Safeguarding on the sex chat thread on the sex board

[AutumnLeavesFallingIntoPlace]

There have been a number of threads about changes to the Sex Board and the standard @MNHQ response is that they're taking feedback on board and ask us to hide the topic, which doesn't answer people's questions. I'd really appreciate some answers specifically about the sex chat thread on the sex board.

The user registration requirement to post on Sex has changed from 3 months to 7 days. It was in place to discourage trolls and predators on the Sex board so it would be helpful to know why that's no longer a concern and 7 days is deemed sufficient.

The sex chat thread exists for users to connect via PM for explicit chat and the thread advises posters they can then move that conversation to platforms like Kik and Telegram. At the moment, MN's advice is to report dodgy PMs; once users move off site this of course no longer applies.

Defence of the sex chat thread seems to be 'it's fine between consenting adults'. MNHQ, please could you tell us what measures you take to ensure participants there are adults? Currently, there is no safety warning and no age verification. How do you intend to keep any underage users from accessing this thread? How can anyone on there know that posters are over 18? You have removed the previously existing safeguards; why is this and will you put any more in place?

There is a risk users might feel safer and more inclined to trust a sex chat hosted by a site like MN; it does feel odd that you haven't made any attempt to counter this by pinning a post reminding users that MN can't vouch for anyone on there, particularly now the three month registration period is gone. Do you intend to do this?

Finally, the thread contains a number of married men who 'aren't getting any at home' and are seeking 'any available female' (direct quotes). Can you confirm this is in the spirit of MN and that you're happy to let it stand?

Thanks, and please don't advise us to hide the sex board again, or even just the sex chat thread, we get that's the MN party line but would really like an answer to the actual questions.

'like I say I wouldn't demand a jazz forum make a sex topic so I can get a hook up without having to pay for the other sites!'

Yes but does your jazz forum have sections for menopause, general health, relationships, divorce, etc etc? I m guessing not. Mumsnet is perhaps a bit more diverse and wider ranging than jazz. Sex is just another completely normal (not grubby or depraved) everyday thing discussed on a forum aimed at adults.

You're still determined to miss the point

The most excruciating thing about it all is the fact that they see themselves as these hot, sexy, daring thrill-seekers, having passionate sex while the rest of us fumble in the dark.

Whereas it reminds me of most vividly of a Channel 5 documentary about 'swingers' where they're all 55-year-olds with 80s perms wearing highly flammable lime-green knickers and throwing the keys to Keith's Skoda in the fruit bowl along with Ray and Beryl from next door.

It's just all so... seedy and grim.

Posting all through the day and night about buying 'quick release trousers' or desperate requests to hook up with 'anyone out there' or sharing fantasies straight out of a 1980s Readers Wives section isn't indicative of a passionate, hot, intense sex life. You do realise that... don't you?

.

I thought the expression was ‘sucking lemons’ or ‘bulldog chewing a wasp’ so that’s an interesting hybrid right there. Sucking on a wasp makes no sense.
Just missing from the cutting edge insults is ‘cats bum mouth’ . 😂😂

You missed 'pearl clutching' and 'bitter'.

Still, it's a novelty to be called frigid and a sex-hater by a man because I don't want to hear about his dick. Oh no, it's not actually.

They can't cope with the fact that we might really, really like sex. Just not with them.

’Pearl clutching’ has been thrown about so much over the last week. And not forgetting the suggestion of needing ‘smelling salts’. Nothing original.

Or to put it another way

I object to being stereotyped by people I stereotype...

Bye, Keith.

@Bamboux on the contrary, I try to accept myself but I have so many body hang ups and put a lot of pressure on myself to be perfect. I don’t make fun of other people’s appearances though, so I guess that’s a plus.

That's an outrageous and disgusting accusation! 😡

I've never owned a Skoda

😂😂

Look. If you have a forum with ZERO safeguards, where mums with children feel safe to talk, and you host a sex chat, then what kind of men do you think that's going to attract?

I'd say it would be very interesting to men who for some reason don't want safeguards but do want access to women with kids.

MN is being unbelievably irresponsible and those of you wondering why any bloke would come to MN for sex chat are being unbelievably naive.

@beastlyslumber largely I agree with a couple of small reservations.

MN insists it's a forum for adults and not a safe space for anyone as such. I think this is largely true but doesn't mean there shouldnt need be any safeguards...even if they can only really be symbolic 'I am over 18' etc.

I'm not aware of anyone objecting to safeguards.

I'd rather see the registration delay reverted to 90 days but I'd be very surprised if anyone would be bothered to wait a week if all they wanted was access to the sex chat thread, as said many times there's so many places with instant access.

The whole board does need vigilant moderation and any suspect and disrespectful behaviour needs to be treated harshly. Tbf to MN mods they have been very on the case and while some decisions have seemed strange to me I'm aware they have far more access to posters backgrounds.

A statement from MNHQ about acceptable (and non acceptable) behavior seems to be a good idea. I'd like to see a guide to general Internet safety added, it's easy to let something slip that can be used to identify you irl.

I think a far greater understanding of the dangers of posting anything about under age sex is very important. Many of the dangers won't be immediately obvious to many including myself and I've worked with abused kids.

I don't think stereotyping and demonising those who post on the sex board, or even the sex chat thread helps to address the issues and can actually hinder progress towards actually protecting the vulnerable.

It's important to have an accurate and realistic understanding of any situation to identify potential issues and address them effectively.

Why are you posting this faux-reasonable bollocks when on this actual thread, within the past 24 hours, you've been openly ridiculing and jeering at women who object to this by implying we are sexually repressed, frigid, etc.?

How dare you talk about people being 'disrespectful' when you have come onto a thread, and site, of women who want to protect our own boundaries in order to insult and mock us?

Do you honestly think we're so stupid that we would fall for this?

Indeed. Not to mention that he seems to have entirely missed the point I was making.

They can't cope with the fact that we might really, really like sex. Just not with them

That's exactly it. There is no reason to suppose that the women on MN who object to the hook-up thread do not have excellent sex lives. Yet we've been mocked and sneered at for several days now, since this all blew up.

The only way the devotees of the sex chat thread can voice their objections( to our having objections) is to suggest we're all frigid. FFS.

I suspect that the distress it's causing is part of the appeal.

I can't understand why, if that were not the case, he wouldn't go to a site that is set up for this kind of interaction, where all of the women are willing participants, rather than openly objecting.

Personally, knowing that I was inflicting my sexual inclinations on a group of people who were very clear that they were unwelcome would be an instant, total buzzkill.

The fact that it's not, for these posters, tells you a lot.

'It's just all so... seedy and grim.'

Yes you've said a fair few times. Others disagree. You seem to think you're one the self appointed mumsnet morality police. People do things I don't like, for example take drugs or drink to excess but I wouldn't go barging in telling them off if they were discussing it on a dedicated forum . Their business. Not that I'm equating illegal and socially unacceptable drug abuse with absolutey normal and healthy sex but hopefully you're intelligent enough to get my point.

As you don't make the rules you have to either accept it, or flounce and join a bore off site where 5 people post. Good luck with that.

A lot of ‘othering’ wrt sexuality goes on on these threads. Them vs us.

I haven't accused anyone of being sexaully repressed or frigid, I've never called anyone a pearl clutcher or anything similar.

I've been respectful and tried to understand other people's point of view whenever they've been prepared to have an actual conversation instead of merely insulting me and trying to shut me down.

I've learned a lot from the discourse, it's a shame I have to wade through insults to do that.

'Yet we've been mocked and sneered at for several days now, since this all blew up.'

But you've done plenty of mocking and sneering too, even wading into threads on actual the vile and discusting sex boards like some crazed clipboard wielding prefect!

Don't dish it if you can't take it hun.

@Surplus2requirements 💗

Surplus2requirements · Yesterday 17:23
__
Janiie · Yesterday 17:20
__
Yes his dp must be a grubby perv too. Imagine that wanting to have sex that doesn't involve lights out and nightie up for 5 minutes.
__
Show quote history
5 minutes?
__
You mean they do it TWICE?? 😳

I haven't posted on any of those threads.

Why do you prefer posting your imaginary sex life on a site full of women who don't want to hear it, rather than one of the several thousand sites set up for that purpose?

Sorry if you misunderstood my humour but I was taking the mick out of my own sexual prowess suggesting i think sex lasts a couple of minutes.

I thought that obvious

They're also quite keen on lying, denial, personal insults, and posting literally hundreds of times to justify imposing sexual content non-consensually on a large group of women with children.

Lovely lads.