TW: Laila Mickelwait: [children pay] a devastating price for an unchecked Big Porn sex crime industry.

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

TikTok took down this young woman's first video in which she shared screenshots of her father's searches.

Teen discovered her father googling “real” “homemade” “teen” “rape” videos & “father daughter” incest abuse videos on the world’s largest porn tube sites.

The kids of this generation are paying a devastating price for an unchecked Big Porn sex crime industry.

twitter.com/LailaMickelwait/status/1389217984753946627

In various ways, this has been cropping up, recently. Some of us must be in relationships with, work with/alongside/for/supervise people who search for this material and actively exploit trafficked people.

What is it like for children to discover that a parent or other close relative does this? How do we expect children to engage with a society in which such people live among us? How do we expect VAWG to be addressed as the public health problem it is when social media is set up to facilitate this industry?

[Cailleach1]

A fellow called Paddy O'Gorman used to do a programme on Irish radio. He was a roving reporter. There was a very human element to his reporting and interviews, e.g. living on benefits, drug addiction, prostitution, homelessness amongst other issues. He had/has a wonderful empathy with people and is very compassionate in his interaction.

A very memorable interview was one he carried out was on sex offenders. I think it was in Arbour Hill prison (it is a male sex offenders prison). There was a group of men who were discussing their offences; I can't remember if it was for paedophilia exactly or what sex crimes. They were bemoaning how young girls dress themselves up to look older and the poor men could be fooled by thinking they were older than they looked. The take away was that the poor men could be in for sex crimes against minors because they were just hoodwinked into thinking the girls were older than they were.

Paddy added a bit on to the report at the end. He said that the person (or one of the men) saying that was in for raping his own child. It just brought home what lies paedophiles and sex offenders will tell and what webs of false narratives they will create.

Anyway, looked up Paddy and delighted he is grounded on the fact that sex is real. I imagine he has had too vast an experience of interviewing women to fall for any other representation of reality.

twitter.com/paddyogormanRTE/status/1207741862657896448

[QuentinBunbury]

I'm reading Laura Bates book about the radicalisation of men into extreme misogyny via the Internet and it is striking that nothing is done even about forums where men are encouraging each other to rape women
It's hard not to think that women are disposable. That would fit with some of the assertions on this thread. Women aren't really people so any harm being done to them to make "porn" doesn't count

[Namenic]

Interestingly if someone made comments about terrorism and supporting it, watching extremist videos - then if it were reported, resources would go into checking on the person, that they weren’t going to be radicalised and do something violent. Hate speech is illegal, and I wouldn’t be surprised if people’s search terms were monitored. I’m pretty sure the public would not be in favour of a terrorism-Hub making money out of this.

Should we do the same with people who make comments about raping others or abusing them? Searching for and watching extreme porn/porn depicting under age sex?

[QuentinBunbury]

I am arrogant enough to believe that some people reading might take some things from some of what I say.
I'm definitely forming an opinion of you from what you say .

[RufustheBadgeringReindeer]

@NiceGerbil

'I genuinely don't give a fuck about nailing points or winning an argument. I am posting because it is interesting to me, because I'd like to learn, and because I am arrogant enough to believe that some people reading might take some things from some of what I say.'

I've seen no evidence that you would like to learn. None at all.
What sort of people do you think lurk on the fwr section on MN? Yes it is arrogant to think that your misdirection, topic switching, straw manning, lack of engagement with points made or questions asked, will have a bunch of lurkers sitting up and thinking yowzers those are convincing arguments I did think pornography representing rape/ incest/ both was awful and I would be pretty wary of a man who liked it. But now I understand it's all totally fine and not a problem at all. And further, any judgement I might have made about a man who liked that stuff was wrong and biased, I was being led by my puritanical ideas and disgust, and I should definitely try to overcome those unfair reactions.

Beautifully put

[picklemewalnuts]

Jedi, you are close to arguing that there's no point having boundaries if they can't be watertight/policed.

Shall we just abandon safeguarding all together then?

I'd prefer to set our boundaries out really clearly- porn showing illegal acts is unacceptable. I'd then campaign to get internet providers to take more responsibility for the content they facilitate. I'd make it harder for people to find the illegal content which is so corrosive. And I'd attempt to police it in much the same way as all other policing happens in the U.K.- patchily.

We haven't decriminalised all other 'hard to police' crimes.

Your argument would have rape within marriage legal, beating your wife legal, date rape etc. You don't stop classing things as unacceptable because they are hard to prevent or police.

[NiceGerbil]

Additionally, I now see that 10% of women's clothes are indecent/ pornographic and I was exposing children to porn simply by walking down the high street.
Additionally I will have been providing a free pornographic display for eg male customers while browsing in rymans.
All of this I did without their consent. No more!
Now which of these clothes are pornographic and which are not..?

[NiceGerbil]

'I genuinely don't give a fuck about nailing points or winning an argument. I am posting because it is interesting to me, because I'd like to learn, and because I am arrogant enough to believe that some people reading might take some things from some of what I say.'

I've seen no evidence that you would like to learn. None at all.
What sort of people do you think lurk on the fwr section on MN? Yes it is arrogant to think that your misdirection, topic switching, straw manning, lack of engagement with points made or questions asked, will have a bunch of lurkers sitting up and thinking yowzers those are convincing arguments I did think pornography representing rape/ incest/ both was awful and I would be pretty wary of a man who liked it. But now I understand it's all totally fine and not a problem at all. And further, any judgement I might have made about a man who liked that stuff was wrong and biased, I was being led by my puritanical ideas and disgust, and I should definitely try to overcome those unfair reactions.

[NiceGerbil]

So having read the law you are still here to defend the consumers of incest and rape porn.

Your argument that if content depicts non consensual sex in a realistic way but is not labelled rape then it's not illegal is very very weak btw. The law is about content, not labelling.

And this
'If it is the pornographic representation of a woman consenting to have sex in a way that would look like rape were it not for the fact she'd just consented to it then I suspect that might be legal.'
Is simply nonsensical.

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

You're swerving from argument to argument at a mind boggling pace.

I don't think many people reading this will think yep he's really nailing his points

I genuinely don't give a fuck about nailing points or winning an argument. I am posting because it is interesting to me, because I'd like to learn, and because I am arrogant enough to believe that some people reading might take some things from some of what I say.

[NiceGerbil]

Purports to be illegal..

No, it IS illegal.

Re 'rough sex', the law also spells out where the line is for it to be considered 'extreme' ie illegal.

I find it very hard to believe that if I googled rape porn (no I'm not going to) I would get no hits...

I mean come off it.

[MissBarbary]

You see 1 in 10 women's garments as being pornographic?

That comment says so much about the person making it, doesn't it?

[NiceGerbil]

I was giving you the definition of porn in law, seeing as you had said it was really really difficult to define...

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

The CPS link I'm sure you haven't read, and the bit I cut and paste I think as well, has this definition.

'Pornographic ("of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal")'

Why are you talking at about 3 people in their home? You keep veering off all over the place.

I did read it. It says -

Pornographic ("of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal"), and

Portrays in an explicit and realistic way any of the following: An act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis or part of the other person’s body or anything else (rape or assault by penetration) and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons or animals were real.

If the video is a pornographic representation of a rape then it is illegal. Hence zero "rape" hits on porn sites. If it is the pornographic representation of a woman consenting to have sex in a way that would look like rape were it not for the fact she'd just consented to it then I suspect that might be legal.

I suspect that porn categories labelled things like "rough sex" are stuffed full of videos that show sex acts that could easily be confused with rape, and I suspect that they are not illegal and I suspect that next to non-one has ever been prosecuted for rape porn because it's so easy to get around the law because it's so hard to legislate things like this.

[NiceGerbil]

You're swerving from argument to argument at a mind boggling pace.

I don't think many people reading this will think yep he's really nailing his points

[NiceGerbil]

'If child protection is our number one concern (and it should be) then all porn, 90% of rap videos and 10% of women's fashion should be banned immediately...'

You see 1 in 10 women's garments as being pornographic?

[NiceGerbil]

VHS?

Your collection goes back a long time doesn't it!

[NiceGerbil]

There you go giving your own interpretation of the law again despite saying you don't really know what the laws are...

[NiceGerbil]

'I am astonished you didn't KNOW I am a man from the way I express myself. You were 99.9% sure weren't you?'

What do you mean, the way you express yourself?

On MN I read and respond, I don't really think about the characteristics of the person who posts something.

So why do you assume that I would be sitting here thinking that's a man/ woman?

And also, to claim you know what my conclusion was?

That's really... Odd.

[JediGnot]

@MissBarbary

It wasn't the story, it was the impression I got that some people might think that "incest porn" means real incest, or that "teen porn" means porn featuring girls and women aged 13 to 19, or that "real porn" means anything other than porn featuring people without stereotypical porn bodies

Could you be any more patronising? Nobody posting on here thought that and I don't know how it could be possible to come to that conclusion.

I apologize for being patronising and wrong.

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

'. I still stand by the fact that as a general principle if two consenting adults want to act something out and a third wants to watch then that's not the government's business to get involved in...'

We're talking about it being filmed and widely available on the internet. Not people doing whatever in their home.

The law on rape porn is about the film not whether it is on a one copy private VHS video, or on the net.

IMHO the rights and wrongs of what people participate in and watch is one argument.

Protecting children and anyone who simply doesn't want to see certain material - in a world where literally everything, legal or otherwise, copyrighted or otherwise, is free for the entire world to access - is an entirely different matter.

If child protection is our number one concern (and it should be) then all porn, 90% of rap videos and 10% of women's fashion should be banned immediately... only there's no point because it will still all be out there for the people who want to access it... not least 12 year old boys who understand the tech better than their parents.

[NiceGerbil]

The CPS link I'm sure you haven't read, and the bit I cut and paste I think as well, has this definition.

'Pornographic ("of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal")'

Why are you talking at about 3 people in their home? You keep veering off all over the place.

[MissBarbary]

It wasn't the story, it was the impression I got that some people might think that "incest porn" means real incest, or that "teen porn" means porn featuring girls and women aged 13 to 19, or that "real porn" means anything other than porn featuring people without stereotypical porn bodies

Could you be any more patronising? Nobody posting on here thought that and I don't know how it could be possible to come to that conclusion.

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

So when you say gay you were forgetting about lesbians / women together in a sexual way.

Interesting.

'I don't think that two gay men having sex is disgusting. They idea of myself having gay sex is disgusting to me, in the same way that I expect you find the idea of having sex with people you don't want to have sex with disgusting.'

You're a man then. What a surprise.

And I don't tend to spend my time thinking about having sex with people i don't want to have sex with. Why would i? It would be rape anyway.

The only time I really think about it is when talking about prostitution.

I am astonished you didn't KNOW I am a man from the way I express myself. You were 99.9% sure weren't you?

As an aside I joined this website to read up and comment on the GC stuff on this board, and have consciously posted [Man here] at the start of many of my posts.

[NiceGerbil]

'. I still stand by the fact that as a general principle if two consenting adults want to act something out and a third wants to watch then that's not the government's business to get involved in...'

We're talking about it being filmed and widely available on the internet. Not people doing whatever in their home.