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?

[JediGnot]

@MissBarbary

I don't think there would be any difficulty in distinguishing between a film, play etc. where there is a justifiable reason for depicting rape etc. and one which consisted only of depictions of rape etc. for no purpose other than to give literal and metaphorical wankers a hard on.

I think that you are very naive or authoritarian.

I think you are naive if you think it's easy to distinguish what is valid and what isn't. Or you are an authoritarian who is happy to over-censor in order to ensure everything dodgy is banned.

Your heart is in the right place so I am not having some massive go, I just don;t think it's easy to determine what is acceptable and what isn't.

[NiceGerbil]

Oh and your strawmanning is not very well done either.

I don't think anyone on the thread has said all porn should be illegal have they?

That's again a misdirection. It's not the topic under discussion.

This is about the girl who found her dad's really iffy searches. And then went on to take about some of his behaviour which was incredibly worrying.

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

'Does this make all porn viewers disgusting? '

Jedi your agenda is showing...

What is my agenda?

Defending the 75% of men and 50% of women who say they watch porn? (How much higher are the true numbers I wonder?)

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

' I get that some people will have much more "puritanical" views than me '

And again...

Is this your first time at this, Jedi?

You know what I meant and why the word is in inverted commas

[NiceGerbil]

', I just don;t think it's easy to determine what is acceptable and what isn't.'

Weelll

I'd say that a porn site or a porn company or a situation which says porn porn porn on it is probably porn.

And a BBC drama with an incest story line is probably not.

I mean that would be a pretty good indicator as a starting point I'd guess.

A title like 'teen gets gang banged by dad and his mates' or whatever. Porn would be my naive guess.

A film described as a harrowing drama of a child abused by his father and produced by C4 would probably not be.

I mean just as a starter for 10.

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

Oh and your strawmanning is not very well done either.

I don't think anyone on the thread has said all porn should be illegal have they?

That's again a misdirection. It's not the topic under discussion.

This is about the girl who found her dad's really iffy searches. And then went on to take about some of his behaviour which was incredibly worrying.

This thread is (or should be) about the article.

My comment (and what has followed) was more about how I don't believe that that the search terms in themselves prove that her dad is sick. (But by all accounts the full article which I have not read suggest he very much is, and even if he wasn't his search history is going to cause all sorts of issues for the daughter now she's seen it).

[NiceGerbil]

The word puritanical is not neutral. It means what it means and tacking on some stuff to say oh sometimes it might not be because they're puritanical is not convincing.

'Defending the 75% of men and 50% of women who say they watch porn? '

Why did you decide that porn consumers needed defending, and see a thread about a girl who had found her dad's search terms and was horrified, and who related a load of really dodgy behaviour on his part?

What part of that story made you feel like the batsignal had gone up and you should rush in because this man / men who like incest porn and rape porn were under unfair attack?

[CuntAmongstThePigeons]

Bloody hell, are you STILL going. Just to reiterate, what you said was and IS still deeply homophobic. However you try and spin it.

You've admitted you find gay sex disgusting. That's homophobic.

Secondly you've included it in a sliding scale of other things that you find disgusting. The fact that you see the completely natural, healthy show of affection between two men as on the same scale of an illegal form of abuse is absolutely VILE.

It also shows you have very little understanding of the social dynamics at play and the importance of living in a society whereby the individual is not promoted at the expense of the group. You seem to think just because you find something disgusting that means it either is/isn't without any understanding or introspection as to WHY its disgusting.

Gay sex is (presumably) disgusting to YOU because you're homophobic.

Incest is disgusting because IT IS WRONG AND ILLEGAL.

Can you honestly not see the difference?

[NiceGerbil]

Nonsense Jedi.

The OP said '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?'.

The following posts were all about the effect on families and children.

No one said anything about proving anyone was sick.

Your first post was only about the 6th in. Your brave defence of rape and incest porn users.

Your explanation of what happened to make you post bears no relation to the actual conversation.

In fact most of your posts have been irrelevant to the actual conversation.

You're really not very good at this.

[NiceGerbil]

Or two women presumably.

Or 1 man and two women etc.

Because lesbians have 'gay sex' and so presumably that was included as 'disgusting' and so a large amount of het porn is out for Jedi as well. As loads include two women touching each other etc.

[MissBarbary]

I think that you are very naive or authoritarian

I think you are naive if you think it's easy to distinguish what is valid and what isn't. Or you are an authoritarian who is happy to over-censor in order to ensure everything dodgy is banned

Your heart is in the right place so I am not having some massive go, I just don;t think it's easy to determine what is acceptable and what isn't

I'm neither. Odd how the BBFC seem to be able to operate. You are being disingenuous. There might be a few cases where the point has to be argued but I doubt very much that there would be anything like the difficulty you imagine.

[NiceGerbil]

Some kink is illegal, in fact.

Although it's not called kink, which is a handy term as it includes anything from dressing up a bit in rubber pants, to extreme sexual violence.

[SmokedDuck]

I think there are some worthwhile questions we could ask about how we draw the lines between fantasy and reality.

There was a time when it was considered, not necessarily abnormal, but not very healthy or respectful to fantasise about transgressive sexual acts, including sex with someone other than your spouse, famous people, the girl next door, much less rape, incest etc. Because at some level there is a link between thinking about things and accepting them or shaping your attitude to others.

During the sexual revolution this was poo pooed and the new line was, if it stays in your head it's ok. I even remember a book that was quite popular about women's fantasies, and how free women felt now that they knew it was ok to think about them, and how sexually satisfied it made them. The book included all kinds of fantasies that had been written down including ones about rape, group encounters, and IIRC incest. It was considered very progressive and marketed as something for women to help them free themselves from their hang-ups.

Some of what we are seeing now comes straight out of that thinking - the idea that if it's just in your mind, fake, and you wouldn't really do it, it is ok.

[MissBarbary]

[quote CrazyNeighbour]@JediGnot
For me this is where you’re going wrong:

BUT, being fucking kinky is not a crime and nor should it be. I believe that it is a reasonable expectation that if you are on one of "the world’s largest porn tube sites" the content should be and will be legal, which means watching

(a) PornHub thinks it is unreasonable to expect the content to be legal. They are happy to monetize rape, and obviously the consumers are happy to monetize women and children being raped.
(b) some kink should be illegal actually, and any kink which draws others into it should be illegal. But either illegal or legal, it’s nothing to celebrate, is it?[/quote]
Rape, incest and bestiality are illegal for a very good reason. I see no reason why "pretend" rape, incest and bestiality made for no reason other than being wank fodder should not be illegal also.

[NiceGerbil]

Another link for the OP to ignore

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extreme-pornography

'Extreme pornographic image is an image which is:

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
Grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character, and
Portrays in an explicit and realistic way any of the following:
An act which threatens a person's life, or
An act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, or
An act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse (necrophilia), or
A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive) (bestiality), or
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.'

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

', I just don;t think it's easy to determine what is acceptable and what isn't.'

Weelll

I'd say that a porn site or a porn company or a situation which says porn porn porn on it is probably porn.

And a BBC drama with an incest story line is probably not.

I mean that would be a pretty good indicator as a starting point I'd guess.

A title like 'teen gets gang banged by dad and his mates' or whatever. Porn would be my naive guess.

A film described as a harrowing drama of a child abused by his father and produced by C4 would probably not be.

I mean just as a starter for 10.

I think that we can both agree the obvious examples on the extremes - it's the massive middle ground that is more of a problem.

A woman with a degree in fine art making her own video art that many regard as transgressive... which side does that fall on and who decides? Definitely not as obviously dodgy as porn, nor as obviously "ok" as BBC drama output (though given that they couldn't trust themselves to comment on the Maya F case should we trust them at all?)

How may former porn performers would start making transgressive art instead if dodgy porn was banned?

Anyway, back to porn... if you are saying that porn which purports to show a depiction of rape or incest (whether by the title or the words the performers say) should be banned then I have a lot of sympathy.

I'm not sure it would have a huge affect in the real world, it would be very hard to police, and it would punish some people who have twisted fantasies but who are otherwise good, but I have a lot of sympathy. On balance I'd probably say no because I believe that the negative affect of authoritarian censorship of certain art as a side effect would probably outweigh the benefits of making rape porn illegal (not least as it would be driven underground and not simply go away, especially in the internet world of today where all content is free if you don't want to pay).

[NiceGerbil]

Oh interesting

'and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons or animals were real.'

So in fact rape porn- at least unless it's very very obviously staged- is in fact illegal.

What do you make of that Jedi?

[NiceGerbil]

You're now reduced to making up 'grey area' hypotheticals.

Also see my previous post re rape porn.

[NiceGerbil]

I really think you should look at what the laws around this actually are, and consent as well, before your next foray onto a conversation to protect the poor misunderstood consumers of rape and incest porn.

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

The word puritanical is not neutral. It means what it means and tacking on some stuff to say oh sometimes it might not be because they're puritanical is not convincing.

'Defending the 75% of men and 50% of women who say they watch porn? '

Why did you decide that porn consumers needed defending, and see a thread about a girl who had found her dad's search terms and was horrified, and who related a load of really dodgy behaviour on his part?

What part of that story made you feel like the batsignal had gone up and you should rush in because this man / men who like incest porn and rape porn were under unfair attack?

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.

[NiceGerbil]

Why did you get that impression?

It's a peculiar impression to get. I'd say women who post on this topic in general know very well what's what with all this.

What are your thoughts on the illegality of rape porn, given your heartfelt defence of it?

[JediGnot]

@NiceGerbil

Or two women presumably.

Or 1 man and two women etc.

Because lesbians have 'gay sex' and so presumably that was included as 'disgusting' and so a large amount of het porn is out for Jedi as well. As loads include two women touching each other etc.

I've just gone back. I said "I acknowledge that there are numerous things that should be legal despite me having less than zero interest in doing them (gay sex being an obvious example)." I didn't even say gay sex was disgusting, I said I didn't want to do it. Just like playing out a rape or incest fantasy is something that I don't want to do, but neither do I believe the state should be trying to police it.

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.

[JediGnot]

@MissBarbary

I think that you are very naive or authoritarian

I think you are naive if you think it's easy to distinguish what is valid and what isn't. Or you are an authoritarian who is happy to over-censor in order to ensure everything dodgy is banned

Your heart is in the right place so I am not having some massive go, I just don;t think it's easy to determine what is acceptable and what isn't

I'm neither. Odd how the BBFC seem to be able to operate. You are being disingenuous. There might be a few cases where the point has to be argued but I doubt very much that there would be anything like the difficulty you imagine.

If it's a simple as "Odd how the BBFC seem to be able to operate" then presumable all problematic video material is already appropriate censored or banned. Problem solved, nothing more to discuss.

[CuntAmongstThePigeons]

Sorry, but why on earth would you think that? Many of the women if not the majority of women on this board are very well versed in pornography and indeed pornography laws.

Many more have spent years looking into the social side effects of the porn epidemic as well as having been personally affected by it. I actually wrote my masters on pornography and the effect on society. Maybe read and listen more and talk less? You are really not coming across well. Either from a moral point of view or an academic one.