Full page (gross) Ann Summers adverts

[JustSayWhen]

I've added a picture, though I don't know if it will be allowed. Ann Summers adverts have been popping up mid thread for a few days, mostly pictures of women in thongs and stockings from behind though also a model with crosses over her nips in some sheer thing. It's so embarrassing if I'm browsing MN in the queue for Pilates or at a coffee shop and someone looks over my shoulder and sees these tacky, porny images.

I thought ads were targeted but I have never visited the Ann Summers site in my life and never would - it's all nasty polyester, I feel itchy just seeing the adverts. I'm surprised ads featuring naked bums are ok on Mumsnet - it's really putting me off scrolling! Shouldn't they be blocked?

So what? The point is consent. MN should not be showing that type of ads without consent.

[Although how anyone can think the model in the see through maid's outfit with her nipples x'd out by black gaffer tape doesn't look ridiculous escapes me]

Fundamentally, I think there is a real issue with lack of imagination and understanding from anyone calling prude in response to this.

• I don't find the Ann Summers aesthetic sexy, personally. I find other styles of underwear sexy, but not anything that features in these pop-up ads.
• I don't want to see the kind of stuff that I find sexy popping up when I'm reading the Conflict in the Middle East topic anyway. So even if I did like the Ann Summers stuff, I'd object to it on upsetting threads.
• I have a dear friend who identifies as asexual. I find it really offensive when people call those who lack interest in sex prudes or frigid. It reminds me of homophobes calling gay people perverts.
• everyone has a right to their own boundaries, and sexual imagery is and should be restricted to places where it's appropriate.
• anyone who can't handle other people having sexual boundaries has a problem they should really think about.

Surely that would be owning it for what you think it is?

Why would other women do that?

Not the point of the thread but seriously? You couldn't tell the difference?

If you want to look at this sort of thing you easily can. That doesn't mean everyone else wants to.

If you wore that to the office or out shopping it wouldn't be suitable. Therefore it's unreasonable to have it on a SFW website.

Do you think a woman can put on so called ‘frumpy’ knickers and not look frumpy in them?

I do wear them for work and shopping, and everything else. I wear these clothes everyday. I mean I usually throw a frock on top, but I do wear them

That's not fair, the op dislikes the way the bodies are presented, not the actual bodies.
I'm proud of my body and enjoy my sexuality, but I also find these images grim. They are purely about the male gaze.

I wouldn't look at a woman in cotton knickers and call her frumpy. Not ever. That would be up to her to decide. I would not wear them as to me they are frumpy.
The same as to me, birkenstock type sandals are frumpy, but I don't go around calling women who wear them frumpy

/ whoosh

The adverts aren't pornographic.

Pornography literally means "depiction of prostitutes." If you think anyone in frilly knick-knacks is a whore, that's on you.

Not according to the four online dictionaries I've just looked at (I'm interested in language and the origin of words). None of them said anything about prostitutes. Even if that was part of the original meaning, it no longer applies today.

Always that insult

I don't think that's the common usage of the word. They're sexual images. You wouldn't expect to see them on a billboard in the city centre. I don't like seeing them in the middle of threads, not because I think the models are prostitutes but just because I don't want to see bare arses popping up all over the place.

Crikey, that’s a bit of a stretch. I think we have moved past the idea of women as ‘whores’ surely. Objecting to being bombarded with images of women in overtly sexual lingerie and fetish wear such as maids’ outfits, doesn’t mean anyone thinks the model or potential wearer is a prostitute. That’s utterly ridiculous.

That is not the definition of pornography. The definition of pornography is "material designed to sexually arouse".

Those adverts depict clothing which is specifically designed for that purpose, therefore they are pornographic.

I find the ads offensive. As for those saying naked bums are shown everywhere, well I suppose it depends where you look but I haven't seen them.

The fact is, Mumsnet should not be showing overtly sexual adverts on their website.

Not now been getting those but can’t read any threads because adverts for Vueling pop up every 5 seconds . Can’t seem to lose them

1. You’ve never seen porn obviously.
2. Its underwear.
3. be grateful, if I had that body I’d be walking down the street like that.

No not seriously

If Mumsnet won't take down the ads then it must be worth complaining to the ASA. Under their code all adverts must be decent, and those Ann Summers ads certainly can't be called that.

It's the etymology of the word.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/pornography porne + graphein = prostitute + write, depict

A picture of a woman standing still in knickers or a short dress isn't inherently sexual or dirty unless you are a bit fucked up. HTH

The etymology of a word is very interesting but can have little or nothing to do with its meaning and usage nowadays.

But again, not the common usage of the word.

picture of a woman standing still in knickers or a short dress isn't inherently sexual or dirty unless you are a bit fucked up.

The Ann Summers adverts are inherently sexual; that is the point of them. A photo of a woman in a thong and stockings that shows her naked bottom is sexual; a photo of a woman in a sheer dress with crosses over the nipples is sexual. It's advertising what is supposed to be sexy lingerie; interpreting these as sexualised images is not 'fucked up' - it's the intention of the advert.

I think it's quite fucked up to assume that someone not being keen on a conversation about Gaza being interrupted by photos of women in thongs is assuming those women are prostitutes. No one has brought prostitutes into the discussion implicitly or otherwise except for you. It's patently not what most people are talking about when they talk about pornographic images. The problem isn't the women being prostitutes as clearly no one would think that! The problem is sexualised imagery in inappropriate places.

The etymology of the word, while of interest, is completely redundant and irrelevant in this context (or any context.) My mum used to refer to my ‘gay’ party dress because it was what she would have called very cheery looking. It was a floral monstrosity, but it definitely embodied the original meaning of the word gay. Does that mean that when I refer to a person as gay, I’m saying he/she is joyful or cheerful? They may well be, but ya know …

And "Gay" used to mean prostitute in 17th and 18th century.

The poster trying to argue the images aren't pornographic is really scraping the barrel. The lack of understanding of , and contempt for, boundaries by some posters is astonishing.