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?

God, circular discussions of Gaza on Mumsnet. Just onanism of a different sort. I'd rather see the Ann Summers adverts, though I've never spent a pound there.

Sex does not equal porn for normal people.

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

Exactly. How difficult a concept is that?

Sex does not equal porn for normal people.

There's nothing abnormal about finding these ads distasteful and inappropriate. Fine if they don't bother you, but they do bother some of us. There is something really abnormal about coming onto a thread to claim words mean something they clearly don't and that anyone objecting to sexualised ads is making weird assumptions about prostitutes!

I mean, do you find the bra pictures in the Next catalogue upsetting, too? Do you think Lady Gaga dancing in lingerie is producing pornography? Do cartoon images of French maid outfits disturb you?

I hope you do complain to ASA about these bland images of somewhat airbrushed bodies in underwear. Not simulating sex, but just standing there, modelling the product. I can't wait to see what response you get.

I have said already that I don't have a problem with the other underwear and swimwear ads that come up on the page. The Ann Summers ads are not the same.

I haven't said anything about complaining to the ASA. I've just suggested to Mumsnet that these particular adverts aren't that appropriate. If you can't see the difference between the screenshot of the advert and your cartoon, I think that's very odd.

Clearly some people don't like the Ann Summers ads and others don't care. That's fine. Mumsnet can decide whether they approve the content or not; I've brought it to their attention and I'm really not interested in an argument about it.

So don't argue. If you post your complaint on a public forum where others will see it, then other people are free to differ from you and tell you are being laughably prudish. Have a good day.

I have never seen an advert on MN that wasn't easily scrolled past.

Hi all - thanks for your comments. This ad is appearing via programmatic advertising, which means it's not directly placed by us but arrives through an open auction system. Advertisers bid in real time to show ads based on things like page content, general browsing behaviour, and what the algorithm thinks you might be interested in - it doesn't necessarily mean you or anyone around you has been Googling something similar. Ann Summers is a permitted advertiser on Mumsnet, but we appreciate that some of the imagery may not appeal to everyone.

If you'd prefer not to see ads like this, you can click the small "X" or "AdChoices" icon (usually at the top corner of the ad) and follow the options to provide feedback or manage your ad preferences. This helps refine what types of ads are shown to you based on your interests. You can also manage this for everything you may see on Google: https://myadcenter.google.com/kids?sasb=true&ref=ad-settings

Thanks again for the feedback.

Thanks @BeckyAMumsnet - that's really helpful!

They're not just pictures of bras though are they, that's the point. The ones that I found offensive were the rear view pictures of a woman's naked buttocks, wearing stockings and suspenders, you don't get photos like that in Next or M&S. The see through topless maids outfit is very far from a cartoon.

You may not think those images are offensive on this website, I do. We differ in our opinions but that doesn't mean you are right and I'm wrong, there's no need to be quite so snotty in your comments. Thinking photos like that are acceptable on this platform doesn't make you a better person.

If you'd prefer not to see ads like this, you can click the small "X" or "AdChoices" icon (usually at the top corner of the ad) and follow the options to provide feedback or manage your ad preferences. This helps refine what types of ads are shown to you based on your interests.

But that option didn't appear with Ann Summers ads. I'm very familiar with that and have used it countless times to make unwanted ads disappear.

I’ve not been getting those ads so the algorithm must know I am getting on a bit and live on my own! I’d say the ads are a bit dated and not to my taste but I wouldn’t think they are “porny”. Don’t bikini ads also show women’s butts? I really dislike porn but I don’t see the ads as that. On the other hand, I’d never buy this stuff in a million years and the algorithm seems to know that! Remember when Ann Summers shops all had tinted windows? Now they are in shopping malls with everything on display. So things have changed. On the other hand my granny wore suspenders because that was what all women wore and they were not racy. Now I wouldn’t touch them with a bargepole because they are so uncomfortable!

I got these a few days ago, but had definitely just been browsing the Ann Summers site. Haven't continued to have them.

If I had been in the pilates queue, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid. Honestly, it's just underwear ads, you weren't watching a porn film. It's not to my taste but it wouldn't worry me.

It's irrelevant.

Well bully for you. What a pity everyone isn't you.

I didn't consent to seeing adverts for items designed for sexual titillation. It's not "just underwear ads" so please cut the faux naivety.

@BeckyAMumsnet is being deceitful in saying we can click the x in the corner to remove it. There is no x.
If we engage an ad-blocker MN gets upset and disconnects us. Unfortunately I clicked and opened the ad trying to get details of it. That probably means it is the algorithm for me. (sigh)
The place for those ads is in the sex section not in health or politics or serious topics.
C'mon @BeckyAMumsnet you stopped the private chats on PM if they get too sexy.
Double standards?

It is just underwear ads.

It's so silly to be bothered about them.

If they are making you feel so uncomfortable, perhaps it's worth a chat with a therapist.

It’s fair to say that many MNetters do object to these ads. Suggesting they’re prudes or that they need therapy is beyond insulting.

But we all know why MN take such ads. They have a relationship with Ann Summers who, no doubt, pay a pretty penny to advertise their wares here.

… which is why ad blockers were invented.

See, I think it's immoral to take the benefit of Mumsnet (free chatting shite forum) while weaselling out of the burden (seeing occasional adverts) when Mumsnet largely relies on advertising to keep the site going.

We all have our differing set of morals I guess.

But it is prudish. Its pretty much the definition of prudish. Why is it bad to call it what it is?

Prude: someone who is easily shocked by sex or nudity.

Source: colliers dictionary

I just don't want people to think I'm looking at a dirty old porn mag whilst I'm eating my lunch at work. That's what it looked like. To anyone looking over my shoulder, that's what they'd have thought.

I think it comes down to your definition of 'easily' @IDontHateRainbows All of us have a line. There are sexual/nude images that would shock you if they popped up on Mumsnet. You have a boundary somewhere; everybody does. We all draw those boundaries in the place that feels most comfortable to us. For some people, maybe that's an M&S bra advert - well, I'm fine with those images but I wouldn't seek to insult or mock someone who felt uncomfortable with it. Some people will draw their boundaries based on religious or cultural reasons. For others, it could be related to trauma. Maybe it's just personal taste for someone else.

I find the word 'prude' questionable. I mentioned upthread that I have a dear friend who identifies as asexual. It's a valid identity and one that some people - who probably don't consider themselves bigoted - feel fine mocking. I think it's wrong to insult people who aren't interested in or don't feel comfortable with sex and sexual content. Prude is a word that comes with judgement attached. The dictionary definition may be neutral, but words carry weight that isn't always captured by Collins.

Personally, I think the Ann Summers ads cross a line. For someone else, their line is elsewhere - but we all have one somewhere. I don't think it's ok to insult people based on where that line is for them.

I am sorry I was very scathing about Ann Summers in my first few posts. I don't like it and I don't think their stuff is sexy. But that's not really my problem with the ad; I am bothered by the amount of bums that popped up on my phone screen in public and I don't think that's appropriate for an advert on a mainstream site. I apologise for being judgemental about the quality of AS. I don't apologise for thinking their adverts aren't appropriate.

I think there are a couple of posters wildly overreacting and making pretty ridiculous judgements about those who draw a boundary here. I am extremely suspicious of people who get very irate when women put sexual boundaries in place. It's a fairly big red flag.

It's exactly what they look like. It's like the covers of "top shelf" magazines which are put out of sight so that only anyone wanting to see them, sees them.

I don't think using the word prude to describe prudish behavior is particularly insulting.

You seem to be taking offensive rather too easily here.

I mean, if you want to be a prude I have no issue with that but calling out posters for being insulting when they are just using a word in a perfectly reasonable, descriptive way is a little...how can I put it...insulting.

This is the second time this has happened to me this week on MN. The overly sexualised and trashy images are on screen for quite a long time, they don't go away when you click on the x and they are flashing images in more ways than one. There is nothing wrong with the female form. I just don't want to be subjected to images of women trussed up like chickens for the male gaze.

Most of us on here are mums and it is highly possible that we could have our innocent DC with us while on MN. I just did. I do not want to be force fed these images when on MN and I do not want my DC to be exposed to them while on MN.

If it was 'just underwear' none of us would be objecting. It's not 'just underwear'. They are porn/sex aids ads.

This is happening very soon after many of us were subjected to graphic porn via pop ups here on MN. See the thread elsewhere in Site Stuff. I had my innocent DC with me when that happened too.

This has all started happening since we have all had ads forced on us by MN unless we pay the premium. We are the content, we provide the content. MN needs to remember that. Without Mumsnetters there would be no site for Justine and MNHQ to earn a living from.

I should not have to put up with intrusive images like this on a parenting site which claims to make life easier for parents. Would Justine and the staff find their life was made easier by their own children being exposed to this? I very much doubt it.

Must do better MNHQ.