Why is Sex topic now in Active?

[clarrylove]

It never used to be there before. It doesn't really seem appropriate with some of the titles.

Totally agree with this.

Are Ann Summers responsible for shrek's ear or is it a different company?

Went to look; Shreks ear is a different company though the advert features the same quote from Justine about getting rid of outdated attitudes and taboos around female sexuality (not sure how hosting a male dominated sexchat thread fits in with that!) Another promotional post is in partnership with AS again, all about different toys for the bedroom all linked to buy through the AS site.

The vibrator is being advertised under this link now - it’s really not what you’re expecting from the title - it’s like the grubby Mumsnet sexual version of being rickrolled. Opt out of sexual content - if you can guess where it is first - in birth related content.

All this is far from what I’d expect from Mumsnet - if Mumsnet was a person, people would be asking whether they had dementia due to the sudden inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Yes, they'd be saying, with a head tilt and a tinkly laugh, "Are you on glue??"

All this is far from what I’d expect from Mumsnet - if Mumsnet was a person, people would be asking whether they had dementia due to the sudden inappropriate sexual behaviour

This 100%.
It’s a magnet for trolls and weirdos to have it pop up in Active and we don’t want to attract any more creepy posters in a site relying on its posters for its content. Plus it feels extremely inappropriate on a site about parenting which I want to be safe to use with the DC in the vicinity.

Or, 'did you mean to sexually harass me be so rude.'

Shrek’s ear is made by a company run by a pair of blokes who talk about ‘people with wombs’ and ‘vulva owners’ - although I think they edited their blurb after MNers noticed.

I’m actually surprised the Mail hasn’t picked up on this yet.

Oh god help us when the DM advertise the new free sex chat forum in the UK.

‘Well-known chat forum for MOTHERS pioneers saucy SEX chat forum!’

Yes , until now there have been no trolls or Herbert's on here at all🙄

TBF it’s probably easier to spot the trolls and Herberts on the rest of the site.

@Sparklingbrook condescending much?

I don’t think so, no.

eye roll it’s too early to be patronised

I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant. 🙄

Oh sorry!! I think I have my heckles up!!

What I meant was if a troll or Herbert decided to troll Mumsnet then they’d possibly go unnoticed in the Sex Topic for a lot longer than than in other topics. Just because of the nature of the conversation.
They tend to get called out fairly swiftly in other topics.
I wasn’t insinuating every single person in the Sex Topic was a troll or Herbert.

And that’s what the 90 day thing was for-trying to prevent that. Only now it’s 7 .

They removed “people with wombs” immediately from an article hosted on MN and said they’d have a word about the other dehumanising language Smile Makers are using.

right now though shreks ear according to their website is suitable for “mothers and vulva owners” and “anyone with a clitoris”.

its like they couldn’t give a fuck isn’t it

I apologise @Sparklingbrook ! Clearly I’ve woken up grumpy today!

And I’m sorry I probably should have elaborated a bit.

I thought the 90 day thing was to protect the genuine posters in Sex Topic from trolls etc.

My eldest is 13. I found Mumsnet when I was scrolling for help about breast feeding and other new Mum issues. My body image was at an all time low and I had a hard time healing from an episiotomy. Sex was literally the last thing on my mind. I think I would have felt even worse coming here for help and finding ads for a vibrator for Mums etc.

To be fair to the DM, ‘website contains sex chat and hook ups’ is unlikely to be newsworthy. Even if it’s MN.

I genuinely think that MN really just don’t do enough strategic user research. They don’t check out the bigger picture for users and think about their advertising behaviour in relation to that. Not do they think through how changes will affect user behaviour.

Nor how they might land any changes with users in a positive way. They just seem to unexpectedly drop things on users who complain and feel that they aren’t being listened to. Now, the more vocal
users may not be representative of the silent majority, but MN do a pretty poor job of anticipating this and bringing their vocal users along with any changes. Let’s not forget that the vocal/prolific users contribute disproportionately to the site - without them MN would be much more tumbleweedy.

If they have a UX team, I don’t think they’re very good at the user centred bit at all. Over the years MN has grown and lost touch with its user base in several ways. Other large online community sites do manage this stuff better.