Page 4 | Full page (gross) Ann Summers adverts

JustSayWhen · 2025-07-27T09:16:14+00:00

I've added a picture, though I don't know if it will be allowed. Ann Summers adverts have been popping up mid thread for a few days, mostly pictures of women in thongs and stockings from behind though also a model with crosses over her nips in some sheer thing. It's so embarrassing if I'm browsing MN in the queue for Pilates or at a coffee shop and someone looks over my shoulder and sees these tacky, porny images. I thought ads were targeted but I have never visited the Ann Summers site in my life and never would - it's all nasty polyester, I feel itchy just seeing the adverts. I'm surprised ads featuring naked bums are ok on Mumsnet - it's really putting me off scrolling! Shouldn't they be blocked?

IDontHateRainbows · 30/07/2025 08:35

IHaveAlwaysLivedintheCastle · 29/07/2025 21:25

Here's another definition of "prude" I found on Urban dignity

A slur men brainwashed by porn use to refer to women who have self respect and dignity

Why do you have such a problem with the idea that some posters don't want to see ads for sex aids? And that's what Ann Summers "underwear" is.

Do you have difficulties perhaps with your own sex life so you have to dress up as a Benny Hill character?

Show quote history

Because it's a site with a wide reach. Why should 'some posters' dictate what MN can or cannot do when I bet 95% of people on this site don't really care either way. Why are YOU more important?

And now you're the one trying to shame others about their sex lives with the Benny Hill comment so you're hardly the paragon of moral virtue here.

NewAgeNewMe · 30/07/2025 08:24

@JustSayWhen 👏👏👏👏

Original poster

JustSayWhen · 30/07/2025 08:18

I'm really wondering why it's so important to you that women don't state their sexual boundaries @Gobacktotheworld. the vehemence with which you push back on anyone saying they don't feel comfortable with a certain level of sexual content is disproportionate. You're fine with the adverts; why are you so desperate to try to silence anyone who isn't? Why does it matter so much to you that women should have to see sexual content they don't consent to and that they shouldn't speak up about it?

These adverts are different to other adverts because they do not have an option on them to click and state preferences. All other adverts on the site do - but the adverts for a sex shop featuring partly naked women in lingerie do not.

It's not prudish to value consent. It's very sinister to want so badly as you to override women's boundaries.

OP posts:

Gobacktotheworld · 30/07/2025 08:05

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ.

IHaveAlwaysLivedintheCastle · 30/07/2025 07:44

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ.

Do you have any notion how stupid that "gotcha" is? Comparing, neutral, normal, everyday medical situations where body parts are naked to "underwear" designed to be sexually titillating. If they were exactly the same there would be no point in Ann Summers existing.

Original poster

JustSayWhen · 30/07/2025 07:07

Honestly, whatever anyone's opinions on the ads themselves, I can't see a reasonable explanation for making the one that features pictures of partially naked women the only ads the viewer can't remove. Especially on threads about rape. That's not defensible.

I've just watched through a carousel of ads on this thread - British Airways, Amazon, Ann Summers. Little triangle with an 'i' for the others, I can click and give my preferences to see ads like that or not in the future. Nothing on the Ann Summers one.

OP posts:

NewAgeNewMe · 30/07/2025 06:58

People who are calling others prudish have really no idea where some may have commented. I don’t think on a website where sensitive information is discussed people should see an Ann summers advert. And I say that as someone who in my youth bought the stuff at a party. And no it wasn’t comfortable. Wore it once and binned it!

edit: just seen @JustSayWhen comment

Original poster

JustSayWhen · 30/07/2025 06:55

Coming back to the thread @BeckyAMumsnet @HebeMumsnet to say the advert came back - on a thread started by a distressed rape victim - and as you can see, the Ann Summers ad has no X or triangle in the corner to get rid of it. The Co op advert above does have the triangle. Please could you look into why it's not possible to get rid of the Ann Summers ads - why do we not have this option for the AS content only?

The image is blurry because the larger picture flashes and changes, making it even more obtrusive on the page.

Do you really think it's ok to have a picture like this come up on a thread about sexual assault with no option to remove it? It's particularly bad that it is paired with an inoffensive co-op ad that DOES have the triangle.

OP posts:

Gobacktotheworld · 29/07/2025 22:33

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ.

BIWI · 29/07/2025 21:46

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ.

Love the passive aggression!

And no. We provide the content. Over the years I’ve been here I’ve provided a significant amount. Not just chatting shite, but all the Bootcamp threads I’ve run since 2012.

IHaveAlwaysLivedintheCastle · 29/07/2025 21:25

IDontHateRainbows · 29/07/2025 20:47

I don't think using the word prude to describe prudish behavior is particularly insulting.

You seem to be taking offensive rather too easily here.

I mean, if you want to be a prude I have no issue with that but calling out posters for being insulting when they are just using a word in a perfectly reasonable, descriptive way is a little...how can I put it...insulting.

Show quote history

Here's another definition of "prude" I found on Urban dignity

A slur men brainwashed by porn use to refer to women who have self respect and dignity

Why do you have such a problem with the idea that some posters don't want to see ads for sex aids? And that's what Ann Summers "underwear" is.

Do you have difficulties perhaps with your own sex life so you have to dress up as a Benny Hill character?

Screamingabdabz · 29/07/2025 21:14

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ.

Wow you’re so cool.

🙄

TheHillsIsLonely · 29/07/2025 21:08

This is the second time this has happened to me this week on MN. The overly sexualised and trashy images are on screen for quite a long time, they don't go away when you click on the x and they are flashing images in more ways than one. There is nothing wrong with the female form. I just don't want to be subjected to images of women trussed up like chickens for the male gaze.

Most of us on here are mums and it is highly possible that we could have our innocent DC with us while on MN. I just did. I do not want to be force fed these images when on MN and I do not want my DC to be exposed to them while on MN.

If it was 'just underwear' none of us would be objecting. It's not 'just underwear'. They are porn/sex aids ads.

This is happening very soon after many of us were subjected to graphic porn via pop ups here on MN. See the thread elsewhere in Site Stuff. I had my innocent DC with me when that happened too.

This has all started happening since we have all had ads forced on us by MN unless we pay the premium. We are the content, we provide the content. MN needs to remember that. Without Mumsnetters there would be no site for Justine and MNHQ to earn a living from.

I should not have to put up with intrusive images like this on a parenting site which claims to make life easier for parents. Would Justine and the staff find their life was made easier by their own children being exposed to this? I very much doubt it.

Must do better MNHQ.

IDontHateRainbows · 29/07/2025 20:47

JustSayWhen · 29/07/2025 20:06

I think it comes down to your definition of 'easily' @IDontHateRainbows All of us have a line. There are sexual/nude images that would shock you if they popped up on Mumsnet. You have a boundary somewhere; everybody does. We all draw those boundaries in the place that feels most comfortable to us. For some people, maybe that's an M&S bra advert - well, I'm fine with those images but I wouldn't seek to insult or mock someone who felt uncomfortable with it. Some people will draw their boundaries based on religious or cultural reasons. For others, it could be related to trauma. Maybe it's just personal taste for someone else.

I find the word 'prude' questionable. I mentioned upthread that I have a dear friend who identifies as asexual. It's a valid identity and one that some people - who probably don't consider themselves bigoted - feel fine mocking. I think it's wrong to insult people who aren't interested in or don't feel comfortable with sex and sexual content. Prude is a word that comes with judgement attached. The dictionary definition may be neutral, but words carry weight that isn't always captured by Collins.

Personally, I think the Ann Summers ads cross a line. For someone else, their line is elsewhere - but we all have one somewhere. I don't think it's ok to insult people based on where that line is for them.

I am sorry I was very scathing about Ann Summers in my first few posts. I don't like it and I don't think their stuff is sexy. But that's not really my problem with the ad; I am bothered by the amount of bums that popped up on my phone screen in public and I don't think that's appropriate for an advert on a mainstream site. I apologise for being judgemental about the quality of AS. I don't apologise for thinking their adverts aren't appropriate.

I think there are a couple of posters wildly overreacting and making pretty ridiculous judgements about those who draw a boundary here. I am extremely suspicious of people who get very irate when women put sexual boundaries in place. It's a fairly big red flag.

Edited

I don't think using the word prude to describe prudish behavior is particularly insulting.

You seem to be taking offensive rather too easily here.

I mean, if you want to be a prude I have no issue with that but calling out posters for being insulting when they are just using a word in a perfectly reasonable, descriptive way is a little...how can I put it...insulting.

IHaveAlwaysLivedintheCastle · 29/07/2025 20:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

IHaveAlwaysLivedintheCastle · 29/07/2025 20:14

Lanternsarenice · 29/07/2025 19:57

I just don't want people to think I'm looking at a dirty old porn mag whilst I'm eating my lunch at work. That's what it looked like. To anyone looking over my shoulder, that's what they'd have thought.

It's exactly what they look like. It's like the covers of "top shelf" magazines which are put out of sight so that only anyone wanting to see them, sees them.

Original poster

JustSayWhen · 29/07/2025 20:06

I think it comes down to your definition of 'easily' @IDontHateRainbows All of us have a line. There are sexual/nude images that would shock you if they popped up on Mumsnet. You have a boundary somewhere; everybody does. We all draw those boundaries in the place that feels most comfortable to us. For some people, maybe that's an M&S bra advert - well, I'm fine with those images but I wouldn't seek to insult or mock someone who felt uncomfortable with it. Some people will draw their boundaries based on religious or cultural reasons. For others, it could be related to trauma. Maybe it's just personal taste for someone else.

I find the word 'prude' questionable. I mentioned upthread that I have a dear friend who identifies as asexual. It's a valid identity and one that some people - who probably don't consider themselves bigoted - feel fine mocking. I think it's wrong to insult people who aren't interested in or don't feel comfortable with sex and sexual content. Prude is a word that comes with judgement attached. The dictionary definition may be neutral, but words carry weight that isn't always captured by Collins.

Personally, I think the Ann Summers ads cross a line. For someone else, their line is elsewhere - but we all have one somewhere. I don't think it's ok to insult people based on where that line is for them.

I am sorry I was very scathing about Ann Summers in my first few posts. I don't like it and I don't think their stuff is sexy. But that's not really my problem with the ad; I am bothered by the amount of bums that popped up on my phone screen in public and I don't think that's appropriate for an advert on a mainstream site. I apologise for being judgemental about the quality of AS. I don't apologise for thinking their adverts aren't appropriate.

I think there are a couple of posters wildly overreacting and making pretty ridiculous judgements about those who draw a boundary here. I am extremely suspicious of people who get very irate when women put sexual boundaries in place. It's a fairly big red flag.

OP posts:

Lanternsarenice · 29/07/2025 19:57

I just don't want people to think I'm looking at a dirty old porn mag whilst I'm eating my lunch at work. That's what it looked like. To anyone looking over my shoulder, that's what they'd have thought.

IDontHateRainbows · 29/07/2025 19:23

BIWI · 29/07/2025 18:48

It’s fair to say that many MNetters do object to these ads. Suggesting they’re prudes or that they need therapy is beyond insulting.

But we all know why MN take such ads. They have a relationship with Ann Summers who, no doubt, pay a pretty penny to advertise their wares here.

… which is why ad blockers were invented.

Edited

But it is prudish. Its pretty much the definition of prudish. Why is it bad to call it what it is?

Prude: someone who is easily shocked by sex or nudity.

Source: colliers dictionary

Gobacktotheworld · 29/07/2025 19:15

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ.

BIWI · 29/07/2025 18:48

It’s fair to say that many MNetters do object to these ads. Suggesting they’re prudes or that they need therapy is beyond insulting.

But we all know why MN take such ads. They have a relationship with Ann Summers who, no doubt, pay a pretty penny to advertise their wares here.

… which is why ad blockers were invented.

Gobacktotheworld · 29/07/2025 18:03

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ.

Joboomer · 29/07/2025 17:30

@BeckyAMumsnet is being deceitful in saying we can click the x in the corner to remove it. There is no x.
If we engage an ad-blocker MN gets upset and disconnects us. Unfortunately I clicked and opened the ad trying to get details of it. That probably means it is the algorithm for me. (sigh)
The place for those ads is in the sex section not in health or politics or serious topics.
C'mon @BeckyAMumsnet you stopped the private chats on PM if they get too sexy.
Double standards?

IHaveAlwaysLivedintheCastle · 29/07/2025 13:26

Meadowfinch · 29/07/2025 13:00

If I had been in the pilates queue, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid. Honestly, it's just underwear ads, you weren't watching a porn film. It's not to my taste but it wouldn't worry me.

It's irrelevant.

Edited

Well bully for you. What a pity everyone isn't you.

I didn't consent to seeing adverts for items designed for sexual titillation. It's not "just underwear ads" so please cut the faux naivety.

Meadowfinch · 29/07/2025 13:00

If I had been in the pilates queue, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid. Honestly, it's just underwear ads, you weren't watching a porn film. It's not to my taste but it wouldn't worry me.

It's irrelevant.