Why are you allowing people to troll the Sex Board?

Got lost down a rabbit hole from that link @ShowOfHands - sad to see names of those no longer with us

... but also how much more lighthearted things were, and how frequently the mods (and Justine) would come and chat on threads.

The whole board is not in the spirit of the site and changing its character

apologies, that second link should’ve been
www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/2082521-Do-you-think-its-time-to-reconsider-a-sex-topic?page=4&reply=47105108

The sex topic arrived in summer 2015, in 2014 MNHQ still took the view that, “We do have a problem with heavy-breathers turning up purely to elicit sexual stories, of course. When these people are reported to us with deal with 'em.”, though they were seemingly becoming more open to the idea of a separate topic.

(www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/1593235-So-I-was-wondering-A-sex-topic?page=2&reply=35041353)

There will be people only visiting the sex board on MN, the disproportionate male:female ratio tells us that (especially on the sex chat thread). So why aren’t these treated as those turning up purely to elicit sexual stories, I wonder?

In 2012 MNHQ said it would be a pervy troll magnet “… We have absolutely no problem with discussions about sex (unless they're pervy to the point of true obscenity) but we do think a Sex topic would be a troll magnet.

And we simply don't have enough gin to cope with that.”

(www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/1593235-So-I-was-wondering-A-sex-topic?reply=34913031)

I honestly never thought MN would become the place to go for Colin seeking horny housewife looking for no strings attached fun and yet here we are.

It wasn’t just 2010. MNHQ were fighting the idea of a designated sex board on the same grounds for years after, too. Then it became a restricted view 90 day registration posters only area. Now MNHQ have got a dildo to sell, so this market is their audience and surprise, surprise they’re now front and centre, in active. As the old adage goes, “Sex sells” and MNHQ are buying into it, to hell with any ethical issues.

Some of the key MNHQ messages from that thread. To save people scrolling.

And here we are with hook up threads in active.

Beautifully articulated @ShowOfHands.

Also @everywhichway Am I correct that the first thread may indeed have been started by a person stating they were a woman, but you have stated you are a man?

Your user name tells me a lot about you.

Which is why I want MNHQ to do something. I've said nothing about individual posters apart from one who called objectors prudish.

And for the record...

www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/905896-Right-MNHQ-I-39-m-looking-at-you?reply=18432006

That's me 13yrs ago, campaigning for a sex topic and I stand by every word. Please also note Justine's responses, her fears for the tone of the site, for attracting people who want to do more than just talk. Note that the majority of us wanted a topic that worked as part of the site, where educated adults could post and talk or hide and ignore according to preference. And the topic happened and it remained hidden for those of us who fought for that ability.

FF to now and MN are hosting sex chat hook ups, moving it into active without acknowledging the tech issues for app users in advance, ignoring the questions/concerns their users have and completely reversing their stance on site usage.

Maybe the site has changed with time. Maybe this is the new direction. Maybe it's not the place for me.

Well said @ShowOfHands

@ShowOfHands but the thread users still aren’t breaking any Mumsnet rules. This is all on Mumsnet, not individuals.

How do you know anyone on the thread is anything they say? Profession or sex?

That’s a good illustration of the problem. User behaviour shifts. Over time it becomes accepted (of not acceptable) that creeps will send people creepy messages. People who object stop using the site. They’re often replaced by people seeking it out.

it’s not about limiting posters to talking about nappies. It’s recognising what an editorial policy of making sex chat more
prominent will change many things. MN are choosing to do that and not listening to users who would prefer it remained much more opt in.

Given that, the behaviour the OP (whose username actually includes the word ‘horny’) describes is a kind of mild MN civil disobedience from people who feel strongly.

personally, I just hid the sex topic. But it being a prominent part of active convos is still going to affect many things about MN.

👏

Really well articulated @ShowOfHands

It isn't just a sex topic though is it? It isn't just a place where people talk about something or query something or describe an issue. It's become an actual place to hook up with other people, the private message facility used to enable people to have sex. Not talk about it, actually do it. Married people. Openly married people. In the meantime, people's worlds are falling apart due to cheating and MN is offering a safe space and support through it in another topic. You simply cannot claim to make parents' lives easier and continue hosting important safe spaces and discussions at the very same time as you introduce a wholesale change of use and tone and force us all to partake.

I've been on MN 20yrs and once upon a time, it was so desperately needed to provide solace, advice, wit, counsel. It literally saved lives. It held hands and changed fortunes. People relied on it. Its USP seemed so necessary. And do you know what, we also talked about sex. Just like we always have. Because talking about sex is not the issue. And we were pretty good at spotting and dealing with men and women who came here for sexual kicks because, you know what, they had the rest of the Internet for that.

And calling us prudish for objecting? Suggesting we check our responses? Well you can fuck right off. It's not about pearl clutching or bosom hoiking. We aren't what you call us, sanctimonious or snowflakes and we aren't spoiling your fun. You are spoiling ours and a little humility that our comfort might rank as highly as your need to wank would be just dandy. You aren't there for the chat or the wit or the meeting of minds because MN has done that for 20 yrs without your "tiptoes in feeling naughty M52 looking for fun chats winkety fucking wink". You want to have sex.

The least MN can do is hide the bloody topic.

Correcting false statements isn't 'having a go'

I was defending it the other day - posted on a lighthearted thread which came up in active and agreed that posters should just scroll by or hide the topic, however after my post I got an inbox from someone saying how they had 'enjoyed' my contribution 🤮. Won't be making that mistake again

It is so disheartening to see that the bickering is ongoing. The sex board in general and chat thread in particular certainly seem to polarise opinion. However, the posters on both haven’t been breaking Mumsnet rules, they weren’t being nasty to one another, they weren’t even judging each other’s sexual preferences. Please remember that. Feel free to picket Mumsnet but it’s not fair to have a go at individuals on the boards.

There are absolutely loads of hook up/sex chat sites on the bloody internet.

I do find it bizarre when people want to try to turn other sites into that. Why would MN need to be the place you go to find people to help with you wank?

Including this stuff does change the tone of the whole site. Especially when it’s presented to users as the default option unless they 1. Learn that you can hide topics and 2. Figure out how to do it. Over time, it creeps out into the general culture of the site too.

Ideas around being ‘sex positive’/not ‘shaming’ women for liking sex seems very quickly and easily to slip into hook up threads and creepy messages. At what point are the main bulk of site users allowed to comment that they don’t think this stuff is or should be ‘in the spirit’ of MN? Without being told that they’re hideous prudes?

You also say 'so called' hook-up thread.

You don't need to use the speechmarks. It is, absolutely, a hook-up thread!

You keep talking about respect @everywhichway

And yet this is how you describe people posting about the sex chat thread/sex topic:

I'm afraid it's the recent decision to include Sex Topics in the list of Active threads that has spawned the current torrent of abuse, misrepresentation, sanctimonious rhetoric and general intolerance of people on here

New post on Site Stuff - "Why is the sex topic now in Active?" - which continues the male-bashing and general ill-informed abuse

You state that those on the sex chat thread are:

almost without exception they are good-natured, polite and non-judgemental of others

... which is so not true - calling anyone who has objected 'snowflakes', 'pearl clutchers' 'uptight' and so on.