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.

I too am grateful that MN seem to have been listening and are responding to these discussions.

What I'm less convinced of is that they genuinely understand the safeguarding issues involved in hosting sex chats and publishing 'sexy' threads on MN. I am also not convinced that they understand the crucial role of pre-moderation if they're going to invite/allow people to share their sexual fantasies, desires, experiences etc. There needs to be crystal clear rules about what can and can't be shared, and all comments on the sex topic would have to pre-moderated to ensure that those rules are kept.

@BIWI we don't go looking in people's PMs unless we have good reason to but we can take action when users are asking on threads for PMs as was the case on the sex chat thread.

There's a big mix of people that post on the Sex topic - they have reported many things to us in the past and we're sure that will continue.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

But the thread is still there and posters are still encouraging PMs, in a sarcastic way.

Example of one posted a couple of hours ago, after you started this thread,

‘Well I'm looking for adult females to NOT private message me and to NOT ENGAGE in a private conversation of their choice’
😂😂😂
‘Surely this isn't a breach of rules’

Another one similar, pretending they didn’t want PMs, was deleted but this one and another couple posted since your thread, remain. Along with all the ones posted before this thread of course. So nothing has changed really from what I can tell. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Do we need to report them @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet? Because as @OutOfThisState says, that thread is full of them

How come the hook up thread is still there and mostly men are still asking for sex chat PMs 😕

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet was the case
Still is.

@beastlyslumber I don't agree with randomly checking PMs either, but it wouldn't be a freedom of speech issue if they did do that. They're a private company, they can do what they like in that respect.

I've always thought it would be better to call them Direct Messages, as they're not private and never have been. MNHQ have always been able to see/read them.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think for one minute that this will happen. That whole sex chat thread is full of people asking for PMs, and none of those posts have been deleted - so I doubt very much that they have been reported!

And now the OP of the sex hook up thread has just said,

Any female posting on here has no need to invite - or "not invite" - PMs anyway as she'll get loads regardless.

So if you leave the thread up, it’s basically going to be known that if you just post anything on it, you are inviting others to PM you.

It needs to be deleted as they’ll just continue.

This is BS. Just delete the bloody hook up thread or nothing has changed.

It gets grimmer and more tawdry by the hour. Please delete it and start afresh with proper, considered and rational input, not in this ad hoc, inconsistent manner.

Obviously, I was not referring to females who simply go on to the sexchat thread to post critical comments about it. But a female who goes onto that thread in order to chat to someone - and there have been many dozens since it started - does not generally need to invite PMs at all.

It was never a thread for people to chat on. It was always a hook up thread.

Yes, I got that. I was talking about the people who do want PMs, not even think about the critical posters getting unwanted ones.

My point is, if mumsnet are going to try to tell us they’re putting a stop to it, when all they’re doing is stopping the actual requesting of PMs, nothing will change. You will simply ‘exploit the loophole’. It will be known that its a thread for people who do want PMs, they just can’t explicitly say that.

So the problem still exists. Your hook up cheating thread needs to go. There are plenty of other sites you can use that don’t market themselves as a place for women’s voices to be heard and a place that makes parents lives easier.

That was to @everywhichway

Off topic but there is something gross about a person that repeatedly calls women 'females'. I mean, I presume you are taking about women and not female cats or female dogs etc?

Well it’s usually ‘ladies’.

🤮

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet Please can you address my posts I made at 16:12 and 16:25. Thank you.

And confirm, is the sex chat staying up? And if so, do we have to report all the posts from the past months that are asking for PMs, in order for them to be deleted. If so, this is a joke.

I don't understand why people want to use Mumsnet as a hook-up site; it just doesn't make sense to me. I understand using it for chat on all kinds of general things - as a non-parent, that's how I use it. But if you want to "meet up" with people privately, rather than chatting on a forum, there are so many sites dedicated to that kind of thing, why would you not just go to a site where you know everyone is there for the same purpose?

Given what you have posted, why has the Sex Chat hook up thread not been deleted yet, @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet ?

It's still there, with all the older posts touting for PMs, and new ones posted since your update basically mocking the new rules and openly attempting to bypass them.

My reading of what MNHQ said was that they are not trying to put a stop to the sexchat thread but rather to put some safeguarding rules around it. Rules which look quite reasonable to me.

Rules that you and the regulars on there are trying to get round by being oh so clever.

I'm certainly not trying to do any such thing.

🙄

....and I've advised against others tring to circumvent the new rules too.