Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
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!

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:
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.

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.

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!

BentleyRhythmAce · 24/02/2023 18:59

So disappointed with this dismissal of many users' concerns.

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.

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.

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.

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 19:14

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.

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?

HaroldsWilly · 24/02/2023 19:22

Namechange for anonymity, I’ve already commented on this thread (just for full disclosure).

I have a lot of great sex. I own several sex toys.

My stance on this has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘prudishness’, ‘pear
clutching’ or any other such derogatory term people like to throw around when women have boundaries around sex, consent and safeguarding.

Stopsnowing · 24/02/2023 19:26

Well as I said - this is damaging the Mumsnet brand. No one wants it in active. Those who need it, find it. And many sex related issues were In relationships. And I am fed up with the sex toy ads.

justasking111 · 24/02/2023 19:26

I recall a forum imploding because members inadvertently posting on sex topics were being pestered by DM luckily someone had the foresight to set up another forum and quietly DM members of the new home. It was such a mess

We're not all London centric liberals

TheShellBeach · 24/02/2023 19:33

Telling people to hide the sex topic if they don't like seeing it in Active is exactly the same as suggesting that neighbours of women whose husbands beat them up should put earplugs in so they don't have to listen to the women screaming.

Iusedtobedontcall · 24/02/2023 19:34

Vulva owners who are always available for sex and who must birth children with severe life altering and unpredictable disabilities. That’s what I’m getting from the sex forum and the targeted advertising at the moment.

FatSealSmugSoup · 24/02/2023 19:36

“Talk Guidelines” my GFA. It’s also illegal to rape and murder women - doesn’t seem to slow them down though does it?

Rhondaa · 24/02/2023 19:37

TheShellBeach · 24/02/2023 19:33

Telling people to hide the sex topic if they don't like seeing it in Active is exactly the same as suggesting that neighbours of women whose husbands beat them up should put earplugs in so they don't have to listen to the women screaming.

Oh ShellBeach. It is a million miles away from this. How on earth are we equating an optional board <albeit with subject matter you find distasteful>, with domestic violence?

What on earth has happened that you have such a warped view of things?

HornyBee · 24/02/2023 19:41

TheShellBeach · 24/02/2023 19:33

Telling people to hide the sex topic if they don't like seeing it in Active is exactly the same as suggesting that neighbours of women whose husbands beat them up should put earplugs in so they don't have to listen to the women screaming.

What the actual fuck have I just read!!
You are disgusting!!
Comparing the sex board to domestic violence???!!
Yeah... that's exactly the same.
I know you have been trolling the sex board but even this is a new low for you!

Rhondaa · 24/02/2023 19:41

FatSealSmugSoup · 24/02/2023 19:36

“Talk Guidelines” my GFA. It’s also illegal to rape and murder women - doesn’t seem to slow them down though does it?

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.

LangClegsInSpace · 24/02/2023 19:50

Thank you for your response @JustineMumsnet

I'm also weighing up whether I want to still be here.

I would miss FWR and will always be grateful to MN for providing that space and working so hard to protect it when there were so few places where we could discuss women's sex based rights. We wouldn't be 'T**F Island' if it hadn't been for those pesky MNers Flowers

But there are loads of spaces we can talk about this stuff now, mostly in a less restrictive way than we can here. #NoDebate is well and truly dead. Also there are loads of other ways we can network now, and we do.

Times change, I guess.

I joined MN in around 2010 having left another platform because their child safeguarding turned to shite. However much I like a site, if I see that happening my instinct is to get out. I don't want to be anywhere near that kind of content.

Thank you OP for highlighting this, it just gets worse, doesn't it?

TheShellBeach · 24/02/2023 19:58

LangClegsInSpace · 24/02/2023 19:50

Thank you for your response @JustineMumsnet

I'm also weighing up whether I want to still be here.

I would miss FWR and will always be grateful to MN for providing that space and working so hard to protect it when there were so few places where we could discuss women's sex based rights. We wouldn't be 'T**F Island' if it hadn't been for those pesky MNers Flowers

But there are loads of spaces we can talk about this stuff now, mostly in a less restrictive way than we can here. #NoDebate is well and truly dead. Also there are loads of other ways we can network now, and we do.

Times change, I guess.

I joined MN in around 2010 having left another platform because their child safeguarding turned to shite. However much I like a site, if I see that happening my instinct is to get out. I don't want to be anywhere near that kind of content.

Thank you OP for highlighting this, it just gets worse, doesn't it?

I've been on and off MN for years, too.
I cannot think of a topic which has caused so much upset as this one.
MNHQ are simply not listening to many women's legitimate concerns.
I imagine quite a few of us are trying to decide whether or not to deregister.

TheShellBeach · 24/02/2023 19:59

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.

Yep.

LangClegsInSpace · 24/02/2023 20:07

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.

Yes.

'If you get sexually assaulted you can just call the police and get them prosecuted so what's the problem?'

Stable door, horse etc.