago and more are regarded today with horror. I'm looking forward to the day that applies to the sexual exploitation of anyone but particularly women and girls.

BertrandRussell · 01/11/2019 18:42

I try very hard not to contribute or exploitation or trafficking. I know perfectly well that I do, and I don’t get insulted by people pointing out my failures. But fuck me- I’d be ashamed of not doing the really easy stuff!

SmileEachDay · 01/11/2019 18:45

You know, there’s a thought that keeps coming back to me.

I’ve been raped, as have many other women I care about.

If that was on film, for ever, and I knows people were wanking over it, getting turned on by it..the violation that I would feel is indescribable.

I’ve also been in many situations where I’ve had sex but it’s been in some way coerced. If that was on film, forever..again, it would be a repeating violation.

I cannot get my head round anyone continuing to want to consume that, even if they did want tighter regulation. I can’t understand why you’d risk being part of it.

I don’t get it.

OP posts:
SlightlyWizened · 01/11/2019 18:56

Anyway anyone is perfectly entitled to object to and feel strongly about specific things. I really dislike the use of plastic and try to avoid it as much as I can. It's something I feel strongly about. I don't give money to Unicef although I know there are children suffering the world over. I don't volunteer for my local food bank although I know poor families are in need and I don't have ten rescue cats although I know Battersea is full of them.
To me that's another false argument.
I do have a general strong feeling that I want women and girls to stop being exploited especially sexually.

TomPinch · 01/11/2019 19:20

@CravingCheese

Anyhow, laws aren't necessarily limited by a state's territory. At least not in an absolute manner.
It's absolutely possible to criminalise certain acts committed abroad (treason, terrorism, pedophilia...) and to prosecute the perpetrators... which has indeed been done.

Laws generally only apply in the jurisdiction that makes them. Yes it's possible (in the UK at least) to criminalise acts that happen outside the jurisdiction (e.g. Gary Glitter) but that's irrelevant if the person concerned never enters the UK. If a website showing clear abuse is located in, say, Kazakhstan, the people behind it won't get prosecuted in a British court (unless they happen to be in Britain).

Or you can prosecute people in the UK who download objectionable material, regardless of where the server is located. But that only works if the material is, on the face of it, clearly criminal, for example, child abuse. I don't see how you draft a law that wouldn't potentially criminalise anyone who uses sites like Pornhub, even if they would be horrified to discover the video they got off involved abuse. And that would be absurd, because such a law would become an immediate dead letter unless the government intends to start prosecuting millions of people (which won't happen either). So regardless of whether that is right or wrong I simply don't see how it could happen.

Not to mention how do you stop material like this being spread in the first place so women don't have to fear reliving the very worst moment of their lives every time they switch on a computer or a phone. To my mind, that's the most important thing of all. The victims rights should be put first. If it had to be a choice between prosecuting people who spread abuse videos and simply preventing dissemination of videos I believe the victims would choose the second - and right now it's simply impossible to do this.

The only way you do it is by imposing firewalls along state lines, like China has (and Russia is beginning to have). That is to say, if you want to view whateverdodgyxxxwebsite.com hosted in Mongolia, well tough, you can't.

And yes, you can also make the same points regarding online purchases e.g. clothes. If you want to prevent purchases of clothes from factories that exploit their workers, you basically have to ban them. This is way bigger than porn.

So I think it's true to say that it's impossible to regulate porn that doesn't, on the face of it, clearly record abuse. And this will not change until the Internet starts to split up, something that I think is starting to happen.