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?

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.

@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.

Superb post. I appreciate that you have - I think - acknowledged that some of what I said might have had some merit.

Another point Jedi.

In the porn industry an awful lot of the time people have sex with people they find disgusting, or carry out sex acts they find disgusting, or that cause them pain/ injury.

I'm sure you're aware that 'gay for pay' is a thing and so in gay porn the actors are not attracted to the men they have sex with on any level and presumably the idea of being eg penetrated by a man is not something they find interesting.

So given your previous comments, how do you square that fact with your hearty defence of porn?

'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.'

But Jedi you're not advocating for fantasies in people's heads.

You're advocating for porn revolving around rape and incest to be produced with actual women who look young/distressed and in pain, with actual sex. You acknowledge that some of those filmed situations will not be acted they will be real.

How do you feel about the fact realistic depictions of rape are in fact illegal in England and Wales, given your passionate defence of the consumers of that content?

I also note you aren't really answering any questions put to you any more.

@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?

I have to say that -

(1) I had no idea that the law purports to make rape porn illegal. It makes a lot of sense that the law seeks to do that. 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... but then again I can see the potential for it to cause massive harm, so it does make sense. I still don't see that simply wanting to view such material makes someone dangerous, but obviously if it's illegal then looking for it is not a great idea. ANd other things being equal an interest in rape porn is a red flag from where I'm sat - it proves nothing, but it is a red flag.

(2) I had no idea that if you type "rape" into a mainstream porn site you get zero hits, because until 2 minutes ago it had never entered my mind to type "rape" into a porn site.

(3) I suspect that in the real world there is little difference between a porn film where two actors act out a rape scene and a porn film where a woman explicitly asks to be held down and roughly fucked. The former would be illegal, would the latter be illegal - on the face of it no, yet the two films could be identical for all but the first 5 seconds of dialogue.

(4) Are we sure rape porn is illegal? Wiki (I know) says "In January 2014 sexual freedom campaign groups criticised Section 16 as being poorly defined and liable to criminalise a wider range of material than originally suggested. However, in April 2014 the BBFC's presentation to Parliament suggested that the proposed legislation would not cover "clearly fictional depictions of rape and other sexual violence in which participants are clearly actors, acting to a script"." Surely a porn film could meet the criteria of a "clearly fictional depiction of rape in which participants are clearly actors, acting to a script"?

@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.

Noted.

Only just read the first bit. Another interesting choice of word.

'
verb
3rd person present: purports
/pəˈpɔːt/
appear to be or do something, especially falsely.'

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

Porn hub material isn't vetted in that way but if you were arguing against my point you've rather shot yourself in the foot by conceding that actually it isn't difficult to determine.

'. 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.

@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.

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.

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.

@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.

@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.

'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.

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

VHS?

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

'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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

@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.

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.