Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

References to underage sex on Sex board

362 replies

BenCoopersSupportWren · 23/02/2023 23:02

I haven’t been following the Sex topics in Active furore too closely, beyond agreeing on one of the early threads that it would be better for the Board to revert to the way it was - out of Active, with a longer qualifying time to be able to post.

However I’ve just read a thread which, on the face of it, is just reminiscing about posters’ ‘first times’ but which includes numerous disclosures of underage sex, including some that involved grooming, and one or two that are genuinely heartbreaking testimonies of child sexual abuse. They are particularly jarring interspersed as they are between end-of-pier type humour and jokes of others’ experience.

As I just posted there: “there is a reason most ‘mainstream’ dedicated end-user sex sites like Literotica, BDSMLR etc don’t allow stories or posts that are explicit about underage sex even when clearly written by adults, and will remove such posts when brought to the moderators’ attention. I used to work in the CJS and I’m afraid to say that such descriptions - even when expressed in short and simple terms - have currency among paedophiles. Part of my job was keeping the video testimony of CSA victims and any associated transcripts locked away so that they didn’t fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately it’s not just explicit photos and videos that they get off to.”

For clarity, by “explicit about underage sex” I mean making specific reference to, not that the material has to be particularly sexually explicit. The exact same thread would simply not be allowed to stand on Literotica’s chat forum, for example.

While there have always been examples in other parts of the site of posters making disclosures of having been abused, that is a very different thing to sharing it in a section that only the most naive or wilfully obtuse would deny will be used in part for titillation. My issue isn’t that the thread is particularly sexually explicit - it mostly isn’t, and I’m pretty broad-minded… in context. But no one could argue that “where did you lose your virginity?” is masquerading as a support / how to / informative thread; it’s for entertainment and kicks only, be the latter humour or a sexual thrill. (A few posters on that thread have been supportive to those who disclosed their abuse, but ‘support’ is clearly not the original purpose of the thread.)

IMO it is extremely remiss of MN to disregard the ‘good practice’ rules that other sex sites maintain for handling material relating to references to underage sex/CSA, both because of the type of person attracted to those sites if such rules aren’t in place and from a liability / arse-covering perspective. This, combined with the lack of any age verification or warning for that part of the site, makes it even more obvious that MN don’t understand what is involved in safely and legally hosting a ‘sex chat site’ or part thereof.

OP posts:
justasking111 · 25/02/2023 13:12

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03951486/officers

There are other directors Justine doesn't work in a vacuum. Contact them with your concerns

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11574270

TangledWebOfDeception · 25/02/2023 13:18

Also laughing (properly laughing) at @Janiie trying to assert that my being emphatic and calling stupid what it is, somehow damages the moral standing of my position on safeguarding failures and/or hosting illegal material.

Okay then...

You do you, as you are free to do, but I have absolute confidence in holding the moral high ground here.

BordoisAgain · 25/02/2023 14:20

Yep, if you want to call women holding the line on child sex abuse and safeguarding stupid then that says a hell of a lot about you.

Given all the data breaches that have occurred on here, you may want to rethink the topics you are posting in support of...

BruceAndNosh · 25/02/2023 14:22

It's pretty bad when the CEO of a company takes a month to agree with their shareholders over a subject which was pretty fucking obvious a BAD IDEA from day one.
(I know we're not shareholders but we do indirectly create the majority of MN revenue)

monomatapea · 25/02/2023 14:25

Good update - thanks for listening

TheShellBeach · 25/02/2023 14:29

Rhondaa · 25/02/2023 12:59

I think you need to stop back tangled. Too many caps, too many exclamation marks and not sure if calling anyone stupid gives you any moral highground.

I'm quite certain that nothing you say gives you the moral highground in any way, shape or form.

TheShellBeach · 25/02/2023 14:32

@JustineMumsnet
Can you tell us what you plan to do with regard to the hook-up threads?
I find them really distasteful and absolutely not in the spirit of a site which aims to be supportive of women.

daisychain01 · 25/02/2023 15:18

Rogue1001MNer · 25/02/2023 12:24

Thank you @JustineMumsnet

Will you also be re-extending the time to 90 days?

90 days seconded by me.

Thanks for removing Sex from Active, @JustineMumsnet

Please can I request that for these kinds of significant changes in direction for MN as a forum, please please can you garner the opinions of your users. HQ does a good job of seeking end user opinion about site features through focus group style discussion, but this whole episode is on a different plane, it's more akin to Policy Change and merits a meaningful dialogue with people who actually want the best for this forum and could raise concerns a lot sooner, rather than having to undo the damage after the fact, which could have had a devastating impact on the MN brand if left unchecked. Many thanks.

daisychain01 · 25/02/2023 15:23

I'm confused (doesn't take much!) is the "hook up thread" the same as the sex chat thread? They both sound grim, but just not sure what's what and whether they're the same,

Either way, I vote bin 'em Grin

Rogue1001MNer · 25/02/2023 16:03

I think they are the same, yes

And last time I saw it, a self-declared married man was inviting pms

IWannaBeInTheRoomWhereItHappens · 25/02/2023 16:05

Somanyquestionstoaskaboutthis · 24/02/2023 22:43

Me too please. I’m new there but would hate to lose the wealth of knowledge of you all. And the cheese.

Me too please if you wouldn't mind. I've been on MN for 15 years now but I can't be doing with it if it's going to take this direction. I've stayed lately for the amazing FWR board but to me it seems a bit suspicious that MN is heading in this new direction just as it's become known as a last bastion of free speech for women. Almost as if a certain sector want to silence certain women...
Please let me know the new space. Thank you.

SolitudeNotLoneliness · 25/02/2023 16:33

TangledWebOfDeception · 25/02/2023 12:14

It’s too late for me @JustineMumsnet.

You really should not have to have US tell YOU about safeguarding and moderation in respect of hosting sex chat on a parenting and primarily women’s site. Shame on you for allowing that shit to take hold in the first place! Shame on you for proceeding with allowing people to join up purely for the sex topic. You must have known (or you SHOULD HAVE, anyway! You should not need these things explained to you!!) that it’s not a good idea in respect of the overall feel and tone of that topic and secondarily on the site itself.

I’m really sick to death of us doing your work for you. Sort your shit out in this respect. How can you be so stupid? Really! ‘It’s a site for grown ups so people can share what they want...’ That’s the best you could do??

Absolutely.

So, are you reverting back to the 90 days @JustineMumsnet rather than 7 days?

And how are you dealing with the hook up thread?

As Tangled has pointed out, mumsnet users have had to point out ypur mistakes, argue to a ridiculous degree to get you to have an understanding g of basics that are concerning and even now you haven't fully addressed all the issues.

90 days and can we have a clearer understanding of the Ann Summers affiliation?

I wish I got 25k a month for making epic mistakes and making a token gesture to address them.

FictionalCharacter · 25/02/2023 17:09

@biwi @beastlyslumber @OhYouBadBadKitten @BenCoopersSupportWren Please can you let me know if you find somewhere else? I’ve been here for years, but it’s gone downhill so badly.

It was a parenting web site, primarily used by mothers. A pleasant, reasonably safe place to be. Shame it isn’t any more. It feels like it’s been infiltrated. A hook up thread doesn’t belong on a parenting website and attracts pervs and trolls who then entertain themselves by posting rubbish on other boards. There’s no escape from them. They must surely discourage some MNers from posting genuine questions about sex problems.

I’m not convinced Ann Summers and the like “make parents’ lives better” to use Justine’s words.

Maybe MN should replace the Charlie’s Angels style logo with one featuring a man, a drag queen and a furry, wielding dildos and vibrators instead of babies and bottles.

MeganTheeScallion · 25/02/2023 17:19

I just want to point out that not everyone who agrees with OP and is against the recent changes is GC. I'm not. But I'll stand with any other women on this particular issue (amongst others). It's possible to have a range of opinions, respect others' differences, and unite behind one common cause despite thinking differently about other things.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 25/02/2023 17:28

I will do @FictionalCharacter
I need to do some thinking about what I want to do now. Justine has listed some postive steps, but I need to see them in action and reflect whether I want to be associated with the MN brand any more. I've a lot to weigh up.

BoreOfWhabylon · 25/02/2023 18:59

Thank you @JustineMumsnet for listening and responding, althoughI do think it really shouldn't have taken this long.

Will you also please listen to those of us who feel that the sex chat and blatant hook up posts should also go.

I hope @BenCoopersSupportWren @BIWI @OhYouBadBadKitten and the other stalwarts won't leave over this. Your posts are hugely valued by me and, I'm sure, countless others.

LangClegsInSpace · 26/02/2023 00:30

JustineMumsnet · 25/02/2023 11:44

Hi again... Wow so this took off overnight! It's pretty clear from the strength of feeling and reaction to my post that this isn't so much about the actual affects of moving the Sex topic into Active, or the fact that individually you can avoid seeing it by hiding it, it's as much about tone and feel of the site. As such it seems to me there's no point us waiting for the data and so we'll remove Sex from active shortly.

One of the issues that we've got is that Active is very much the home page of Mumsnet for many - and as ComeTheFckOnBridget says lots of other sites do this differently.

When we launched follow topics last month, many users asked for a way to see a feed of the latest threads from the topics they're following - we're working on that feature at the moment and it will be ready to launch soon and I think over time it could be that Active then evolves to become more of an index and less of a landing page. But we'll see how the introduction of feed goes and what the take up is like before thinking about any further changes.

One thing that's been useful about this discussion is that it's made it clear we should formalise our guidelines on how we moderate the Sex board. As we've said, we have not, over the years, had any particular issues with this board (wrt to pervs, sex pests etc) but I agree we could communicate some clearer boundaries with regard to safeguarding and expected behaviour, so thanks to all who've mentioned that - we'll get on to asap.

Something I want to put on record is that this decision to move Sex threads into Active conversations had absolutely zilch to do with the Smilemakers partnership. There was no pressure put on us to make this move and at no point in any thinking about this did Smilemakers come up. Over the years we've literally turned down millions of pounds from brands because we've categorically refused to engage in disingenuous marketing and/or take money from those brands which don't make parents' lives easier - I think we've shown that we're pretty good at resisting commercial pressure.

Thanks as ever for the feedback and good weekends to all Flowers

Thank you for your response @JustineMumsnet and for taking the sex topic off active.

I think you have massively underestimated the risks from taking the site in this new direction - to vulnerable MNers, to our data, to children, to your brand, legally ...

Lots of us shared your concerns re. freedom of speech and the online safety bill.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/mumsnet_campaigns/4507995-MNHQ-here-Breaking-news-on-the-Online-Safety-Bill

Wouldn't it be awful if, after all that campaigning, you instead fell on the wrong side of the new law because of 'legal but harmful' sexual content? And wouldn't it be even worse if it was all your own fault because we all warned you?

Please take specialist advice before formalising your guidelines on the sex topic, both from safeguarding experts and those with a track record of safely and legally hosting adult online content. None of them will be 100% clean. Pay particular attention to those who are willing to help you learn from their own mistakes.

You have said nothing about your decision to cut the waiting time before posting from 90 days to 7. Nobody understands why you did that and nobody has objected to 90 days. So why did you do that? Has it achieved whatever it is that you wanted? Assuming this was not a lucrative commercial decision it would be an extremely easy thing to reverse. Why wouldn't you?

You have said nothing about the 'sexchat' AKA 'hookup' thread. I don't think MN is an appropriate or safe place for a thread like this. If you can't get safeguarding right on public posts then how on earth can you safely host and facilitate private sex chats? And if you could safely host it, how would it help parents exactly?

You have mentioned your collaboration with the Shrek's Ear Company but you haven't explained why you thought it was a good idea to join them in such a grim, tasteless, coercive advertising partnership. It doesn't seem to fit with what you say about your advertising policy.

You have said nothing about your equally grim advertising partnership with Ann Summers.

www.mumsnet.com/articles/intimacy-after-birth

I haven't decided whether to stay or go yet. I'll see what happens.

daisychain01 · 26/02/2023 05:07

You have said nothing about your decision to cut the waiting time before posting from 90 days to 7. Nobody understands why you did that and nobody has objected to 90 days.

When you say "nobody has objected to 90 days" @LangClegsInSpace who are you referring to? There are many of us on this thread alone who have objected to reducing the 90 day threshold down to 7 days.

I'm sure many other MNers would also object to such a significant reduction in this safety check, if it were to have been put out there as a Policy change before the change was made - not least of all the sinister message it gives that MNHQ doesn't take online safety seriously and is eager to remove barriers to entry for predators.

daisychain01 · 26/02/2023 05:12

Apologies @LangClegsInSpace ive now realised that you meant nobody has objected to 90 days so why did HQ even need to reduce it (undoubtedly to slacken the control and increase traffic to the Sex board with the reduced barrier to entry).

daisychain01 · 26/02/2023 05:13

is eager to remove barriers to entry which predators would exploit

EmpressaurusOfCats · 26/02/2023 06:44

I came to ask about Ann Summers and the 90 day limit too.

As LangClegsInSpace said, MNHQ obviously has a desperate need of professional advice re the sex board.

Clymene · 26/02/2023 06:58

I think it's worth saying too that even sex topic regulars aren't happy about the eduction from 90 to 7 days. So it's not just the 'prudish pearl clutchers' who think it's a bad idea.

And here's an article from a new mum about her Ann Summers experience: mlmtruth.org/2017/11/30/emilys-ann-summers-fiasco-my-mlm-experience/

CryptoFascistMadameCholet · 26/02/2023 08:17

FictionalCharacter · 25/02/2023 17:09

@biwi @beastlyslumber @OhYouBadBadKitten @BenCoopersSupportWren Please can you let me know if you find somewhere else? I’ve been here for years, but it’s gone downhill so badly.

It was a parenting web site, primarily used by mothers. A pleasant, reasonably safe place to be. Shame it isn’t any more. It feels like it’s been infiltrated. A hook up thread doesn’t belong on a parenting website and attracts pervs and trolls who then entertain themselves by posting rubbish on other boards. There’s no escape from them. They must surely discourage some MNers from posting genuine questions about sex problems.

I’m not convinced Ann Summers and the like “make parents’ lives better” to use Justine’s words.

Maybe MN should replace the Charlie’s Angels style logo with one featuring a man, a drag queen and a furry, wielding dildos and vibrators instead of babies and bottles.

May have a go at making that new logo later!

The internet is full of perves and paedos, absolutely no need to hand MUMSnet over to pornsick men when they already have all of Reddit.

C’mon Mumsnet, you want the next ‘Craigslist Killer’ to find his victims here?

OctaviaOwl · 26/02/2023 08:23

If you read any of the 'Mumsnet 'sponsored by Ann Summers' articles , it's pretty clear why the sex forum is needed by HQ. MN use it for direct quotes from users to add to the articles and it's a one stop shop for inspiration. The articles practically write themselves I suppose

missedthepoint · 26/02/2023 09:18

@JustineMumsnet I rejoined just to reply to your post because I'm so angry at mumsnet.

How can you say this took off overnight? We have been saying for weeks that it is the tone and feel that has changed. All we have been told is hide the topic and don't read it if you don't like, constantly having to face the same few posters making sure they rebutted any criticism we had, both them and mumsnet trying to minimise our comments. Very unhelpful!!

You haven't answered how a sex chat thread where people hook up, including married men is now in the spirit of mumsnet. Do you think we are stupid? As other posters have also pointed out, you have always deleted limerance threads about affairs. Now, you are attracting the same people back to the site. Can you really not see how hypocritically mumsnet comes across? I'm one of the people that asked what your guidelines are. I don't even trust there'll be any protection, because clearly you are still going to welcome the same people who are attracted to a sex chat thread on a (mainly) women's forum.

I'm not at all convinced that you haven't attracted any new posters to mumsnet as a result of the sex chat. However, even if that is true, I dread to think where and what they have been posting and using for wank fodder. I know at least one used to post in a long standing thread in Relationships, but he was asked not to post there anymore because he upset a lot of posters. It doesn't surprise me at all that he is now in the sex forum. Just trying to be your every day kind of guy and failing at every turn .....

Mumsnet was the one place on the internet where I and I know others still felt safe. We know it's on the internet, we know the Daily Hate will pick up stories, but there was something still protected about being here. You've blown that. It was part of the USP of Mumsnet, and it's gone. I sure hope whatever business plans you have for mumsnet takes that into account.

Swipe left for the next trending thread