Introduction
At the end of the summer of 2025, the whole of Italy was shaken by a serious scandal that reflects the widespread structural misogyny in the country, where gender-based violence becomes systemic. Specifically, numerous reports emerged regarding a Facebook group called Mia moglie (“my wife”), in which many men shared private photos of their wives or girlfriends without their consent. Later, more images were shared on the adult forum Phica.eu, where images of famous female figures found online and on social media were distorted, sexualised, and lewdly commented on by male audiences. This scandal not only highlights the lack of real protections for women who report this type of violation, but also reflects structural misogyny, which, through the digital world, gains strength and leads to actual acts of group violence against women’s bodies. These practices represent a grave form of gender-based violence, highlighting the weaknesses in the Italian system, with structural gaps that hinder prompt action to protect women from abuse. The issue, therefore, opens up an important and necessary space for concrete reflection, both for society and institutions, in relation to digital misogyny, legal accountability, and women’s safety online.
For this reason, the following article will be structured to offer a clear overview of events, analysing how the platforms Phica.eu and Mia moglie functioned, and observing how such environments fostered the proliferation of non-consensual material. Furthermore, the following section will look at the phenomenon through the lens of feminist and legal theories, placing it within the framework of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the international obligations arising from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In essence, this research will demonstrate that the dissemination of non-consensual material of women is not only a violation of individual privacy, but is a problem rooted in society, thus creating a grave phenomenon of structural digital gender-based violence that requires real and concrete legal reform, taking into account the responsibilities of platforms and of the cultural environment.
Platforms of Abuse and Digital Impunity: Phica.eu and ‘Mia Moglie’ Reflecting Misogynistic Violence and Systemic Gaps
The adult website Phica.eu, which takes its name from the distortion of the slang word used to identify female genitalia, clearly reveals its purpose. It had been active for at least two decades, since 2005, and despite numerous reports, it functioned as a forum dedicated to the sexual exploitation of women’s images (Giada Zampano, 2025; Sky TG24, 2025; Restivo, 2025). The site is estimated to have generated 600,000 anonymous daily visits, spreading for years decontextualised, stolen, and manipulated photographs of hundreds of women—from ordinary women to influencers and politicians—where material from personal social media accounts and public sources was distorted and sexualised, zooming in on intimate parts or portraying women in sexual positions, demonstrating and provoking a true digital continuation of patriarchal expression (Giuffrida, 2025; Giada Zampano, 2025; Restivo, 2025). The site was divided into categories dedicated to journalists, well-known TV personalities, actresses, influencers, ordinary women, and institutional figures, highlighting the vastness of the violation, which was not only personal but also reflects serious issues of group violence (Restivo, 2025). Among these were Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Democratic Party President Elly Schlein, who expressed disgust and both voiced their solidarity with all women affected by the sexist comments and group-rape dynamics accompanying the photos (Giuffrida, 2025).
Following numerous complaints from famous women, and likely due to the public attention focused on these issues after the scandal of the Facebook group “mia moglie” (“my wife”), the site was shut down by the administrators, accompanied by a shameful statement absolving themselves of any responsibility without making any real commitment to dismantling this type of behavior (Zampano, 2025; Alvich, 2025). The administrator stated that they had decided “with great regret” to remove the material and the website, leaving many astonished, particularly regarding whether anything could have been done earlier. Why did the uproar only arise when famous women became aware of it? This exposes serious gaps in the process for collecting complaints from victims of digital—and other—violence.
The Phica.eu scandal was worsened by a previous episode shortly before, concerning the Facebook group Mia Moglie (“my wife”), with over 30,000 members, in which numerous users shared photos of their wives and girlfriends taken from everyday couple life without consent, which were commented on with sexist and vulgar language (RaiNews, 2025a). 3,000 reports to the Italian postal police in two days resulted, along with the closure of the group by Meta, representing only the tip of the iceberg of a widespread phenomenon online, particularly on channels like Telegram, where monitoring is even more difficult (RaiNews, 2025b, 2025c). A Meta spokesperson stated that the group violated policies against “the sexual exploitation of adults”, and for this reason, they promptly removed the group, which was not equally simple in the case of Phica.eu, as it was an independent website (RaiNews, 2025c). However, the removal of the group does not completely absolve Meta, as, despite the explicit ban on the dissemination of sexually exploitative imagery, numerous questions arise about the American company’s ability to enforce these rules (Financial Times, 2025). Telegram and Facebook groups with similar content are numerous, creating a space where many male users feel free, and probably empowered by a climate of impunity, to use sexist and misogynistic language, completely violating their partners’ privacy and literally putting them up for display to other men (Giannoli, 2025). The case thus, also demonstrates the need to include platforms and institutions among the actors responsible. After reports had already been filed, particularly in the province of Florence, where the main administrator of Phica.eu is believed to reside and was already known to authorities for similar reasons, both Meta and the Postal Police failed to monitor the situation effectively, demonstrating the presence of a broad structural gap against online violence towards women (Euronews, 2025).
It is crucial to connect the Italian scandal of Phica.eu and the group Mia Moglie with the recent French case of Gisèle Pelicot, because, although they occurred in different spheres—real and digital—they share the same root framework, in which desire and consent are shaped by the patriarchal system (Ranaldi, 2025). Both cases are sustained by a culture of possession and domination that disregards female consent, creating a culture of digital rape that clearly prefigures abuses and violence such as those suffered by Pelicot (Pigliaru, 2025).
Digital Misogyny and Technology-Facilitated Violence Against Women: From Cultural Norms to Legal Accountability under ECHR and CEDAW
The digital dimension of violence against women is not an isolated problem but a brutal manifestation of a narrative perpetuation that cannot be resolved without first addressing its root causes (Council of Europe, 2022). The increasing use of such platforms has a strong influence in reshaping the public sphere, serving as fertile ground, strengthened by anonymity, for ideologies like those of the manosphere (Arora et al., 2022; Bernholz et al., 2021; Kennedy-Kollar, 2024; Ignazi et al., 2025). Defined as an online subculture that connects various social groups around a traditional idea of gender, characterised by sexism, antifeminism, and forms of hegemonic masculinity, this logic is also evident in the two cases analysed (Kennedy-Kollar, 2024; Ignazi et al., 2025). Although these were not explicitly political spaces where specific groups advanced an antifeminist ideology, it is important to underline that communities such as Mia Moglie or Phica.eu are the concrete, everyday expression of the manosphere in enacting forms of humiliation, objectification, and control over female bodies.
It remains widespread the idea that solving or preventing such phenomena is somehow sufficiently achieved by punishing those who publish this content—a legal landscape that corresponds to the Italian context, where the debate is based on the need to educate daughters, for example, about the risks of sharing nude photos with their partners, while continuing to ignore the systemic nature of these behaviors and the responsibility of internet service providers hosting such content (Donohue, 2017). This example illustrates how the public, political, and legal debate focuses on punishing the so-called “bad apples” and engaging in victim-blaming rather than understanding the structural problems of toxic masculinity that contribute to creating a highly risky digital and real environment for women and anyone who does not conform to heteronormative standards.
The phenomena described above fall, according to feminist literature, under what is defined as intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA) as relational aggressions aimed at damaging a partner’s reputation (Aghtaie et al., 2018). They have increased significantly through technological and social media channels, contributing to the normalisation of coercive control and violence within society as a result of the dominance of patriarchal culture (Draucker & Martsolf, 2010; Aghtaie et al., 2018; Fineran & Bennett, 1999; Tolman et al., 2003; Lombard, 2014). Consequently, the use of these platforms is employed to maintain control over the relationship of subordination to women, imposing sexual stereotypes through acts of non-consensual pornography, that is, the sharing of nude or sexual images without the subject’s consent (Stark, 2007; Council of Europe, 2022; Donohue, 2017; De Angeli et al., 2023).
According to feminist theories, what predominates in these groups is the expression of what is termed the “male gaze”, a concept coined in relation to the representation of women in media and cinema, referring to a sexualising way of portraying women through their objectification and depiction according to the sexual desire of heterosexual male users, through which men feel empowered while diminishing women (MasterClass, 2022; Vanbuskirk, 2021). The impact on society and on women themselves is negative, directly affecting female self-perception, as it not only forces women to conform to a patriarchal conception of how they should appear or behave but also directly influences their mental health (MasterClass, 2022). The male gaze strongly controls the narrative in these online spaces, promoting the idea that women are inferior beings and reducing their value solely to erotic objects (Vanbuskirk, 2021).
Digital platforms are guilty of having facilitated forms of abuse and therefore must be held accountable for failing to prevent the creation of these spaces. The non-consensual dissemination of intimate images, as highlighted in United Nations CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35, underscores the need to address this form of violence (Council of Europe, 2022; CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35, 2016). The misuse of online platforms has been defined as technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), and according to a 2015 study by the United Nations Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, at least three-quarters of women experienced online gender-based violence; this is confirmed by a more recent study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (2020), reporting that 74 percent of European women have suffered technology-facilitated violence (Council of Europe, 2022; UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, 2015; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2021; Hughes, 2024).
Tracing back these scandals, the scale of violations of the ECHR is not only evident but shocking, as confirmed by previous judgments. Article 8, cited in Von Hannover v. Germany to support the protection of privacy, dignity, and autonomy, applies to the dissemination of images without consent, as such actions violate every woman’s human right to control her own representation (European Court of Human Rights, 2004). Article 10, regarding freedom of expression, was interpreted in Delfi AS v. Estonia to mean that such freedom cannot justify the dissemination of sexist and humiliating content that infringes on dignity and safety (European Court of Human Rights, 2015). Finally, Article 14, which prohibits discrimination, was used in Opuz v. Turkey to affirm that gender-based violence constitutes a true form of discrimination (European Court of Human Rights, 2009). Greater attention must also be given to Article 13, on effective remedies, which obliges ECHR signatory states to provide timely, effective, and accessible remedies; otherwise, victims risk secondary victimisation, as demonstrated by K.U. v. Finland (European Court of Human Rights, 2008).
In Europe, in addition to national legislation and international treaties such as CEDAW, the EU Digital Services Act requires hosting service providers to ensure the presence of a digital mechanism to notify illegal behaviour (De Angeli et al., 2023). However, it suffers from a high level of abstraction, which does not allow for clear application and enforcement (De Angeli et al., 2023). Italy, in particular, introduced Article 612-ter in its penal code in reference to the illegal dissemination of sexually explicit images or videos, but despite this, the judicial gaps revealed in this case reflect the challenges inherent to the multidisciplinary and multi-faced nature of non-consensual sharing (De Angeli et al., 2023). Despite legislative efforts, these violations highlight the grave responsibility of a system that was unable to heed early complaints from ordinary women, choosing to intervene only when high-profile and recognised female figures were involved. This exposes not only severe structural gaps in the Italian legislative system but also reveals forms of discrimination based on the social status of victims, compounded by already entrenched female marginalisation.
Conclusion
Through the analysis of the Phica.eu and Mia Moglie scandals, it becomes evident that online gender-based violence is the expression of structural misogyny rooted in the patriarchal system, which becomes collective and systemic, finding in the digital sphere spaces for proliferation and legitimation that amplify its scope.
The countermeasures promoted by institutions and public opinion in cases of real or digital gender-based violence and IPVA can no longer be the main reference for addressing non-consensual pornography, as it risks contributing to the creation of a highly dangerous environment for women and all those who do not fit the standards imposed by patriarchal thinking. TFGBV phenomena and the control of female narratives through the “male gaze” are the concrete, everyday expressions of the manosphere.
Following the analysis of ECHR case law and international recommendations, digital gender-based violence is fully recognised as a human rights violation and requires a multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach for its resolution. For this reason, it is necessary to implement recognition of the digital dimension of gender-based violence while continuing to push for greater criminalisation of TFGBV, strengthening platform accountability. It is also necessary to expand access to justice and raise awareness to ensure that requests for help do not go unheard (Hughes, 2024; Council of Europe – EDVAW Platform, 2022).
Bibliography
Aghtaie, N., Barter, C., Stanley, N., Wood, M. J. E., & Överlien, C. (2018). Interpersonal violence and abuse in young people’s relationships in five European countries: online and offline normalisation of heteronormativity. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 2(2), 293-310. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://doi.org/10.1332/239868018X15263879270302
Alvich, V. (2025, 29 agosto). Perché il caso “Phica.eu” è diverso da quello del gruppo Facebook “Mia Moglie”. Corriere della Sera. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://www.corriere.it/tecnologia/25_agosto_29/perche-il-caso-phica-eu-e-diverso-da-quello-del-gruppo-facebook-mia-moglie-45e928be-8ed4-4252-bcc2-851e5bbfbxlk.shtml
Arora, S. D., Singh, G. P., Chakraborty, A., & Maity, M. (2022). Polarization and social media: A systematic review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, Article 121942. (Accessed September 6, 2025) doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121942
Bernholz, L., Landemore, H., & Reich, R. (Eds.). (2021). Digital technology and democratic theory. University of Chicago Press.
CEDAW. (2017). General Recommendation no. 35 on gender-based violence against women updating General Recommendation no. 19.
Council of Europe – EDVAW Platform. (2022, November). The digital dimension of violence against women as addressed by the seven mechanisms of the EDVAW Platform. Council of Europe. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://rm.coe.int/thematic-report-on-the-digital-dimension-of-violence-against-women-as-/1680a933ae
Council of Europe. (2022, 17 novembre). The digital dimension of violence against women as addressed by the seven mechanisms of the EDVAW Platform (EDVAW Platform thematic paper). Council of Europe.
De Angeli, A., Falduti, M., Menendez-Blanco, M., & Tessaris, S. (2023). Reporting non-consensual pornography: Clarity, efficiency and distress. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(1), 12829–12858. (Accessed September 6, 2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-13558-1
Donohue, C. P. (2017). A feminist framing of non-consensual pornography. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class, 17(2), 145–178. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/rrgc/vol17/iss2/4
Draucker, C. and Martsolf, D. 2010. Dating Violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 23 (3):133–42
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2021). Measuring the Prevalence of Online Violence against Women. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://onlineviolencewomen.eiu.com
Euronews. (2025, 2 settembre). Individuato l’amministratore del sito Phica.eu: era già noto alla Polizia postale. Euronews. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://it.euronews.com/2025/09/02/individuato-lamministratore-del-sito-phicaeu-era-gia-noto-alla-polizia-postale
European Court of Human Rights. (2004). Von Hannover v. Germany (Application No. 59320/00). (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61853
European Court of Human Rights. (2009). Opuz v. Turkey (Application No. 33401/02). (Accessed September 6, 2025) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-92945
European Court of Human Rights. (2008). K.U. v. Finland (Application No. 2872/02). (Accessed September 6, 2025) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-89964
European Court of Human Rights. (2015). Delfi AS v. Estonia (Application No. 64569/09). (Accessed September 6, 2025) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155105
Financial Times. (2025, 21 agosto). Italy outraged over men sharing intimate photos of their wives online. Financial Times. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://www.ft.com/content/60b6fcf6-1090-4c3d-9467-f962b6054774
Fineran S, Bennett L, 1999. Gender and power issues of peer sexual harassment among teenagers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14:626-41.
Giada Zampano (2025, agosto 28). Website forced to close as Italian women fight back against unauthorized online image sharing. AP News. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://apnews.com/article/italy-women-unauthorized-photos-websites-violence-gender-6af48cd4189e609dc31ede1bc63af7d9
Giannoli, V. (2025, 28 agosto). Mia Moglie, Phica e gli altri siti. Cosa è successo online tra foto rubate e commenti sessisti. La Repubblica. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2025/08/28/news/mia_moglie_forum_phica_foto_moretti_meloni_donne_cos_e_successo-424812093/
Giuffrida, A. (2025, 29 agosto). Giorgia Meloni ‘disgusted’ at posting of photos of her and other women on porn site. The Guardian. (Accessed September 4, 2025)https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/29/giorgia-meloni-disgusted-at-posting-of-photos-of-her-and-other-women-on-porn-site
Hughes, M. (2024, August). How technology can enable violence against women and girls. CETaS Expert Analysis. Centre for Emerging Technology and Security. (Accessed September 6, 2025) https://cetas.turing.ac.uk/publications/how-technology-can-enable-violence-against-women-and-girls
Ignazi, C., Morini, A., & Scrinzi, F. (2025). The Italian manosphere: Composition, structure, and functions of a digital network. Social Inclusion, 13(1), 45–57. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v13i1.9341
Kennedy‐Kollar, D. (2024). Extremism and radicalization in the manosphere: Beta uprising. Taylor & Francis. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032631080
Lombard, N. (2014) Because they’re a couple she should do what he says’: Young People’s justifications of violence: heterosexuality, gender and adulthood, Journal of Gender Studies, 25 (3): 241-253.
MasterClass. (2022, 26 settembre). What is the male gaze? Criticisms of the male gaze in media. MasterClass. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-the-male-gaze
Pigliaru, A. (21 agosto 2025). «Mia moglie», i social e la comunità dello stupro. il manifesto. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://ilmanifesto.it/mia-moglie-i-social-e-la-comunita-dello-stupro
RaiNews. (2025a, 28 agosto). Dopo “Mia Moglie” è bufera su Phica: denunce da tutta Italia, foto anche di donne politiche. RaiNews. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2025/08/dopo-mia-moglie-su-facebook-bufera-su-phica-pd-stop-violenza-online-c13774f0-1cbb-4527-b70b-7494c57c7dbe.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
RaiNews. (2025b, 25 agosto). Filorosso Gruppo Facebook “Mia moglie”: le testimonianze shock. RaiPlay. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://www.rainews.it/video/2025/08/il-gruppo-facebook-mia-moglie-con-oltre-30mila-iscritti-chiuso-dopo-le-segnalazioni-alla-polizia-postale-6e853a61-a06c-4e34-be34-0438f0d60227.html
RaiNews. (2025c, 20 agosto). Meta rimuove da Facebook gruppo “Mia Moglie”: “È sfruttamento sessuale di adulti”. RaiNews. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2025/08/meta-rimuove-da-facebook-gruppo-mia-moglie-e-sfruttamento-sessuale-di-adulti-7c761d66-05d5-47ba-8d9f-8be5a9dc8f81.html
Ranaldi. (2025, August 26). “Mia moglie”, il caso italiano e i richiami delle filosofe Pelicot e Garcia. Sky TG24. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://tg24.sky.it/cronaca/2025/08/26/mia-moglie-gisele-pelicot-manon-garcia
Restivo, F. (2025, 28 agosto). After “Mia moglie” the storm hits Phica.eu: reports from all over Italy — Will the closure be enough? Urgent measures are needed. nss G-Club. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://www.nssgclub.com/en/lifestyle/42406/phica-eu-scandal-mia-moglie-facebook-group-violence-italy
Sky TG24. (2025, 27 agosto). Dopo “Mia Moglie” sbuca il sito Phica, 4 politiche Pd: nostre foto rubate, frasi sessiste. Sky TG24. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://tg24.sky.it/cronaca/2025/08/27/phica-net-foto-donne-moretti-morani-campagna-pd
Stark E, 2007. Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. University Press: New York.
Tolman D, Spencer R, Rosen-Reynosa M, Porche M, 2003. Sowing the seeds of violence in heterosexual relationships: Early adolescents narrate compulsory heterosexuality. Journal of Social Issues 59:159-78.
UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. (2015). Cyber Violence against Women and Girls: A world-wide wake-up call. (Accessed September 5, 2025) https://www.broadbandcommission.org
Vanbuskirk, S. (2021, 22 aprile). What is the male gaze? Verywell Mind. (Accessed September 4, 2025) https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-male-gaze-5118422
