Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

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:
Pixiedust1234 · 24/02/2023 20:11

@Bamboux and @OhYouBadBadKitten and any others, please let me know too if you find any Flowers

LangClegsInSpace · 24/02/2023 20:20

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.

Quite.

beastlyslumber · 24/02/2023 20:22

I said on another thead that this could be the thing to sink MN. No one wants a sex forum with zero safeguards. I cannot understand why MN are sinking their own ship over this. To sell their stupid sex toys! Ffs.

Boomboom22 · 24/02/2023 20:27

Sorry op you are completely right about the term, I don't know what came over me. Images or literature about child abuse.

Whinge · 24/02/2023 20:28

beastlyslumber · 24/02/2023 20:22

I said on another thead that this could be the thing to sink MN. No one wants a sex forum with zero safeguards. I cannot understand why MN are sinking their own ship over this. To sell their stupid sex toys! Ffs.

I think even if it doesn't sink MN, this has certainly altered the site in a way that I don't think will ever be repaired. It would have been a different story had they listened to concerns and taken it out of active shortly after this all started, but the constant dismissal, just hide it, we're listening etc has really left a bitter taste. It's clear that Justine and others don't care about the majority of their users, and i'm not sure there's any way of coming back from this.

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 24/02/2023 20:28

C8H10N4O2 · 24/02/2023 18:48

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.

The fact that these basics - opt in, age verification, prohibited topics eg underage sex - are standard on pretty much all other sites hosting this kind of content but Mumsnet have decided not to bother (it's a forum for grown-ups! So we don't need to worry! Who knows why other sites, also for grown-ups, take the trouble?) makes Mumsnet immediately more attractive to the kind of people who want their sexual content without safeguarding.

Are these the people Mumsnet want on the site? Because they have announced, both in Justine's message today and in Lily's yesterday, that they want Mumsnet to be the most lax and least safe big site for sex chat. That's their active choice, what they prefer for the site. And as people realise that, there will be a whole heap of unintended consequences that all of us Cassandras can see too clearly.

LangClegsInSpace · 24/02/2023 20:30

Rhondaa · 24/02/2023 19:41

Again, false equivalence. Disturbing comparison between a tame board and actual serious crime. Jesus.

People who break TGs are banned and cannot post. Granted some desperate pbps are persistent and return but just report, if they break TGs, they'll be banned again.

Imposing sanctions after something bad has happened doesn't stop it happening in the first place.

Hiding something doesn't stop it happening to other people just because you are no longer personally bothered by it.

BenCoopersSupportWren · 24/02/2023 20:33

Boomboom22 · 24/02/2023 20:27

Sorry op you are completely right about the term, I don't know what came over me. Images or literature about child abuse.

No worries Boomboom22, thanks for being so gracious about it.

OP posts:
justasking111 · 24/02/2023 20:45

Now I'm confused are Mumsnet enabling under age sex?

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 24/02/2023 20:46

justasking111 · 24/02/2023 20:45

Now I'm confused are Mumsnet enabling under age sex?

Descriptions of it, yes.

ComeTheFckOnBridget · 24/02/2023 20:50

What it seems to boil down to is that its time MN upgraded to a contemporary forum rather than one which is unwieldy with topics hiding away under various sections.

At the very least, it could be streamlined. This doesn't necessarily mean deleting boards which are underused but rethinking the grouping of boards. For example, I remember it took me ages to find the "chat" board as it isn't listed under any of the obvious sections.

A more contemporary forum, however, would allow users to more clearly see which sections live where.

LangClegsInSpace · 24/02/2023 20:50

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.

Are you looking at the same topic? There are a couple of threads on page 1 of the sex topic that meet this description but the majority are something else.

justasking111 · 24/02/2023 20:53

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 24/02/2023 20:46

Descriptions of it, yes.

Isn't that a police matter?

ComeTheFckOnBridget · 24/02/2023 21:02

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

TheShellBeach · 24/02/2023 21:06

"Are you looking at the same topic? There are a couple of threads on page 1 of the sex topic that meet this description but the majority are something else"

Quite. And then there's the hook-up thread............. something else entirely.

MassiveWordSalad · 24/02/2023 21:11

What a disappointing reply @JustineMumsnet

If anybody legs it somewhere else that is FWR friendly could you please let me know?

@BenCoopersSupportWren @ProbablyNotAGoodIdea @LangClegsInSpace
@Clymene @beastlyslumber @TangledWebOfDeception

I would be most grateful.

MassiveWordSalad · 24/02/2023 21:15

One card not laid on the table...the collaborations with the Shrek's ear wokebros and Ann Summers, and whether they had any influence on all this.

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 24/02/2023 21:22

justasking111 · 24/02/2023 20:53

Isn't that a police matter?

That's sort of the point of this thread - well the overriding aim is to protect women, but reading the OP's posts shows they're highlighting how badly MN are failing in their duty and responsibility and this does lead to harmful, potentially illegal material getting posted on the site. And deleted hours later, only because some posters regret it apparently. At least one criminal act comitted by an adult man against an underage girl was confessed on that thread - actually described in gloating detail - and MN seem to be saying they don't have a problem with that in itself.

YellowAndGreenToBeSeen · 24/02/2023 21:22

MNHQ are also happy to allow a thread that started as ‘my bloke doesn’t like my selling my soiled clothes online’ but rapidly moved on to ‘where do you sell them and can I sell mine’ (multiple posters). So now - whilst I don’t doubt the OP was genuine - MN is helping women into sex work. Lovely. Can’t imagine the sort of user having a lovely time on that thread.

(I have reported. Got called a ‘spoilsport’ and ‘uptight’ for it …).

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 24/02/2023 21:24

MassiveWordSalad · 24/02/2023 21:15

One card not laid on the table...the collaborations with the Shrek's ear wokebros and Ann Summers, and whether they had any influence on all this.

The only card that makes sense to fill in the blanks between 'we had massive negative feedback and may have been naive in not anticipating the consequences' and 'we're keeping it this way though'

LangClegsInSpace · 24/02/2023 21:26

This page reads like a work of fiction now:

www.mumsnet.com/i/about-us

@JustineMumsnet said in the video:

We put purpose before profits genuinely so we only have five things we want to do and only one of them is about revenue, and even then, it's sustainable revenue. So for us, revenue isn't revenue unless it's something that doesn't harm our community, our brand, our staff. So yes, we're focused, basically we want to make a great thing that offers solutions and makes parents' lives easier, and then if we can make a buck out of it we will. It's not the other way round.

Under 'Our Advertising Policy' the page says:

Mumsnet is a business funded mainly by advertising and we try to be a profitable one but our overarching aim is not the pursuit of profits. We are independently owned and we endeavour to conduct business in an ethical manner.

With this in mind, we won’t accept advertising from companies, for products or in formats that we believe are contrary to our mission – which is to make parents’ lives easier. Examples of the types of advertisers we turn away include payday loan companies, cryptocurrencies, pornographic content, and multi-level marketing schemes. The types of product advertising that we turn down are gambling, follow-on formula milk (designed to avoid the ban on formula milk advertising), and products that we think make women or children feel bad about their bodies or that play on boring gender stereotypes. (my bolds)

TangledWebOfDeception · 24/02/2023 21:28

I do not accept naïveté as a defence anymore. You don’t get to play that card.

justasking111 · 24/02/2023 21:29

Well certain types of media are going to shred us if they go to print. 🙈

beastlyslumber · 24/02/2023 21:30

MassiveWordSalad · 24/02/2023 21:11

What a disappointing reply @JustineMumsnet

If anybody legs it somewhere else that is FWR friendly could you please let me know?

@BenCoopersSupportWren @ProbablyNotAGoodIdea @LangClegsInSpace
@Clymene @beastlyslumber @TangledWebOfDeception

I would be most grateful.

I've already had a couple of invites to somewhere. If it seems like a good place, I'll let you know!

LangClegsInSpace · 24/02/2023 21:37

And speaking of MN staff there will be a lot of lowly mods who are now required to wade through all the grim shit on the sex topic and moderate it in accordance with the new lax standards.

The decision to invite back the hook up thread featured @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet saying 'Have at it! 🍆'

www.mumsnet.com/talk/sex/4659915-deleted-sexchat-thread?page=2&reply=120928194

I wonder how many of the other mods were similarly enthusiastic.