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.

The sex chat thread suggests people contact each other through different platforms once they've swapped details on MN. A lot of potential for harm if anyone on there is underage, and presently there isn't even a token effort to make sure that's not the case.

MN has always been robust, sweary and frank; it's part of the appeal of the site. No twee replacements for explicit language or asterisks, everyone free to swear as much as they like, go elsewhere if you don't like it. It has never been sleazy and sordid until now, hence no warnings required for the rest of the site.

@AutumnLeavesFallingIntoPlace does it? I'm not really interested in it so haven't studied it but I wasn't aware it encourages off site contact.

I wasn't referring to swearing but descriptive detail of 2 people engaged in a sex act in AIBU.
I'm quite comfortable with people talking about sex and wasn't offended but rather surprised.
It was a very popular thread and nobody commented about whether it was appropriate.

but I wasn't aware it encourages off site contact I would imagine people would need to get off MN to contact others. Bearing in mind MNHQ can read all PMs.

Since I've objected to the thread being hosted here, I did read through to make sure it is objectionable first. But yes, participants are told to DM each other and then that they might like to move their chat elsewhere (I think Kik or something?).

MN are good at moving threads to appropriate boards; report explicit threads and they can be moved to Sex which would ideally be hidden to resolve the issue of them causing alarm on Active. But there were always sex-related threads on here before the sex board and it was always obvious which were fine to stay (ie actually written by women in the spirit of open and frank discussion about sex) and which were hairy-handed troll posts that needed deleting. Now those lines feel blurred as MN are welcoming those latter posts. I don't think we object to sexually explicit discussions, I've seen plenty over the years. But not the kind of male-dominated creepy stuff that proliferates over there on the sex board which we all now have to see. You might not see the difference, Surplus, the tone of a forum can be hard to define but when it's compromised, users can tell.

@AutumnLeavesFallingIntoPlace no sorry, just had a look and I can't see ANY suggestion of swapping details to chat off site.

A generic safety warning about not giving personal details etc may be warranted.

It's obviously much safer to keep everything to MN so any predatory behavior can be easily banned.

You're wrong; other platforms are suggested for continuing conversations.

It's obviously much safer to keep everything to MN

Bit naive to think people would want to do that though.

Here you go @Surplus2requirements , not hard to find.

Oops didn't attach

Yes I guess you're right, having not used the thread I've not fully thought it through.

If that's what people do I'd hope they stick to anonymous platforms

I’ve not used the thread either but maybe people don’t want MNHQ to be able read their private messages if they’re about sex! And also they could be reported if unwanted.

Yes you're right, couldn't see it anywhere near the beginning.

I seriously hope people keep to anonymous platforms, any suggestion otherwise would be a red flag

You'd think MNHQ would at least have some kind of warning along those lines in place. Intelligent, sensible people fall for predators and scammers online every day. It's easy to see that someone might feel reassured and safer meeting someone through MN, that it lends a veneer of respectability, it's a place they've sought advice for sleepless babies and fashion and chatted about politics and so on, a place they trust. But now @MNHQ have removed even the barest safeguards they had - keeping that board out of Active and requiring a three month subscription before being able to post - and anyone could be on there. There are people out there who will seek it out for exactly that reason and while MN host it with no warning, no age verification, no link to safety information then users will carry on thinking they can trust it - because it must be ok if MN are condoning it?

We’ve had posters here before who have seemed totally fine, become familiar names, & it’s been months before they’ve been revealed as trolls. How difficult would it be for someone to post on parking threads, CF threads etc, for a while & then when they move onto the sex thread they just look like one more MN regular?

Early in the sex chat thread there are 3 men seeking FWBs, all giving their geographical locations. For some people at least there is clearly the hope that contact will not be confined to "chat", either on or off MN. Those are some of the visible ones but it isn't hard to believe there will be PMing by an unquantifiable number of lurkers who don't post on thread. This is what MNHQ seem to be endorsing, nay, encouraging.

Why the fuck they can't sign up for Tinder or whatever I do not know, but there is a sort of veil of "respectability" I suppose in it being on MN.

@AutumnLeavesFallingIntoPlace didn't see yours before I posted, totally agree, obviously!

I think if MN have to keep it as part of their promotional deals, they really need to review the safeguarding aspects and surely their advertisers can't protest at safety warnings being on there? It would be good to hear something back from them on this aspect, rather than the ongoing silence as they wait for it all to blow over!

Here is a little insight into MN users' opinions of Ann Summers from November '22

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/amiibeingunreasonable/4681481-does-anyone-actually-buy-anything-from-ann-summers-anymore

Generally no one's really a fan, but some rate the bras. Interestingly, someone mentions the MLM aspect as a negative - I'd forgotten about the 'parties'. MN is not a place that condones MLM companies as a rule.

I guess they've bunged @MNHQ cash to try and rehabilitate their image. I wonder how that's going

@CPL593H

it isn't hard to believe there will be PMing by an unquantifiable number of lurkers who don't post on thread.
That's why I thought it important to ask female sex board users of their experience and how MN mods reacted.

I was told and do appreciate it would be better asked by a woman but none so far seem willing to do so.

I think that that would be very sensible

An interesting thread from nearly 2 years ago. See the posts on 7 April at 11.18 and 20.59 which are particularly interesting.

link to Mumsnet thread

So it looks like this sexification of the site has been in the planning for a long time. I suspect HQ's silence is because they NOW have squeaky bum because they've mightily pissed their users off, and it must have become very apparent to the sponsors/advertisers that Mumsnet is not, infact, a a place where randy Mums are desperate to talk about products like vibrators and nasty nylon underwear all the livelong day.

Quite embarrassing for them and potentially quite costly.

The majority of posters on that thread were quite vocal about how much they don't like AS and wouldn't buy from there, yet MNHQ seem to have completely ignored their users.

All I can think is MN must be really struggling for cash.

'So it looks like this sexification of the site has been in the planning for a long time'

Sexification. Did you really just say that?

Heres a thought, many women buy Ann Summers items so it would seem appropriate to advertise here.

You do know if you view an Ann Summer's ad you won't be 'sexified' don't you?

It's not a good fit for MN, it's so tacky and the MLM aspect is universally hated on here. So a weird choice of partnership, even weirder relinquishing of controls and safeguarding as part of the partnership and a weird silence in response to the inevitable backlash.

That reminds me @AutumnLeavesFallingIntoPlace

I was thinking about what makes Mumsnet the way it is - it's essentially a chat forum where just about anything could be discussed, and it's mostly parents, and mostly women who are the users, as we know. At the heart of it though is a very robust ethos of safeguarding of women and children, and this new approach flies in the face of that ethos.