Violence against Women and Girls: Pornography Prostitution

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I will call Joani Reid to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the mover of the motion and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the mover of the motion to sum up afterwards.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of pornography prostitution on violence against women and girls.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I begin by thanking two organisations that have been hugely helpful in preparing for today’s debate: UK Feminista, which provides the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, and the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—CEASE—and particularly Gemma Kelly, its head of policy.

Let me set out from the beginning precisely what I mean by pornography prostitution. It is the fusion of the pornography industry and the sex trade into one system. It is the buying, selling and consumption of sexual access to women, livestreamed, or filmed and uploaded, and monetised as entertainment. It is seen by many as a new and booming industry. I disagree: it is commercialised abuse, repackaged and sold as entertainment. It is a form of violence against women and girls.

Nowhere is that clearer than on OnlyFans, a UK-based company that has now become the global giant of online sexual exploitation. Last year, it generated $6.6 billion in revenue. It markets itself as a harmless subscription platform but, in reality, it is the largest pimping empire in the world today. I want to focus on three areas where OnlyFans is enabling violence against women and girls.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. I spoke to her beforehand to ensure that my thoughts are similar to hers. There is no doubt that online platforms such as OnlyFans pose a potential threat to how young people perceive sexual relations. Does the hon. Lady agree—the Minister is here to answer this, of course—that the law needs to be brought up to date to ensure that OnlyFans and all other online pornographic platforms, including adult services websites, put proper age and consent checks in place to protect young people from damaging content online?

[Joani Reid]

I agree. I think that age verification is hugely important in tackling children’s exposure to pornography. It is not just on those websites; it is found on mainstream websites as well, and I think that is something that we need to look at in the next regulations under the Online Safety Act 2023.

As I said, OnlyFans is the largest pimping empire in the world. It is a playground for child sexual abuse and exploitation. Harm and coercion are suffered by women who become so-called content creators, and there is a wider societal and cultural impact, particularly on children and young people.

I begin with the most damning evidence: OnlyFans claims to have a zero-tolerance approach to child abuse, yet Reuters has documented at least 30 criminal cases between 2019 and 2024 in the United States alone involving child sexual abuse material on the platform, including hundreds of videos and images, some depicting extreme abuse. In one horrific case, the graphic abuse of a 16-year-old girl was monetised for more than a year before it was taken down, and that was only after Reuters started asking questions. We should be under no illusion: OnlyFans is not a safe platform for consenting adults to express and enjoy themselves. As one survivor put it,

“A whole company has made money off of my biggest trauma”.

The truth is that all that is just the tip of the iceberg, because OnlyFans hides content behind millions of individual paywalls, and there is no meaningful way for independent investigators, charities, or even law enforcement to monitor the full scale of the abuse. That is not transparency; it is secrecy by design.

Ofcom fined OnlyFans for providing misleading information about age verification. While the company claims to set a global standard, the reality is stark. It has no meaningful age verification in the vast majority of the more than 100 countries in which it operates. How many of the 500,000 new users signing up every day are children? We do not know because OnlyFans will not say. OnlyFans likes to boast that every video is reviewed by a human moderator, but the figures just do not add up. Last month alone, 62 million pieces of content were uploaded. Independent experts have said that it would take tens of thousands of moderators to review it all, but OnlyFans employs just a few dozen staff. It outsources the rest to Poland and Ukraine, behind non-disclosure agreements, with no transparency. When the company tells us it has zero tolerance for abuse, we must ask: zero tolerance or zero credibility? The evidence suggests the latter. It is not a British success story; it is the British export of the abuse of children to the world.

The second reality is that OnlyFans is not the empowering feminist fairytale that its marketing suggests. It claims to give women financial freedom, but the facts tell another story: 73% of the profits go to the top 10% of creators, and the average woman makes just £4 a month. That is not liberation; it is a lottery in which a handful at the top get rich and millions of others are driven to push their boundaries further and further to survive. As one former content creator described it,

“I wasn’t there. I was doing things like a robot.”

Another said,

“When you’re making an OnlyFans, you are gambling…Betting that your clients are strangers who don’t cross into your real world.”

She said it was the worst thing that ever happened to her when she discovered that the man who had paid her over $10,000 over a two-year period for her explicit videos was not a stranger but her uncle.

Research by Talita, an organisation in Sweden that supports women out of prostitution, pornography and trafficking, found that almost all women drawn into online pornography had suffered childhood trauma: 96% reported abuse, 88% sexual abuse, and 79% physical abuse. Predators deliberately target vulnerability. Women do not wake up one day just wanting to make porn. As one survivor put it,

“At first I told myself, I’ll just sell a foot photo. And before you know it, you’re drawn in step by step.”

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I must congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. This debate should be difficult to listen to, but it still does not compare to the violent impact of pornography on women and girls. Does she agree that the upcoming violence against women and girls strategy should explicitly recognise and address prostitution and pornography as forms of commercial sexual exploitation?

[Joani Reid]

I completely agree. I hope—and this is a point that I am sure the Minister will respond to later in the debate—that there is a section within the strategy to address these issues. That could possibly be advanced as a result of collaboration between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

I was talking about the abuse that women who are involved in online pornography have suffered: 56% were physically assaulted as a result of their online pornography, and 65% raped. No other industry in Britain would be allowed to operate with those statistics. Meanwhile, OnlyFans executives pay themselves handsomely and its owner reportedly takes home £1.3 million a day. That is the price of women’s pain. But the harm extends well beyond women directly exploited. Its cultural impact is shaping the attitudes and behaviours of an entire generation.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the normalisation of violent porn can mean that these horrors come out of the screen and into real life, particularly when defence counsels argue that consent was given to crimes of strangulation? Does she welcome, as I do, the Government’s steps to make strangulation an aggravating factor when sentencing for murder?

[Joani Reid]

Again, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I am delighted that the Government have brought forward plans to ban strangulation in pornography, but there is a whole host of behaviours within pornography that we know affect real-life abuse.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that, having created the ban on non-fatal strangulation in pornography, the Government now also need to ban depictions in pornography that encourage a sexual interest in children—so-called paedophilic-adjacent porn—as well as depictions of step-family incest?

[Joani Reid]

Let me take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she did with other members of the APPG to get the Government to make that commitment around strangulation. Yes, I think it should extend to those categories as well. We have to tackle pornography that normalises and glamourises child abuse. It is not niche; we know from the work that we have done and through the Bertin review that, on Pornhub, incest porn is a main category. It is absolutely repugnant and should be tackled through Government intervention.

The impact extends into the behaviours of children and young people: eight in 10 children have seen violent pornography by the age of 18. Increasingly, children’s first exposure to sex is not a healthy relationship but online abuse marketed as entertainment.

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Pornography is nothing new, but access to the kind of content she has described is something that previous generations did not have to deal with. The most responsible and vigilant parents are struggling to prevent access to it. Does she agree that we need action from the companies that promote and disseminate this type of material, in addition to the work of parents, and the important work that the Government are doing?

[Joani Reid]

We have recently seen a step forward in the age verification process but, as we know, parents cannot be omnipresent, particularly online. Companies such as Facebook, Meta and Instagram are allowing pornographic content to be pushed and used within algorithms, and it is completely unforgivable. Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

The academic Dr Elly Hanson talks about a parasitic ecosystem, which refers exactly to what my hon. Friend mentioned: OnlyFans feeds off mainstream social media platforms, where sexualised clips are pushed to children by algorithms, which pushes them on to their sites. Teenagers are bombarded with adverts and the grooming is blatant. Children have reported seeing OnlyFans content creators appearing alongside exam revision ads on their feed, the content of which was so graphic when I looked at it in preparation for this debate that I cannot bring myself to quote it. Children are being pushed this content, and it is being normalised. It is not a bug in the system; it is the business model. One child said,

“The amount of porn and fights I get on twitter is just horrible.”

The result of all this is that girls report feeling coerced to imitate what boys expect, and boys describe being desensitised, seeing violence and degradation as normal. Doctors link the 40% rise in non-fatal strangulation during sex to pornography consumption. As a result, as we have already mentioned, the Government have announced that the depiction of strangulation in pornography will be banned, in a move to protect women and girls from violence. CEASE’s report “Profits Before People” makes clear that pornography is harmful not just for those in it but for society. It grooms boys to perpetrate violence and grooms girls to accept it. It is not a fringe issue; it is a public health crisis.

Let me briefly address an argument sometimes presented by so-called progressive voices, particularly on the left, who claim that they are advocating for the rights of sex workers. Let me be clear: what they are really doing is prioritising a tiny minority of privileged individuals—people like Bonnie Blue—who pursue this work out of commercial choice rather than desperation. In doing so they ignore, and in fact further marginalise, the vast majority of women trapped in cycles of abuse, violence and poverty. Elevating the voices of those who profit from glamorising exploitation is not progressive; it is regressive, and it fundamentally betrays the women, girls and children who are suffering.

I ask those who support Bonnie Blue, Lily Phillips and other successful porn prostitutes: are you really content to ignore women who are raped on camera, and coerced and trafficked then disregarded, simply because a tiny minority can make millions from the same system? To celebrate them is to turn a blind eye to the abuse of thousands of others. The truth is simple: they do not represent the vast majority who engage in this activity. Those women have no voice, and if we are to claim to be on the side of progress, it is their voices, not the voices of those who glamorise abuse, that we must hear.

We must face facts. OnlyFans is not a neutral digital platform company. It is a profiteer of exploitation. We cannot regulate it in the same way that we do Facebook or Instagram. It requires tougher and targeted measures. First, we need transparency. OnlyFans must prove that its 4.6 million creators are all over 18 and have consented to their content. It must also allow independent child protection and trafficking agencies behind its paywall. Secondly, we must protect children online. Ofcom’s current child protection codes are not strong enough. It must ban algorithms that feed sexual content to children. The wider tech sector is critical in this.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. One of the issues with OnlyFans is the way that it does its marketing. Content creators can only market their content by pushing it out on to other platforms. Does the hon. Member agree that we absolutely have to keep the law up to date with modern technology—pornography laws are now well out of date—to stop pornography not only being available on OnlyFans but creeping out on to regular social media platforms?

[Joani Reid]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Social media companies should not be allowed to push pornography and sexual content to under-18s, and they should be banned from doing so.

The wider tech industry is crucial to this issue—it is not just OnlyFans. It should not be allowed to profit from directing children towards pornography. If it does not comply, economic levers could be considered. If OnlyFans refuses to reform, it could face a levy on profits to fund services for survivors and education for young people.

We should learn from Sweden. On 1 July this year, Sweden became the first country to criminalise the purchase of sex online. The OnlyFans law sends a clear message that buying exploitation is not a digital game; it is a crime. The UK could look seriously at following that path. However, I appreciate that much work needs to be done before we reach that point. We must acknowledge that the prostitution laws in our country remain rooted in Victorian values and were designed in a different age.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

In my view, prostitution and sexual exploitation are inherently violent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that we shift the criminal burden on to those responsible for sexual exploitation and violence, and that more should be done to criminalise those who buy sex, whether it is through prostitution or OnlyFans?

[Joani Reid]

What my hon. Friend describes is the Nordic model, which I fully support and hope to see implemented in this country some time in the future. Ash Regan, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, brought forward a private Member’s Bill there that made a serious attempt at trying to implement that way of doing things. We should modernise the system and appreciate that vulnerable women should not be criminalised—those who create the demand should.

Ultimately, we must be clear about the principle. For too long, it is the women who have paid the price while the men who purchase and the corporations that profit walk free. We need to turn that around. As survivors in Sweden put it: “It feels like redemption.” This is not about prudishness; it is about confronting violence and exploitation in plain sight. Pornography prostitution is not a career and is not harmless entertainment. It is abuse—filmed, monetised and uploaded.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I urge the hon. Member to give the Minister some time to respond.

[Joani Reid]

I have one sentence left.

OnlyFans is not a success story; it is a pimping empire built on the pain of women and children.

16:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Thank you, Sir Desmond, for thinking of the time that I might have to respond. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank and commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid) for securing this debate. She is clearly very passionate and informed about the topics in question. That absolutely shone through in her speech. It would be hard to listen to much of the testimony from women who have been abused in this way and feel anything else. My hon. Friend was one of a number of speakers to have referenced the challenges around pornography in the debate on violence against women and girls that I responded to at the start of the year. I am grateful to her and to all Members who have contributed today.

This is not the first time that Members of Parliament are considering the impact of pornography on violence against women and girls; the general themes have been long-standing subjects of concern. However, it does feel that the issues around pornography are taking on greater significance all the time, for many of the reasons that have been identified today. In lots of ways, that is inevitable given how universal the internet has become and the massive proliferation of online devices, especially among young people. Similarly, prostitution is another established area of focus for discussion in this space, and I note the points that have been made.

I will return to those issues shortly, but I want to couch my response in the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, because of the fundamental recognition of the damage that is being done by these kinds of abuses, many of which we have heard about today. As a society, we must do much better, and we will. The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I are all committed to ensuring that these issues are dealt with once and for all.

On the points raised, as Members are aware, and as has been covered today, the online space is a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and our response needs to reflect that. I would say that today the online space is the most significant enabler of sexual exploitation of both adults and children. It becomes an ever-increasing concern.

Online platforms must be responsible and held accountable for content on their sites, including by taking proactive steps to prevent their sites from being used by criminals. We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out the priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences. Online platforms now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services, albeit this issue has a globally challenging element to it, and obviously our laws apply within the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven pointed out, many of the cases that she highlighted were US-based.

As of 17 March, online platforms need to take safety measures to protect users from illegal content, as set out in Ofcom’s code of practice, or face significant penalties, which OnlyFans has, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We are going further: schedule 13 to the Crime and Policing Bill will equip law enforcement officers with new tools to disrupt sexual exploitation that is facilitated through online platforms. They will be able to apply to the court for an order to suspend internet protocol and domain names for a specified period, up to 12 months, if they are used for serious crime, including the offences relating to sexual exploitation and modern slavery—anything that is illegal, essentially.

Through operational activity aimed at tackling modern slavery threats and targeting prolific perpetrators, the Government are further supporting law enforcement to tackle the drivers of trafficking for sexual exploitation. I will take away from the debate the point about the specific model. I have seen the work of law enforcement in respect of adult websites—I have seen women who were found on those sites being supported and taken to safety. I have also seen perpetrators criminalised—nowhere near as many as I would like, but that is an evergreen statement—in relation to violence against women and girls. However, I take my hon. Friend’s point about the specific model used by OnlyFans and the need to get behind what might not be able to be seen, and to ensure that that is possible. I will absolutely take that away and ask those questions.

The Government will continue to keep under review policies to tackle online enablers of sexual exploitation, and we want to ensure that online companies fulfil their duty to eradicate exploitation from their sites. If necessary, we will take further action to do that.

More broadly, Baroness Bertin’s independent review of the impact of pornography has given us valuable insights into the role of pornography. Nobody wishes to seem prudish; what we wish to do is safeguard the women who may be abused in this manner and the children in our country. There has been an exponential increase in the scale of pornography, but it has also become increasingly violent, degrading and misogynistic. We should all be seriously concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) said, about the ideas of stepchildren, child-based hooks, “barely legal” and so on. We absolutely must focus on that.

We are already working to change things. In July, we oversaw the coming into force of measures under the Online Safety Act that require all websites that show pornography and are accessible in the UK to have highly effective age-assurance checks. That means, quite rightly, that children should not be able to access pornographic content online. Ofcom has launched an enforcement programme to help to ensure that that is the case. We continue to monitor how well that works.

It is so important that children—both boys and girls—are supported to understand the potential dangers of pornography, and to understand how to form positive relationships. That is why the Government have committed to ensuring, through education on healthy relationships, sex and health, that we have a curriculum that equips young people with the knowledge and skills they need to build positive relationships. The new content was launched on 15 July, and it explores many of the things that we would want to see in happy, healthy relationships.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven and other Members that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I, along with many other ministerial colleagues, are looking across Baroness Burtin’s review for inspiration and action. On the ask to include this issue in the violence against women and girls strategy, I do not just hear it; I believe it—and I think I can confirm that it will be.

I have absolutely no doubt about the harms to the individuals involved in the pornography that my hon. Friend outlined, and also about the cross-fertilisation to other sites through algorithms. I remember my son telling me, when he was 14, that he had been watching the Sidemen—there is a sea of blank faces in Westminster; the Sidemen are very mainstream online influencers—and they had been roller-skating with a load of women from OnlyFans. That was painted as being completely legitimate. My son said it to me as if there was nothing in it at all. I am grateful that I have that relationship with my son, but I can also see that there is danger in that cross-fertilisation of the expectation that violent, misogynistic porn is the kind of sex or relationship I would want my sons to grow up with. I hear my hon. Friend’s cries and look forward to working with her.

Question put and agreed to.