Ahabs's Profile

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Hunnibabe
I too agree with all the sentiments of the original post but I also share Ahabs views on couples and not just for the guys but also some of the women..... we play as a couple unless its girl girl only..... to have women aggressively going after my other half in one instance asking to "borrow him" is not what I would call polite...... and when u spell out what ur do's and don'ts are and couples think they can change ur mind last minute......
There should I feel be alot more respect towards each other by some people within the scene..... and no it should'nt just be directed to single guys but to everyone...........

AS I saw one lady say to one single guy who she'd taking a liking to and been chatting to for a fair part of the evening in a club: "You wanna fuck or what?"
Takes a brave man (with a pair of brass ones) to try that on a couple or single female!

View Post

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Couldnt we just have a star system like on e-bay less hassle, no negative comments to worry about and far easier for the site to introduce.

If there is no negatives, how would a star be a guarantee?
They could have met one couple all went well they got their star, then they decided swinging was not for them, they would like to stick with just sexual chat or cam to cam. Would the star still shine?
See point on below (err.. now above) for "show minimum number of votes" below. ;)

View Post

15 Jan 2009

Quote by soul_girl
Couldnt we just have a star system like on e-bay less hassle, no negative comments to worry about and far easier for the site to introduce.

The only problem I see with making the ebay system work is that people can actually see how many others have voted for you - which would interprete as "Wow, 98% positive votes from 902 people.. and their profile has only been active 10 months - tart!"
Which is why I thought "Hm, better leave the optionto hide the number of total votes". I a user however wants to show this, is "100%, of 3 votes", then its up to them.
Hang on, as an idea, maybe even show the number as long as 3 or less? so people understand where "100% of 3 votes" comes from (keep voters as 'Private').
Lol - we giving away trade secrets here!

View Post

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Steve
If they are given information to investigate then discretion is thrown out of the window...
Admin will have to be given full details if they are to investigate anything and they cannot have all the details and discretion remain intact....
As for just knocking it well....
The suggestion I have is not to have any kind of verification at all.....
The site has survived without it and verification has been shown to have pitfalls from every angle....

But how do you know the site does not need it? ;)
Is it not possible the site has in part survived because nothing can be proven (no proof of contact, incident or time-wasting) and as such most (like myself) have had to resign to the fact "Nothing will change, the timewasers will continue to get away with it, you can't report it, its not admin's business, I made the choice to be a swinger, I might as well put up and get on with it, or delete my profile and return to celibacy and monogamy".
Damn, how bleak and positive an outlook is that! smile

View Post

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Luck and ahabs I would like to say great points raised on both sides, these makes for a good read. Just how a debate should be conducted in my book.
I would like to ask something of Ahabs.
If as you are saying there are rooms as you mentioned.
Are these people not alienating others, that feel as we don't have the same set prefreance
My thoughts are if we met in another room that was open to all, we might just find another common intrest so could strike up a friendship from a different angle?

Yes, there is always a risk of alienation - but then its up to individual people if they choose to only visit that one prefered room, or diversify. I've only recently discovered the Kent room, though I don't live in Kent, I go to the clubs there (like wise Essex room and Midlands room .. just need to find the Luton and Oxford room).
As for a "common room of no interest" I would recommend the Beach Bars, Pools and Jacuzzi rooms. That's what i always saw them as, unless I'm mistaken.

View Post

15 Jan 2009

Lol... I tried, but having looked at several hundreds profiles, I don't seem to find many in the vicnity that want seek "Just yourself, with no added extra"
Lets face it, every swinger on here approaches another swinger for an initial "common interest" reason, as per "G.R.A.D.E.S" or other things (you're into Top Gear too? Fab!), sometimes its even sub-conscious, but there are very few (if any) that have NO preference. I wanna know who those greedy sods are!
Me, I simply start at "Seeks female that plays" and start the eliminating from there. Works so far.

View Post

15 Jan 2009

To clarify, no one ever said "Because we can" (but they might as well have) but a few had actually said to me "Listen, swigning is about couples not singles, the rules are made FOR us BY us - if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere that the rules accomodate you better".
My response to one: "If its so much about couples, am curious how 'accomodating' it is to single girls".

View Post

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Lucyandmike7
Were you on the debating team at uni Ahabs?

I might have been - but wouldn't use that to get my foot in the door (unless that does it for you ;) )

View Post

15 Jan 2009

To the last two comments,
Fair points however remember am just putting ideas forward here, not giving a Technical Requirements Document on how SH should build their verification system. Its all down to udnerstanding various scenarios (I already tried thinking some through)
With regards to "100% for 1 verification", you could set a threshold - 3 votes minimum (or something) for it to kick in (or something) otherwise 2 votes could show 50-50.
With regards to negative votes being deleted - how bout it not being able to be? Now some people will probably start arguing "What if person A doesn't like person B, and so gets 20 of their mates to vote negative for person B forcing their stars down...", true, and I've seen it before. As SH admin would advise, don't get into tit-for-tat, simply report it and they will investigate.
(I don't know if SH admins can see people's emails, but if there's proven lack of contact between person B and the sudden surge of 20 negative, then it would look suspicious)
Bow bearing mind again I'm only offering suggestions - for all I know SH have already got something built that they're testing, or may not plan to - but at least am thinking, its in a bid to make thing better cause the way I see it, not everyone is as adept to doing their homework and hence being fortunate never to have had a bad meet (I only know 2 of such people - and I;m not one of them). This is to assist and protect the wider community, so Swinging Heaven does not become Timewasters Haven (yes, Haven, not Heaven).
Offer suggestions, rather than just knocking it saying "its not 100% so don't have it" otherwise we'll be looking for things in life that are "100% every time" and life is not perfect. If life was perfect, I'd be looking for that one person that could give me everything I could ever want in every swinger, and keep it fresh and different every single time.

View Post

15 Jan 2009

I'm confused. I'm actually in in two minds about this.
Whilst I fully agree with everything that was posted (original post) and fully share the sentiment and support the motivation and reason of the poster (Thank you for this!) I however disagree that it should be addressing ONLY single males.
Lets face it: numpties and twats come in all shapes and sizes - its not an exclusive club of single males!
One couple I chatted to late last year at a club were talking about how they hate single guys being pushy, disrespectful and assuming hence why they prefer to only meet couples and go to Chams on couples night.
However I know another couple that had met them, the two ladies had conversed and exchanged numbers, only for the male half of first couple to get the number of the female of the second couple (though they had agreed all comms go through the girls) and start pestering her hoping for a meet while his wife doesn't know.
My point? by all means, post it - but PLEASE do not post it as a "Advice to single males" sticky, else it'll give a large number of couples and single girls reason to say "OMG - look at the atrocities those sad bastards get up to!" whilst some failing to look at themselves in the mirror.
One site did it, and till today, couples on that site STILL break pretty much every rule. When asked about it, their reasons smack of "Because we can."

View Post

15 Jan 2009

Quote by fabio
okay ahabs... I'll then put this to you, in regards to your example
1) Photo varification comes in, so she proves that she is who she is.... how has that helped you in this senario? the answer is that it hasn't...
2) varification with feedback comes in....lets say that she has met 5, but like you said messed around 100.....
a) if people have control of what is shown.... whats the likelyhood of the no shows appearing on the profile.... slim to none, you'd only see the positive meets....
b) without those 100 no shows on the screen, how are you suppose to make a proper judgement ..... you can't
c) who's checking the varifiers to check that they are genuine... unless you are going to do a family tree type thing to work out who's "had" who....
wonderful we can play "6 degrees of kevin bacon" and link everyone on the swinging site in 6 shags or less.... yes that bit was a bit flippant but it brings me to:
d) that discretion word again.... I don't want to world knowing who I have met, I don't really want to know who's met who either
you tell me how it helps you in these cases... and you'll win me as a convert.... until then, I don't see how it has helped.... sorry

Hey Fabio, I hear what you're saying, however:
1) I'm not talkignabout photo verification - that can be left to the admin team at time of account setup/hpto upload.
2) The meat of the matter:
a) Yes, you can't stop people doing anything - I've been on a meet where all was good and fine till moment of *the ultimate* and she suddenly went "Can you just hold and cuddle me instead?". Now I wa sure I had done something wrong (however left immediately claiming the moral highground) only for her to contact me the following week offering to meet. Turns out she's a soft swinger who wanted to play with (any) black guy but never had, and yet that little detail somehow never came up in discussion. Who knew?
b) I'm thinking more of a system that gives the option of displaying how many feedbacks you have, and (if people's choice) who with, ie with-hold username. Its been done before and it does work!
The trick is some 10-star rating on the account where the higher percentage positive gives higher stars, the higher percentage negative gives lower stars. So if I saw an account with 3/10 stars, its up to me to assume that 70% of the verification preferred to vote negative. Irrespective who or how many. My example would hence have (5/100) % positive, (100/105) % negative. Clear picture ;)
Who's checking the verifiers? No idea - but it should be encouraged (a note on the "leave a verification" section that "This is for use only for people you have met and choose to verify. Not for (ab)use of leaving verification in the hope the recipient will reward with a meet!". How admins will then check that (example) I haven't set up 100 other profiles and had each one verify my main anonymously? Possibly IP tracking? (yes,one or two may get through if I vote at work r a friend's but majority are filtered out)
d) Discretion? The optional "how many" and "who dunnit" settings should help maintain these. No one likes their dirty aired in public.
Touching on the subject of "Family tree" quickly, am in two minds about this. I personally don't want everyone thinking "My god - he wasn't kidding when he said WILL TRAVEL, I mean... Prague ffs!") yet there is a laughable (if not so sad) case I saw that could have helped:
A lady I started chatting to in 2007 (as part of her preferences) tends to "investigate" who potential meets have met (doing her homework) as she prefers to stay well clear of anyone who goes bareback, has met anyone that goes bareback, or anyone linked (6-degrees) to any bareback swinger (including visiting the bareback room herself to note who to avoid). The sad thing is she has a regular play partner that... you guessed it, has been known to do just that. "Damn" I thought, "... poor naive soul - oh well, not my business. IF she's meant to find out, she will". This then becomes a "verification vs Discretion" argument.
I somehow would prefer to know the difference between soemone saying "You'll never know who I've met cause I'm that discrete" to "Actually, she hasn't met many cause the first few sussed her to be a timewaster". Just my view.

View Post

15 Jan 2009

Quote by Silk and Big G
Its all about the advertising .
If you are happy to define yourself, and promote yourself as a simple commodity then that's all you will represent. Just as a man that thinks the most important and alluring or appealing aspect of himself is that he has a ten inch cock should expect to be treated as no more than a cock with legs then a black man who uses his race as an advertising definition should not be upset when he is defined as simply that. Its not really possible to so specifically commodity yourself for the purposes of sexual conquest and then complain of the complex emotional and moral consequences. If you reduce yourself to a "sexual preference" then your human rights become kinda secondary . By the removal of your 'self' as simply an individual who may or may not be attractive for any one of a plethora of attributes - it makes it hard to argue the point on feelings.
Its not really useful making a comparison with smokers or fat or hairy people since such qualities in a person are never used as positive advertising by the individuals to whom they apply.
Of course we all experience some form of discrimination in our lives, but I cannot of course comment from the point of view of a black man. I can only imagine - and what I imagine is that having fought all my life against stereotyping and being misunderstood or discriminated against, the last thing I would want would be to be reduced to a mere "sexual preference" simply for the sake of more easily attaining sexual conquest. that for me would I imagine engender a basic feeling of lack of respect for me as a human being and as an individual - and as such I would avoid using any such methods as motivation for potential sexual partners.
Peace

I can see our point and its a fair one, consider however this:
a) Couple seeking black male
b) Couple seeking bi female
Does that ring a bell? By your argument, both the black male and bi fem have been reduced from the "people" to commodity of whatever they can bring to the table (as desired by the seeking couples advertising their preference).
Now whilst I happen to be a black male and I do (shamefully) use it to my advantage whenever the opportunity arises (why cruise in 3rd gear on a clear motorway when you can open up the engines and let rip!), I avoid making that "the be all and end all" about me.
I could also describe myself as:
* under 35
* over 25
* average height
* educated
* professional (if that rocks anyone's boats)
* straight (err.. had to include that)
* plays poker as well as chess
* into football (but more playing than watching, somehow)
* laid back
* Not seeking a relationship
All these things about me are true, as well as being black, but no one thing defines me - we are all individually sums of many parts, however if someone "takes" to each and everyone of us based on a unique individual quality, will we accuse that person of cheapening our humanity and reducing us to that one thing as a "commodity"?
* Lesbians Room
* Kent Room
* North Wales Room
* Bi/CD/TV/TS Room
* Bikers Room
* Wife Chat Room
* Indian Room
* Couples for couples
* Within 5 miles of me (a friend of mine says "My neighbour is closer, but THAT doesn't mean I wanna shag him!)
Are we saying the regular users of these rooms have abandoned all their other qualities, reduced themselves o the one thing that binds them and summarily read themselves as on offer on the basis of only one thing to offer? If that was the case, then would swinging not be a case of "Met on (fill in the blank), met them all." as there would be no difference or variance, however this is untrue because most swingers (I feel this is safe to say) do not wish to meet only one person/couple but rather experience different people - I believe on the basis of the very differences that exist between these people.
Would this not be the expression of that quality as a preference to seek the binding similarity, yet celebrating the variance?
"If it gets yer foot in the door, use it!" Back to you.

View Post

14 Jan 2009

Quote by Silk and Big G
Prapsits just the DA in me, but can you begin to IMAGINE the scenario and outcry had this thread taken a slightly different slant ?
Its a subject that has sat heavy with me in the swinging world for a long time, and becoming more prevalent on this site every not sure of the bottom lines myself to be honest, but disturbing none the less.

With regards to FoxyChick's comment suggesting the argument is void as a lot of white guys go into the room anyway, yes this part is true. However, what she doesn't see (as she's never ventured into the room) is why these white (and asian) men go into the room: for the sole purpose of "tryign their luck" to change the preference (or minds) of the females there, then kick up a fuss (yelling "discrimination" when their offer gets turned down). I wonder why.
Like I said before, it would be like me going into the Lesbians for lesbians and "trying my luck" there. The reality of swinging: its all about preference, even when that preference works against me, I have to respect it - shame the argument on this thread clearly has no consideration for that.

View Post

14 Jan 2009

Email Tennis :- The lost art of continuously exchanging pleasantries with a prospective meet via email for a yet undrterminable medium-to-long-term duration before establishing whether or not a meet legitimately is viable.[/i
A guy I know on one site said he had to be establish a friendship with one couple first (fair enough I thought) - this took him six (6) years to do before he got to finally have a meet with them, despite having met them socially a few times and exchanged countless emails over the years. It paid off though, they shag like rabbits every week.
I'm just not sure if I can wait 6 years for a meet - I tend to think "If you can't make your mind after the first year, you're clearly either not horny enough, or not interested at all, so I'll make it up for you and no longer darken your inbox - Happy Swinging" (and apologies to those who get offended).
Imagine I start chatting to a couple who prefer under 30's (say I was 29 then),... and definitely no 35's or over. By the time the 6 years had past, I WOULD be 35, thus eliminating myself - back to the drawing board!

View Post

14 Jan 2009

Quote by DeeCee
I think it could be classed as racial discrimination... in the same way that one could be seen to be discriminating against the fat and the hairy....

I dont think however that there is as much wrong with this sort of discrimination (as discrimination goes)... it is a fact of life and comes about because of peoples preferences.
Just because the preference and discrimination exists, I would add that this doesnt mean that a person with these views is an out and out racist or fatist etc... its just fact that they discriminate who might be of a different race, size, age show this discrimination through their thoughts and actions,
We all do it...
The stick and stones philosophy is a good one ... the "label" might not fit precisely and sometimes, on a personal level it might not even matter to a person that they do discriminate...in a "it is their choice... and if there are victims of that choice then so-be-it" type of way.
my personal view.... well, i admit that i can be guilty of types of discrimination in the choices i make on a number of levels....
If someone distorts this discrimination by amplifying the effects of it or by mis describing it and branding me xxxxxist.... then so be it...they are entitled to their opinion....and sticks and stones might break my bones... but names will never hurt me.

Guess who the latest "trouble making racist" on SH is? Apparently me - because of my "arguments" on both this thread and the originating guestlist.
Pardon my naivety, but no one has ever told me that the social in question had to be "open invite to all" (vs, those that share and support the preference highlighted), and that the organiser(s) HAD to follow the same code, despite this social having been organised for almost what... 4 years now??
PS: For the record, YES - it IS an excuse for a full on shag-a-thon. Anything to watch will be in private rooms. How bad are we?

View Post

13 Jan 2009

Alas, but if I didn't turn up for a meet and gave some feeble excuse 10 hrs later, I trust it would be another case of "Another time wasting single male who can't be trusted on reliability".
I'll keep my mouth shut next time.

View Post

13 Jan 2009

Okay, rather than speculate, I shall cite an example:
I chatted to a female. We both went on cam, saw who we were, exchanged phone numbers, chatted on the phone, agreed to meet, arranged date and time, confirmed details. I travelled up to her. She didn't show up. Did not pick up her phone, nor reply her texts.
She contacted 10 hrs later "Something came up". I think she's a timewaster, she thinks am expecting too much.
I don't need to know who she;s met, as long as some reassurance this is not her "M.O" (ie, wannabe that likes the idea of meeting with but with no intention of following through".
ok, speculation:
Not photo verification, not membership level.
Some "hide our username" but "yes, person is NOT a timewaster" type symbol could have helped - for all I know, lady in my example could have done the same to over 100 guys, but no one will ever know.

View Post

13 Jan 2009

Quote by foxylady2209
Reggae Reggae for me - on eggs, bacon or sausages.
Not being posh - it's lovely.
Otherwise red. Brown is too sharp for me.

Errrrr..... whats posh about it??
What's this red sauce business? "Ketchup" for me! And if some company doesn't like the fact Heinz got the name first, fuck 'em!

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Quote by welikesinglemen
No objections from me, who knows you may even get invited to some of them, if some of the other people going know and like you.

You know how it is, I keep getting told "Inasmuch as we DO know you, its strictly couples and single fems only".

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Okay, okay.."I give in!",.. "I cry uncle". Happy?
As I never created the rule, I hence have to abide by the democratic opinion that "Socials are open to all, irrespective of differences or preferences".
.
.
.
... May I be allowed to put my name down for couples and single fems socials, I post frequently, attend socials, people know me in person as not looking to cause trouble, and am not a timewaster, plus I like the socials also. Any objections?

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts
No one has answered any of MY questions yet. I have to assume its a matter of when convenient to throw mud.

Try numbering your questions in one post and I will have a go if you like.
The questions that were in the middle of the posts are confusing to me so thats why I have not answered them.
Dave_Notts
Lol, okay Dave, in the spirit of debate:
1) Should the term "Social" imply "non-play get together" (I assumed that was Munch, a described by SH guidelines) .. example, BBW social in a pub is non-play, yet BBW social in Chams CAN expect play.
2) Depending on above, should a "social" be open to all, irrespective of the group organising it, or should the type/style not depend on the organiser?
(I'm tired of using Jiggle - poor chap will think there's a Vendetta against him which is unfortunate as that is not the case) ...
3) If FoxyChick can feel "dejected" for being advised against a guestlist for black men and women/couples who DO want them (as she doesn't - but hey, its a "social") then surely I have similar right to protest to being denied attending a couples and single fems social for exactly the same reason?
(Darn it, now I have to use Jiggle as an example anyway!)
4) Does "attending socials, having a high forum post count or living in the Birmingham area" become a qualifying factor to being included on a "BlackGuys4Fems" guestlist? Without ofcourse this suggesting likewise other "high-post-count, other-social-attending, birmingham residents also qualifying for the same.. whether or not they share/support the theme/preference of the group having the social anyway?
Those simple points, ofcourse more answers to these the merrier.

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts
Not rude at all chap. I have looked at the topic raised and thought what a good question. I didn't want to answer straight away as my mind was trying to work it all out and how to answer it. After reading a few more posts it became clear that you have an alterior motive but I am unsure of what it is as the thread seems to be going around in circles.
You brought up a serious question and then brought in an argument from another thread that has been sorted. This argument revolved around the misunderstanding of the use of English on a forum and not race or discrimination or preference.
If you think it is discrimination, race or preference that is the real reason then I will gladly discuss that.
Lawr made a comment that was misunderstood by Jiggle. Jiggle responded to it and Lawr responded to that one. Jiggle then understood what was being said made an apology and left the discussion and wished everyone a happy social.
Nope......I didn't see any discrimination in that.
Dave_Notts
PS talking about discrimination. This has made me think that there can not be anybody in favour of discrimination on the thread as this is aginst the AUP. Surely the first person who says that discrimination is ok would be banned . Kind of one sided discussion then

Hi Dave, thanks for the update - however there was never any ulterior motive at all. A thread that was intended to function as a guestlist was at risk of descending a debate about who could and could not go on that guestlist and what criteria qualifying/disqualifying - I merely (and publicly) drew attention that any discussion/debate/argument NOT be done there (and let that thread remain a guestlist) but be done here (where discussions are more suited.
Since the subject of "disqualification" touched on issues of race (jiggle being a single white male), personal choice (FoxyChick not interested in black males), accusation of favouritism (as Ian was invited, despite also being a white male), and even orientation (someone mentioned something about someone being bi..Ian or Jiggle?), the only thing that was not respected was the issue of preferece, all the while subtle calls of "discrimination" reverberating.
Hence I started this thread (for all to debate) starting the background on what, I fell, forms discrimination and how that takes perspective on preference in the swing scene, before highlighting that issue as the originating incident.
All publicly done and no hidden/ulterior motive - if you however still feel this way, then I apologise for you taking that opinion, but I do not apologise for starting this thread.
On a lighter note however, yes, I do agree and am pleased that Lawr and Jiggle have settled differences and reached an understanding, and should jiggle be at the venue onthe evening I (personally) feel there is no reason for him not to come over and sa hello (there will be no recrimination from me) just as I feel Lawr should be able to advertise a social themed on whatever preference without being branded a (reverse-)racist.

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Quote by wittyclitty
This is really boring now, If Jiggle wants to attend chams and there is a social, he is well within his rights to do so as he is a member.
I think you will find chams wont turn him down just because it is a social, regardless of the theme!
Good luck Lawr in doing your social
by the sound of it your gonna need all the luck as this has gone far to far!!

Witty, I agree - he IS well within his rights to go to Chams whenever he wants, as is Foxy. The problem is people having a go at Lawr for not including him on the guestlist.
PS: No one has answered any of MY questions yet. I have to assume its a matter of when convenient to throw mud.

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Quote by fabio
thanks for not listening to what I said before in bold... I'll say it again...
IF it had been a private house party OR a social when you had hired the club..... I would have agreed, put who you want on the list.....
BUT the problem for me is that you are piggy-backing the clubs busiest night, where they allow single guys, couples and fems, so outside of your little group there would have been people that would not had had a clue that the do was going on....
as a mute point, if the person who was denied going was a member of chams anyway, how you going to stop them from going? have big old bouncers on the door?
would we even be having this discussion if it had been a lady, who had only been on the site 1 day, said they had never been in the room, and had asked for an invite? funny cause I'm betting there would not have been an eyelid batted!
i just find it ironic that we are talking about an "exclusive" event on the night the club itself is all "inclusive"...
but then I see that some chatrooms on SH are more inclusive, or should I say seem more tolerant, than others......
the socials run by the BBW room, have loads of people regardless of size go to them because they are inclusive regardless... including you, in fact I am proud they took bbw out of the title of them! they are a damn good laugh... you know, you were there!!!
the socials run by the mids room, have loads of people regardless from outside the area go to them because they are inclusive regardless... including you
hears a shocker.... unless you plan to mingle just in your own little group at the social, how you going to know if one other person in that club are going to like you enough to play... the answer is you dont, it was more about trying to guarentee sex than anything else....

Likewise you've ignored what I said earlier also:
No ne is stopping anyone from going to the club if they wish to do so, the question remains "Why on THIS guestlist?" - that question also has not been ignored without answer.
Its simple - there will be people at the club who will bump into other people they don't know and all happen to be there for whatever reason, be it an individual, couple, a few select friends or a whole social. Such if the nature - if they do bump into each other and say hi, so be it.
So again I ask - why not just go to the club and see what happen BUT Why is the argument that people not on the guestlist?
no one seems to be answering any of the questions I ask (I get the impression my questions are either invalid or not worth answers) but yet Lawr is being reprimanded with the "racist" brand.

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts
Then why pretend this was something else?
The best place to have a debate is where it arose. It was and dealt with...........this is now just dragging it out.
If you really wanted to know the answer to this question then you would not have brought something different in that has nothing to do with the title. The differences of opinion on the other thread is about the use and understanding of language used on a forum and nothing to do with discrimination and choice
Dave_Notts
PS Writing in capitals does not make you right. It denotes shouting, and shouting is just plain rude

You do realise ignoring the discussion point, attempting to deflect attention from the issue at hand, whilst focussing on my posting style (effectively trying to put me in the wrong) and not actually offering answers to ANY of the questions asked is just as rude right?

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Quote by welikesinglemen
Lawr, , bless ya ! Tryin to do a good turn and still get urself in trbl lol
Just found this thread and if i'd seen it sooner I would've had a word, jiggle is a good pal of ours 's a really nice unassuming young chap who goes out of his way to be nice to everyone.
We are going on the 12th but will you put us on the list and we will do our best to come on the 13th too ( babysitter pending _)
luv Trace xx

Alas welikes, you should read the discussion in Cafe: "Preference vs Discrimination". Perhaps next time someone puts up a "Couples and single fems social" gguestlist, I should try to put my name on there - and if i face difficulty, I reply back with "but am genuine and just want to socialise" and refer them to this discussion in a bid to try to back the organiser into a corner, admit they're discriminating on basis of gender (single male) and hopefully force their hand to accept me.
Personally, I haven't known jiggle for very long, but from what I know of him I don't actually have a problem with him personally - I however find it borderline disgusting that people are trying to dictate that Lawr should ignore and abandon preference and hence tell him who may and may not go on the list.
As the person that phoned me to have a go at me at 5am said "But he's genuine, goes to other socials and lives in Birmingham anyway", to which I replied "Well, I guess that means EVERY person (couple/female/male, preference aside) that goes to socials and lives in birmingham can go on this particular guestlist then, and Lawr has no choice in the matter but to put their names down".

View Post

11 Jan 2009

Quote by fabio
I'm lost - where did he pretend it was something else?
I for one have enjoyed this interesting, and thought-provoking discussion.

I think it is a spin off from the thread that ahabs mentioned earlier.....
for me it was never a conversation about race, for me it was a case of a genuine person being unfairly treated
If it was a case of a genuine person being treated unfairly and preference (or as some have chosen to word it, race) is to be ignored, then how come, genuine as I may be, and also attending several socials, I also cannot attend certain socials (see initial list on first post) ?
I've probably asked this 3 times now, and and no one (sadly) has shown enough imagination to come up with an answer. Basically:
So its okay to have a go at Lawr because he has advised against BOTH a single white male as well as a single fem with no interest (or preference) to black men with regards to an interracial guestlist, while at the same time not being able to come up with a reason why a likewise genuine single male gets advised against a couples and single fems guestlist.
As a previous poster stated "the only people that will complain and feel discriminated against by someone not looking for fat hairy men, would be the same fat hairy men".
With regards to why this discussion is being held here? Simple: The originating issue was intended to be for the purpose of the guestlist on the "Meets" section, not debating why or who may or may not be on the list - "The Cafe" on the other hand has always been about open discussion.
Pretence? No - that's a personal perception - its a discussion about whether or not its fair to not willingly include people who, in plain view, do not share a particular preference (in this case "race" as it has been so thrown about), but at the same time as I've asked, are refusing to address a similar "exclusion" with regards to status/gender (ie, single male excluded from couples and single fems socials).
If it makes sense one way, then surely it has to make sense across the board - or am I naively hoping too much?

View Post

10 Jan 2009

Okay, here's a thought:
Some points (in general) have been made to highlight times when exceptions were made, and good things came out of it. The main thing in common is that these were all EXCEPTIONS.
Is it then to be assumed or agreed that an EXCEPTION is to make the determining factor to change preference or "status quo"? If so, would that not justify all those single guys wanting to meet couples who DON'T meet single guys and say "But I'm an exception, try me!"
In my opinion, that couple have every right to say "Yes, we KNOW you are an exception, but our preference is ours - please respect it!"

View Post

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts
After reading the first post, I thought what a good thread to start.
How disappointed I became when it turned out to be a carry on from another thread, where the author of that thread and the individual involved has sorted their differences and walked away.
Sad
Dave_Notts

to be fair, the other thread was not the medium to argue the rights or wrongs and criteria or justifications of preference vs discrimination - 'twas purely for the guestlist. Anyone wishing to DISCUSS and differences in opinions could do so here, hence this thread.

View Post

10 Jan 2009

So what are we saying? Yes to condoms THOUGH they're not 100%, but NO to verification BECAUSE its not 100% ??

View Post

Forum