Let's talk about sex toys (well, ads for them on Mumsnet), please

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello.

We'd like your opinions, please, on Mumsnet taking ads for stores/sites that sell sex toys.

We accepted a campaign for one site like this earlier in the week - and then removed it after receiving a fair number of complaints.

So, what we need to know now is...

Do you mind ads for stores/sites that sell sex toys - generally speaking?

Does it matter which stores/sites these are? And what kind of stuff they're selling?

And, if you wouldn't run a mile from these kinds of ads, would you be happy to see them all over Mumsnet (with the obvious exception of our more sensitive topics such as Bereavement, Special Needs, Relationships, Miscarriage etc)? Or would you prefer them only to be in Chat?

Do please post and let us know your thoughts.

Thanks MNHQ

Am not bothered either way, ristretto, just not keen for this thread to go off at a tangent with a pile-on about sweary user names

Mn see what you've done now, started up the sweary names thing again

Nah, LBAMA, if ristretto drops it (which I think she has), all will be well...worry not

Well, I hope ristretto hasn't dropped it because I agree with her, and I think this is a perfectly good place to raise it as JustineMumsnet is obviously reading this one (and I don't imagine she'd waste her time reading a specific thread about MN and swearing - not least as she has on occasion displayed slightly sweary tendencies herself).

Laughing at BIWI's 'hardcord' MN-ers, though.

That was cruel, ByJingoes!

Thanks Justine.

What do you mean by 'more choosy' though? That sounds a bit vague...like you're not really tying your knickers flag to the fence here.

AF I understand we don't need to be fully accorded with the POV of MNHQ but I would appreciate a little more reassurance as to what exactly WILL be appearing and what definitely won't.

iyswim

and fwiw I don't mind you getting your revenue from them. I just don't like you advertising them. The way you phrase it makes it sound like I actively want to deprive MN of revenue which isn't the case.

apols for mixed up bits of post directed at MN and AF. Hope it makes sense

Sorry, BIWI, I don't mean to offend. I was genuinely laughing out loud, and given the rubbish day I have had, you have done me a big favour. I just had this mental picture of the Guardianistas sitting in their university offices Mumsnetting away doing vital research in their cord trews.

"But they have refused advertising revenue on behalf of their users.

MNHQ don't have to agree with us, nor do they even have to do as we ask."

Totally agree with anyfucker on that. We are given a great deal of consideration in MN's commercial decisions, this is not normal. MN could quite rightly ignore us all, yes people would leave but they would soon be replaced. i don't think other forums (I am NOT saying fora) act like this, tbh.

Thanks Justine. The fact that members are consulted over issues such as this is one of the reasons why I enjoy using the site. If you ever decide to go public, I'll buy a couple of shares.

Ristretto I took great offense at your post.

"I just don't see why a militant group of MNs get to shape the site so much. Bloody hilarious when you see the content of some of their posts and user names. Come on MNHQ - you need to show some backbone and strong decision making and not react so defensively each time you are challenged by the same old vocal hardcore lot!"

You're trying to dismiss 400+ opinions as that of a vocal hardcore. I don't appreciate you belittling my thoughts and feelings on this because of your dislike for some usernames.

I think Ristretto does make a valid point. Generally, I do think there's a militant group of MNers, and that their views are somehow felt to count for more than the less vocal members/the regular namechangers (of whom I am one) who don't want to be part of some MN mafia and who don't feel that their views are ever taken into account.

I, for instance, detest swearing in usernames and in posts. I also disagree with some of the MN campaigns (or parts of them), and I disagree generally with the left-of-centre stance that MN (MNHQ and 'favourite posters' alike) generally endorses.

If you feel that your thoughts and feelings are belittled by one post, MollyintheMoon, try being a right-wing non-swearer on MN.

You miss my point ByJingoes.

On this particular topic there are 400+ posts against sex toy adverts. There may well be 10,000 members of the site who want sex toy adverts but they should've spoken up about it. You're right, the 'less vocal' majority will never be heard unless they actually post their opinions. I'm presuming MNHQ are not mind-readers.

If you feel your opinions are being maligned on other areas of the site, then it is down to you to vocalise your thoughts or ignore the threads. Yes, there are posters who are more prolific than others; to assume that their views count for more is ridiculous. There is no conspiracy, no mafia and no 'favourite' posters.

Yes, I probably have missed your point, MollyintheMoon. I don't think I've made my own point very well either. The whole 'mafia' thing (which is the word I used) smacks of conspiracy theories, and certainly don't think there's any conspiracy theory at work.

It seems to me, though, that MN demands a degree of heterodoxy which I personally find distasteful. I've tried to discuss the swearing thing, but just get told to eff off to Nethuns - yet I dislike moderation/censorship and the Nethuns' huggy-kissy-mama-to-two-angels stuff just as much as I dislike swearing. It also seems that MN demands agreement on feeding (breast only), schools (state only), politics (left only), newspapers (anything but the DM). And so on. If you bring up any of these ishoos, you get shot down by the same old names. And while I don't for a second think that Justine et al are all matey with said same old names, I think their views are often shared ones - which makes it very hard to make any other views heard.

FWIW, I'm against the sex toy adverts - but am also against astonishingly offensive (to my mind) usernames. There are so many that don't involve crudity; why choose one that does? It shows a real 'stuff you' attitude towards other people, which I ultimately find depressing.

ByJingoes far be it from me to tell you which forums to use, but if you fundamentally disagree with so much of what is the ethos and fabric of MN, I am not sure why you are even here

FWIW, MNHQ will listen to complaints if you post them on a seperate thread re. swearing on MN there is no need at all to hijack this thread with your complaints

MNHQ always answer...just because you don't like what they say doesn't mean they aren't hearing you

The swearing thing has been done to death, and every time it is raised there is massive consensus that that this is an adult site and the majority want to keep the swearing. So, if you can't stomach it...you need to find somewhere else to hang out. It really is as simple as that.

MN doesn't advocate heterodoxy, they advocate democracy (and don't get cats bum faces about swearing...)

I'd like to protest about the use of the word forums.

I don't really care but I just feel a protest coming on and this seems to be as good a cause as any.

Viz the fact that MN consults its users so heavily, without wishing to be incredibly ungracious, because I really do think that's a marvellous thing and am not dissing it in any way - I think we need to remember that that is one of the things which makes mumsnet a different sort of parenting site than any other. It's one of the reasons politicians in the run up to elections come here - because this place is different from any other place on the internet, it has a different flavour. One of the reasons MN consult us, is because that consultation is part and parcel of its core brand values IMO - it would be a different place if it didn't do that, we would have aptamil ads (anyone remember the huge hoo ha that went on about that), there would be much more ordinary, bog standard views as the norm and it wouldn't have such a defined USP. Justine et al would probably be much richer, but I bet they wouldn't be as proud of their product.

ACF why am I here? Because there are also many conversations on here that make me laugh. Sometimes I even find a nugget of useful advice. That's why.

The very fact that you ask that, though, rather proves my point. So if I'm not a sweary left-wing state-school-using breast-feeder, I should go elsewhere?

I completely disagree that MN advocates democracy. I think that lip service is paid to democracy, but that a truly democratic parenting site (or any site, come to that) is a complete impossibility. MNHQ could probably do with a dissenting voice, though, to even out the tone of the site. As it stands, it's a bit like the BBC: nominally impartial but in practice decidedly not.

I think politicians are playing a risky and unintelligent game if they believe the minority of parents who use MN (let's face it, it's a minority of parents across the country, however important some of us think it is) are representative of all parents. Think how popular the Lib Dems were on MN before the election. That was decidedly not representative of the general public.

forums
forums

forums

BJ don't try and put words in my mouth

I don't care where your politics lie. I don't care that you don't like swearing, I don't care that you don't BF, I don't care that you don't use the private school system

only one of that list is where we differ, as a matter of fact

but why the chip on your shoulder ? There is room for all sorts here (as evidenced by the funny threads to which you refer...and the legion nuggets of useful information

what does piss me off is people complaining for the sake of complaining

what is the point ??

I think you are wilfully misunderstanding me, ACF. But you have prompted me to start a new thread here, so I will stop hijacking this one now.

fora
fora
fora

So didn't you notice all those bucket-headed threads about scrounging unemployed/ disabled/ workshy/ insert scapegoat group here people who are bleeding the country dry and are probably promiscuous/ fat/ insert other socially unacceptable characteristic here, then Jingo?

I think there's plenty of balance, really.

Then we are wilfully misunderstanding each other BJ < shrug >

Look I'm not particularly fond of the sweary names either, it kind of jolts a bit but I ignore it as I feel people are more than their user name.

I just don't think it's entirely relevant to this thread so I shan't comment further.

Ristretto - astonishingly arrogant posts from you. I'd rather listen to AF in any context whatever she's called. She's just nicer.