References to underage sex on Sex board

[BenCoopersSupportWren]

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.

Most MNetters who do the sex board say they don't see the need for the threads to show in active threads.

Most MNetters who don't use the sex board say they don't see the need for btw threads to show in active threads.

So it's hard to understand the motivation behind ignoring the preference of the majority of users, both those who use the sex board and those who don't.

I'm not sure the reasoning has been properly communicated? You say that it was to drive visibility of the board but the majority of people on and off it agree that it doesn't need to be in active and that it being in active has more negatives than positives.

Mumsnet is a site for grown-ups - you can choose what you want to share with other users

What if someone wants to share their stories of abusing children, or pictures of their genitals?

It seems like you haven't really thought this through.

If they've discussed it all day, it's really strange that the one reason they can offer is visibility. Against the numerous very good reasons why it shouldn't be more visible, why safeguards are so important, why posters on and off the topic don't want it to be more visible - MN just do?

Women with genuine questions about sex post in Relationships, they always have and they've always found support there.

That would be against talk guidelines.

It's such a relief that perverts and trolls always follow guidelines. Phew!

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.
Are all topics now in Active then, so people can find them who need advice? I thought some, like SN, weren't?

Well no, not really okay at all. They’ll already have sent the creepy message(s), won’t they! FGS this is not hard to grasp.

Not good enough @JustineMumsnet.

The sex topic absolutely does not need to be visible in Active. The rationale given is frankly quite stupendously lacking and doesn’t justify this change at all IMO. If you want to make your users aware you can sticky it somewhere so those who want to search for it can find it.

But okay, fair enough, I see why your priorities lie, and that’s your prerogative.

There isn’t any defence of that.

But they've been discussing it all day, they must have a defence! They just aren't sharing it. So why not? Why can the only reason they give us be, they wanted to try it? And now no one likes it, they still want to keep it - because...??

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

I don't really understand how your conclusion from this is that you're going to ... leave it there?

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

Break the guidelines and MN can delete/ban them.

Yes, that is strange. I honestly thought that what would follow that sentence would be, "therefore we've decided to remove it from active."

It would be good to know the rationale for keeping it in active after you've been discussing it all day and you admit to underestimating the negative impact.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.....

So much this.

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.

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.

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.

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.