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?

Wow you’re so cool.

🙄

Here's another definition of "prude" I found on Urban dignity

A slur men brainwashed by porn use to refer to women who have self respect and dignity

Why do you have such a problem with the idea that some posters don't want to see ads for sex aids? And that's what Ann Summers "underwear" is.

Do you have difficulties perhaps with your own sex life so you have to dress up as a Benny Hill character?

Love the passive aggression!

And no. We provide the content. Over the years I’ve been here I’ve provided a significant amount. Not just chatting shite, but all the Bootcamp threads I’ve run since 2012.

Discussing fad diets definitely falls within the "chatting shite" category for me, but I am sure a lot of people have benefitted from that. There's nothing wrong with chatting shite.

Who cares. It's human anatomy and I can't get bothered about it. It's a static advertisement for clothing, and not a moving GIF of a sex act (porn). Do you think all the nurses and doctors and physical therapists and masseurs and artists and so on who use Mumsnet need smelling salts whenever they see a human bum in their daily lives? I doubt many of us ever register seeing the ads.

Coming back to the thread @BeckyAMumsnet @HebeMumsnet to say the advert came back - on a thread started by a distressed rape victim - and as you can see, the Ann Summers ad has no X or triangle in the corner to get rid of it. The Co op advert above does have the triangle. Please could you look into why it's not possible to get rid of the Ann Summers ads - why do we not have this option for the AS content only?

The image is blurry because the larger picture flashes and changes, making it even more obtrusive on the page.

Do you really think it's ok to have a picture like this come up on a thread about sexual assault with no option to remove it? It's particularly bad that it is paired with an inoffensive co-op ad that DOES have the triangle.

People who are calling others prudish have really no idea where some may have commented. I don’t think on a website where sensitive information is discussed people should see an Ann summers advert. And I say that as someone who in my youth bought the stuff at a party. And no it wasn’t comfortable. Wore it once and binned it!

edit: just seen @JustSayWhen comment

Honestly, whatever anyone's opinions on the ads themselves, I can't see a reasonable explanation for making the one that features pictures of partially naked women the only ads the viewer can't remove. Especially on threads about rape. That's not defensible.

I've just watched through a carousel of ads on this thread - British Airways, Amazon, Ann Summers. Little triangle with an 'i' for the others, I can click and give my preferences to see ads like that or not in the future. Nothing on the Ann Summers one.

Do you have any notion how stupid that "gotcha" is? Comparing, neutral, normal, everyday medical situations where body parts are naked to "underwear" designed to be sexually titillating. If they were exactly the same there would be no point in Ann Summers existing.

Does any else remember the poster solidgoldbrass who used to unpick through the prudish hangups of the morally outraged ones on all subjects from porn to prostition? I miss her.

The most powerful argument against pornography is that the subjects themselves are harmed, trafficked, drugged, abused, hurt and humiliated for other people's titillation.

This is clearly not the case in a knicker advert where the subjects are essentially clothes horses. Possibly actual lifelike mannequins in some cases. So what is the actual objection (unless it makes you feel titillated and you don't like it)?

Just being worried the other pilates princesses think you're getting your jollies in public is pretty feeble.

I'm really wondering why it's so important to you that women don't state their sexual boundaries @Gobacktotheworld. the vehemence with which you push back on anyone saying they don't feel comfortable with a certain level of sexual content is disproportionate. You're fine with the adverts; why are you so desperate to try to silence anyone who isn't? Why does it matter so much to you that women should have to see sexual content they don't consent to and that they shouldn't speak up about it?

These adverts are different to other adverts because they do not have an option on them to click and state preferences. All other adverts on the site do - but the adverts for a sex shop featuring partly naked women in lingerie do not.

It's not prudish to value consent. It's very sinister to want so badly as you to override women's boundaries.

@JustSayWhen 👏👏👏👏

Because it's a site with a wide reach. Why should 'some posters' dictate what MN can or cannot do when I bet 95% of people on this site don't really care either way. Why are YOU more important?

And now you're the one trying to shame others about their sex lives with the Benny Hill comment so you're hardly the paragon of moral virtue here.

Nobody is dictating they are objecting .

Oh dear, I'm "shaming" you. What a pity. Yes the Benny Hill comment was low but I'm not the poster who started throwing out insults. You're happy to dish out insults, but poor little you starts whinging if you get them back.

Why are you and Gobacktotheworld so invested in forcing other posters to see pornographic content?

Oh nonsense, stop talking as though your eyes have been sexually assaulted here. Sexual consent doesn't arise because it's a knicker advert and not pornographic. There was once an ad campaign which had David Beckham, 60ft high, posing in his skimpies and projected onto the White Cliffs of Dover. Were you shocked n discusted by that, too? Or is it just women's bodies that upset you?

I personally hate pictures of anything with holes in it and stuff as innocuous as cheese adverts can trigger that obscure phobia. So when these things occur, I put on my big girl pants and scroll the fuck on instead of making my own set of personal psychological hang-ups other people's problems

Try it. It's freeing.

Sexual consent doesn't arise because it's a knicker advert and not pornographic.

Tell me you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about.

But you long for an old poster who apparently used to take women to task for daring to object to porn and prostitution. So you don't like us complaining about a knicker advert, but you also don't think we should voice any concerns about pornography and sex work because according to you, that's prudish too. You're suggesting that you have a real hang up about women on this site stating any kind of issue they have when it comes to sex.

If you can scroll past the cheese pictures without getting triggered, perhaps you could also scroll past threads where women voice concerns about matters of a sexual nature without being triggered to stop and berate them for it?

When did I dish out insults? I merely said there were prudish posts, I'm not using prude as an insult but a descriptor, so you are the one making that inference.

You are a prude, so own it with your head held high and accept yourself for who you are as there's a lot of projected shame going on here.

I never said there was anything wrong with being a prude, merely that MN shouldn't be dictated to re ad choices by a minority of site users.

Oh yeah, sure you were. Prude was used as an insult and you know it.

I'm sure if there was an insult throwing contest, you'd win! If you'd like to suggest another, less insulting word for those who cannot bear the sight of an ann summers clad arse, open to suggestions.

Why do you need a word? Why is it so important to you that these ads should be forced on everyone?

IDontHateRainbows, beware of engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

@JustSayWhen I agree with everything you're saying and thank you for continuing to raise this with @mumsnet

I'm not the one that needs another word though am I...I'm perfectly happy with the Collins version.

Anyway as goback says maybe it's not fair to expect you too much from you.

Why is it so important for some posters to try to belittle other posters for objecting to these Ann summers adverts?

Calling people prudes or making out that there's something deeply wrong with people who don't want to see bare buttocks and skimpy underwear designed to titillate is not going to achieve anything. It won't make those people think they suddenly do want to see those ads or that they are fools to object to them. I do wonder whether these strenuous posters are men because of the level to which they seem determined that others should have to view these pictures of half naked women in adverts for a sex shop.

I echo others' comments that it's impossible to remove the ads. One popped up again last night, no arrow but some lines which I pressed, it sent me to a website where all I could do was say whether I wanted personalised ads or not, no option to remove. If ads like this are shown then at least give the option to remove.