Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
MNHQ

The Sex topic - an update on moderation

17 replies

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 09:43

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.

Go to post
MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 10:27

MeganTheeScallion · 01/03/2023 10:15

Thank you!

I wonder if you could define "creepy" and "harassing"? Recent threads have demonstrated that different MNers have different perspectives on this. I guess it will be decided on a case by case basis if a post is reported?

Anyway, ta for all this 👍

Yes - case-by-case basis - we'd take context into account as we do with all other aspects of our moderation.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 10:39

BIWI · 01/03/2023 10:27

Thank you @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

However - a couple of things:

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

This is very welcome, but how will you know that they're male? Unless they identify themselves as such, it's sometimes hard to tell

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

I'm not really sure I agree with this - very happy to accept that 90 days is too long, but I also think that 7 days is too short to keep those away who are targeting MN as a site for their 'needs'. And I'm also not sure that those wanting to post about sex are posting about problems - if they're genuine problems, I suspect they're usually relationship-based, in which case we already have a board for that.

But overall, this is a definite positive and I'm really heartened to hear it.

I still hate the fact that you take money from companies like Smile Makers and Ann Summers though.

We don't know if anyone is male - but by having rules in place we will hopefully deter anyone who thinks it's okay to be a creep!

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 10:41

Oh sorry - pressed post too soon! @BIWI there is crossover with Relationships for sure but many posts would not be appropriate for that topic.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 10:43

@CrotchetyCrocheting again it would be case-by-case as it is elsewhere on the site. We've not seen anything since that particular thread but as always, please do report if you have concerns.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 11:03

@BIWI it's post-moderated as the rest of the site. As we said previously, we've not noticed any issues from decreasing the time to seven days.

@TangledUpInDreams we're sorry you think it's a cop-out. We know from the past that being black and white about something doesn't work. If a poster disclosed they had experienced CSA, would we allow them to discuss their experiences? It really does need to be case-by-case and allowing for context.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 11:21

@TangledUpInDreams @CrotchetyCrocheting we do see where you're coming from. We'll have a discussion about this.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 11:55

HaroldsHoodie · 01/03/2023 11:36

I would like confirmation from MNHQ that according to your moderation standards men (or women, but let's face it, it'll be men) sending unsolicited PMs about intimate issues such as, to use a recent example, sex and ejaculation is absolutely unacceptable and that even if some women would apparently welcome these, the many, many women who don't want it and would not welcome it have an absolute right not to be bothered by creepy men. And that doing so is definitely creepy and intrusive, whether 'meant' that way or not.

Further, that there is no situation in which a man's wish to send such a PM, however that wish might be dressed up, trumps the woman in question's right to be left well alone by said man.

I would like MNHQ to state this straight out, so that its users who think that apparently such unsolicited PMs are not so bad, understand that this behaviour is not acceptable on this site, however much they don't mind it.

Mumsnet is, AFAIK, still supposed to be a haven for women and a place to gain support, advice, a sense of safety in this community - and a place where women's voices around matters of consent are heard and respected.

It's always been the case that MNers can (and do) report PMs and if someone was found to be abusing the feature, we're very likely to ban them.

We welcome any poster, male or female, who is here in good faith. Anyone sending dodgy messages is unlikely to be here for the right reasons.

We'd also ask that you do not troll hunt on the boards if you have suspicions about a poster - always report to us always in these cases, please. You may not be aware that we read and respond to every report. Thanks.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 16:00

@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.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 02/03/2023 09:40

Hello everyone - thanks for your comments. Our initial plan was to eventually close the sex chat thread to new posts but we've taken it down this morning based on your feedback here. (Did LOL at Schrodinger's sex chat, @ProbablyNotAGoodIdea.)

We'd also like to address suggestions that we're suddenly 'sexing up' Mumsnet based on commercial partnerships. That's absolutely not the case and we've worked with various brands including Ann Summers and Love Honey for many years, while the Sex board was created several years ago because so many MNers asked us for it. As we've said on a previous thread, we think sex is a pretty integral part of life and has always been part of discussions across the boards. We certainly don't want an environment that encourages sex pests and we hope that, with these new moderation rules, genuine posters can get the advice and information they need.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 02/03/2023 10:05

@onirgellep @MeganTheeScallion we'll have a chat about this! I feel they'd need a special cloak.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 02/03/2023 22:07

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

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 09:26

@HaroldsHoodie thanks for your questions.

What is MN’s moderation standard regarding uninvited PMs from men about intimate issues such as sex/ejaculation.
We'd most likely ban anyone who is sending unwanted PMs.

Will you put up a clear and unambiguous rule that descriptions of CSA are unacceptable and will be immediately deleted.
We've removed posts like this in the past when we've had concerns about an OP but we'll be discussing how we moderate this in the coming week and will get back to you.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 12:03

@HaroldsHoodie we may not understand absolutely everything all the time but it's absolutely not the case that we don't care. We care very much. In this case we want to fully discuss this with the moderation team so we can approach it in the right way. This is not a fobbing off and we're really sorry it's coming across that way.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 12:44

@beastlyslumber sorry - I missed your questions. Yes we do understand the distinction and recognise it's something we need to discuss with the whole team.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 17:27

@beastlyslumber @MeganTheeScallion if it's the thread I think you mean then it doesn't break our guidelines but this is something we'll discuss further in the week ahead.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 14/03/2023 09:39

Hello @MeganTheeScallion over the past two weeks we've looked at several threads across the boards where users were seeking support for issues relating to CSA. If we were to have a blanket ban on all descriptions of CSA then most of those threads or a sizeable portion of them would be deleted. We would no longer be able to host the stately home threads, for example, which have provided years of support and camaraderie for hundreds of MNers.

If we believe a post may cause an OP harm - e.g if they've posted more information than they ordinarily would - then we think it's fair to withdraw their post and provide them with links to support. In cases where we have concerns about someone's motivations for posting, then we would remove their thread and contact them off the boards. (If it's a troll then that would be an outright ban.) We have been moderating issues like this on a case-by-case basis and we believe that is the correct approach, based on our experience so far.

@C8H10N4O2 Mumsnet is a site for grown-ups. We suspend posters who we suspect are underage.

MNHQ

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 14/03/2023 10:24

@HaroldsHoodie we're genuinely very sorry to hear this.

@beastlyslumber we want to be a space where people can get support from their peers and we'll always do our best to help vulnerable posters. If it's clear that posting isn't in someone's best interests then we'll step in. We don't want to prevent people from talking about their experiences.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread