The Sex topic - an update on moderation

[YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet]

Hi everyone.

Thanks for all your comments over the past week regarding the Sex board. It’s become clear from the discussion that we needed a rethink about our approach to this part of the site and so we’re going to introduce some rules to help ensure that posters can get the support and advice they need from the board and that everyone has clear expectations of the behaviour we expect.

Posters must be at least 18 years of age - Mumsnet has always been a site for adults but we want to be crystal clear about this for this board.

The board is text based - we don’t allow NSFW (not safe for work) images.

We don’t allow links to any NSFW sites or personal profiles on other sites

We will not tolerate creepy or harassing behaviour in particular from male posters

We’ve also had concerns raised about the ongoing ‘sex chat threads’ including the risks involved with allowing users to PM each other. Our approach has always been to allow consenting adults to make their own judgement when it comes to what they’ll share and, broadly, that is still the case across the site - but we acknowledge there are additional vulnerabilities here that we ought to consider.

With that in mind, we will no longer allow users to ask for or to offer to send PMs for the purposes of sex chat. For one thing, we can’t guarantee that the person you’re chatting with is who they say they are and we can’t realistically safeguard these kind of off-board discussions. We’ve looked at the moderation principles of similar boards on other sites and this is indeed the policy on several others.

We’d also like to address some of your other comments if we may. Last year we reduced the time required from joining to posting on Sex from 90 days to seven. We’ve no plans to change this at the moment because this timeframe has proved to be a sufficient deterrent to bad actors and we believe that 90 days is too long if you’re a new user with a genuine concern. We’d also like to be clear that our commercial partnerships have had zero bearing on any changes we’ve made (nor did anyone ask us to make changes) and MNHQ does not (and would never) post affiliate links to products under the guise of a regular MNer. We may be many things, but we are not underhand!

As with everything, we’ll continue to monitor the situation and we hope these new rules will go some way to reassure you. If anyone has further questions, please post here and we’ll do our best to answer them.

Thanks.

That should say sex board thread.

@beastlyslumber I have never been a strong advocate of the sex chat thread and have repeatedly said so.

Once again i dont wish this thread to be derailed so despite having every right to be a part of this conversation I'll step back

Please do not @ me. I've told you many times that I don't want to interact with you and that I find your comments unpleasant and intrusive. I know you have no respect for any woman's boundaries.

That was to surplus. I don't mind others mentioning me!

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet - thank you. I think the whole "yay we're back. Please DON'T pm me nudge nudge wink wink" attitude sealed their own fate. I've read a lot over the past few weeks on these threads, and I do understand what posters like @Mermaidparades say they get from it. It's a shame that most of the sex thread regulars who've ventured out seem so deaf to what the rest of mn is saying.

@Bamboux. Stunning, stunning post yesterday (at around 6.30pm ish). Amazing. Beautifully elegant phrasing. Eloquent. Totally agree.

@LangClegsInSpace I too have noticed a difference in tone over the last year or so, and it saddens me also.
Mn doesn't feel the same to me as it used to, and I'd never start a thread now unless it was something very non contentious

I wanted to articulate my concerns, but reading the comments it’s been laid out in black and white. Creating spaces like this on a place like Mumsnet has invited the types of people - identifying themselves as men - who will insist on forcing a conversation to go a particular way because all of a sudden they have “just as much of a say” about a sensitive topic on a women’s forum as any other woman here. Forceful, unyielding men are exactly the reason I didn’t want to talk on any other forum years ago. Even if other people can’t articulate it, this is what is wrong, this type of what I can only call ignorance on the part of Mumsnet is why people are leaving this site.

Oi @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet !

Are you saying we NWers aren't sexy enough?!

Hmmpff!

A really good result - thank you.

Even though we now have men on the sex threads calling us all pearl clutchers and threatening to flounce now that they can't have a place to swap PMs. To be expected I suppose

@EineKleineNachtwatcher @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet @onirgellep
I was going to write something about solicitng PMs from John Snow, but I'm much more grown up than that, so I'll nod sagely instead...

Poor things. It's not like there's anywhere else on the internet for men to post.

Should we point them to Flouncer’s Corner?

I don’t think they’ll be missed

@LucyLeave is there though? I don't actually think there is anywhere else to go online to hook up for sex chat with others. Mumsnet is the only place for these men it appears

@LittleBearPad ha ha. Good idea. A couple are really very miffed

Thank you for listening and acting @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

One thing that occurred to me when I looked at the Sex Chat thread to see what it was all about - on several occasions new women posters were told they would be "inundated" with PMs. "Literally hundreds" was mentioned on one occasion. Some women reported that they had indeed received large numbers of responses.

If so, there must be many men lurking, reading and messaging without ever posting. Since they don't post then they don't need to wait 90, 30, or 7 days to make contact. They can browse, select, sign up and message in minutes.

So I'm very pleased the thread has gone and these creeps will hopefully now go elsewhere.

Ahhh cheers @Rogue1001MNer 😁

I agree with your last paragraph.

My biggest issue was always the sexchat thread and I'm glad MNHQ listened to us and deleted it.

It did attract the sort of man that should have no place on MN so with a bit of luck they will all fuck off now.

Thank you @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

@EineKleineNachtwatcher I was up for days making those night watcher pelts and now you're telling me you'd prefer a lacy cape?

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet
You have no idea what I'm wearing underneath my regulation MN-issued night watcher pelt!

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

I've caught up on this thread and I'm trying to work out what is actually changing.

• sex topic out of active - good, thank you.

• 7 days membership for posting - not changing, even to the compromise point of 30 days (which is more of a deterrent to pests who create multiple disposable accounts)

• Sex PMs not allowed - but no preventive action. This of course puts the responsibility on women to police the behaviour of men instead of stopping the behaviour. What are you actually changing to deter them in the first place?

• NSFW will be adults only - but how? The only way you can achieve this is to make adults only topics non viewable unless logged in. Is this what you are planning to do with at least some minimal age verification? Because if not its meaningless

• We need an update on the "in the spirit" definitions. I remember a support thread for OW being deleted as NIPS on what always used to be a women centred site. But sex chat threads for self described married men was just fine apparently. Now what sort of "married men" get their rocks off coming to women's support site rather than one of the hundreds of sex chat sites do you think?

• acknowledgement of different moderating on a sex topic which allows male posters is good - I really hope it will be clearly on a volunteer basis for mods, considering the way that topic has been hijacked at times.

• no under age content - the shame is that it was ever allowed to stand

I'd support a women only sex topic in principle but we have seen on these threads that some of the men on the site are sufficiently committed to ignoring women's boundaries that they can post hundreds of posts insisting on their right to shit all over the proverbial ladies loos. Fat chance of such men respecting anything.

For me the MN USP wasn't actually parenting - my kids were past the baby stages when MN started. Its USP is the female centred nature of the site. Men want to read and post fine, but when men start to dominate the thinking and style of the site as they have here, then you lose that USP and become just another chat site with nothing special to offer.

Agreed. On all points.

I stayed for FWR and for a space where women’s voices could be heard over the past 5 years or so in regards to you-know-what.

My children are adults. I’m not sure I’d recommend MN to my daughters anymore.

@beastlyslumber I absolutely second your comment that anyone who has a "concern" of a sexual nature, they can post in general terms on Relationships which has a good volume of traffic on there I.e. not tumbleweed if they want a volume of comments. There could be a protocol similar to Trigger Warning which is now mainstream on MN and in general, such as Sex Query, which people could avoid if they choose.

Anything that gets down into the weeds of sexual technique, TMI, intimate detail etc quite frankly is bordering on dodgy w*** fodder and doesn't really belong on MN, it shouldn't become that kind of site, there are plenty of other places people can go. arguably someone asking for details info, isn't a "Concern" it borders on inappropriate and a magnet for perverts.

Then you can increase the threshold to entry back to 90 days.

The Sex board used to be very nicely self-policed / self-moderated area, out of view but there for savvy women who knew the vulnerabilities of men homing in on the detail and often called anyone out who came across as dodgy. That status-quo including the 90 day control, meant that board was perfect for anyone wanting an adult conversation but sent the pervs packing or they got bored because people on there were behaving themselves like responsible adults.

please reconsider your decision @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet if you care about the significant majority of your members.

The way some users of that topic spoke to and about those of us arguing the rights of women here not to be sent uninvited/non-consented-to PMs by men about sex and ejaculation was really disgusting and their attitude absolutely was not acceptable. The woman had asked for advice around a health issue to do with sex, she didn’t want PMs from men about it and that’s a perfectly reasonable boundary to hold. She was uncomfortable with it and in return was treated despicably by those individuals.

So no, I don’t have a lot of confidence that people on the topic would have stood together to have her back. Even if some had, it’s the louder demographic of nay sayers and enablers that sets the tone. Deny, dismiss, deflect. NOT in the spirit of this site at all.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I am still waiting for answers to questions I had:

What is MN’s moderation standard regarding uninvited PMs from men about intimate issues such as sex/ejaculation.

Will you put up a clear and unambiguous rule that descriptions of CSA are unacceptable and will be immediately deleted.

Are mods actually going to be trained to understand some of these issues? I shouldn’t have to bring up the point that it’s possible to disclose one has been a victim of X without going into descriptions. This is not a therapy session where safety/confidentiality and so on is built in and where detail might be needed for the good of the victim. Discussion here is publication on a public site and is an entirely different matter.

@HaroldsHoodie I don't think there will be much work on the CSA issue. I reported a thread twice last night, was told they'd look into it, and nothing was done. It contains descriptions of CSA and invites posters to ask questions about it. @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet