Right, so I take it preferences should be encouraged to be ignored for a preference-based social?
Where do I sign-up for all those couples and single fems socials I keep missing?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Ahabs
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 47
0 miles · Surrey
Forum
Orgasminator
Quote by noladreams30
The first two socials and Munches I went to on here I only knew one other person.
My attendance was not, I consider, a failure for me or the rest of the attendees. I spoke to people, I mingled, I made friends.
Why would new/unknown people be deemed a failure?
I like meeting new folk. When it's always 'same old faces' I find things get a bit stale - and that's not just swinging, but life in general.
The couple in question gave the feedback "We didn't know anyone".
Orgasminator
Quote by west-brom-babe
im saying the way i prefer to do things is to go to a social 1st im not saying its a right or wrong way im just saying its my way, ive been a regular in the mids room for a few years now and have chatted to people in great length then when ive actually met some ive found them not to be the same as in chat eg. rude, quite forcefull and a few complete knobs lol i just think for me actually meeting a person face to face is better than the chat room and before im hung drawn and quatered that goes for anybody of any race or colour.
Yes, I agree - but you still interacted in the chatroom BEFORE meeting at the social to decide if they were legit. What I'm proposing is you do the same with this one - give it a chance, come say hi, if anyone there strikes you as curious to say hello to, THEN put your name down on the list - if they turn out to not meet your expectation in person, then that's no fault of yours.
Its just that having a new face/female/couple (who don't know anyone from the group) at a social that even they are unsure if its for them is a massive gamble - it has been done in the past and guess what? It failed, unfortunately.
I'm not saying doing it your way will fail also, but it will increase the chance of people you'd have chatted to and "put name to faces".
Orgasminator
Quote by Cherrytree
Good thread Ahabs :thumbup:
As regards the visit to Chams-
The be all and end all to my mind, is that Socials are not run by S.H, they are the responsibility of the organiser, and you are within your rights to say "sorry you can't come to xxxxx with our group" to anyone, without giving a reason at all.
But if the organiser tries to give a reason for turning someone down, saying that the person wouldn't fit in because they don't fit in with the ethos of the night, then I think is where issues arise.
Because then a person might say, "well it doesn't matter that I am not black/gay/cd/Midlands room whatever, because I'm a lovely social person and I would enjoy the night anyway.
I'm not sure either side is wrong.
Lol - Hi CherryTree, thanks for your post.
Whislt I fully agree the reasons for someone not being invited to a social don't have to be stated, I feel this would be difficult to enforce as people are bound to think "But why?".
As I was trying to communicate also, assuming I was turned away from a "Couples and Single Fems" social (for example there is one for the BBW room I understand is/was being organised), I could ALSO argue "But I'm a lovely person, never cause trouble, love to socialise, not a timewaster, always turn up and HAPPY to pay my way of hotel costs if lucky to share", and in this case "ESPECIALLY as the social is BY the bbw room - who DO know me!", but guess what the response to me by one person was?
"If you're coming as a couple - then fine, otherwise sorry". Fact of the matter is I had to and DID accept this as justifiable - its THEIR social to organise and invite as they see fit. I have no right to question, at most, I can only suggest.
I however do agree with the suggestion (as SH can now do this) to send invites out to people, the only challenge her would then be how to reach those less regular members if memory (like mine) fails.
Orgasminator
Quote by west-brom-babe
from what i can see this has all started from a single male who is not a regular in the room putting down for the black for white meet at chams or was it the white for black meet sorry i want to get it right dont want anybody jumping down my throat.
many years ago when i 1st started swinging with my ex husband the first ever thing we did before meeting people was go to a social to get to know people and decide if we actually wanted to go down this road. what would of happened if they said sorry your not regulars you cant come and nobody can verify you? as for the meet i did actually look at this. myself and my partner are both white and ive never actually been with a black man so i suppose to me a social would have been a good way to decide if i did wish to do this but after the flack in the forum and as we are both not regular room members i dont think i will bother
Hi West-Brom-Babe,
Thanks for your post - however I don't agree with your analysis of "we are a closed group and don't welcome new faces, especially people wandering if meeting black guys forms part of their preference".
I appreciate you prefer to meet people socially first before deciding, but as a chat room, new faces are ALWAYS coming in to say hello, have a look around, chat, interact, get to know people by handle names, (without obligation to having met anyone)... and when the time comes around to a Social, OFCOURSE you'll be welcomed on the guestlist.
Whatever you THEN decide (to do) is completely upto you. The people who currently visit the room (members or otherwise) were all new once you know. Its not all doom and gloom or lost cause, unless you're suggesting your ONLY way of doing things is to go to the social FIRST before deciding to go to the chatroom,.. which would be a round about way of doing things (personal opinion, sorry if it offends).
It should also be noted that on that same thread is a single female who has NO interest in black guys wanting to go on that list. I don't see why as she has never expressed a curiousity or change of heart, but rather the opposite. She can get into Chams on her own anytime anyway.
Orgasminator
Quote by fabio
right.... if you are going to bring up that social as a case in point then this is where we are going to have to start to agree to disagree (as in the pm I sent you on that subject)
the reason why I was annoyed was this...
if you are going to going to organise that type of social and you hire the club for the night, I would have fully agreed, as I said "fill ya boots, invite and deny who you like"
but in this case you are piggy backing the clubs busiest night, therefore there would have been people there (a lot) outside your little exclusive group... a lot of people who would have no idea or clue about your little group... and would not have had the same preference, (as an aside... if the people had membership of the club, there is nothing you could do to stop them going anyway..... they out of wanting to know people to go asked for an invite)
you are also going to the club the night before..... and if the people from the mids room had said to you "I am sorry ahabs... you can't go because you are from london" then I would have been equally annoyed
I thought the word "social" was socialising... and I think that people have forgotten that in a sense with regards to all of these club meets... because if it had been outside of that context I bet the whole this would not have blown up as it this...
it does bring up another point thought... the word "social" is being liberally used around the site... but for me there is a huge difference betweeen the type of "socials" that are going on in clubs, which for me personally feels more and more like cheap advertising for them.... and this
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/288129.html
or this
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/287935.html
maybe it is about time, we got this looked at...
Hi Fabio, to address points raised:
1) Like I said in email to you - the nights are checked with the club BEFORE the date is decided/publicised. IF it was to busy for the venue, a different date would be picked.
2) The choice of Friday night as opposed to Monday night is to avoid confusion with the bi night
3) Friday night as opposed to Saturday nights is that the single (in this case, black) guys can get in (you wouldn't invite single guys on a night when single guys can't come would you?)
Unless you want to suggest a different night?
4) As for "piggy-backing", remember, ANYONE can attend Chams on their own merit (as long as Chams management are fine with the person/people involved - they do not need to be on THIS guestlist. That's the point. No one is trying to stop anyone going to Chams (even though when I've organised the SAME social in late 2007 AND early 2008 I cheekily added "If your name's not on the list, you're not getting in!" and even THEN no one complained!)
5) If suddenly the mids room said to me "Sorry Ahabs, you're from London, not the midlands" yes I'd be gutted as I particularly enjoy my trips out there, be it Chams, a different venue, or visiting friends (the travelodge must know my face by now!) as long as they had clarified it was for Residents of the midlands only - even then, gutted I may be, I would have to accept rather than protest.
6) If the problem is what the definition of the word "Social" implies, then yes, I DO agree that it will have to be clarified. Whilst the examples you have highlighted DO say "social" in the title, they have ALSO been clear it is in a public (non-swinging) environment, hence "no hanky panky" is expected. but as the Midlands SOCIALS tend to get held in Chams a few times, there is ALSO a fair bit of hanky panky, likewise the bbw SOCIALS when they visit Chams, ie Dec 4th (I can't find the link) so "Social" does not STRICTLY suggest "hanky panky" or "no hanky panky" - it depends on the nature of the group/organisers.
7) MUCNCHES are defined by SH as "no hanky panky" and as far as am concerned have ALWAYS been the recommended way for people new to any group (especially new swingers) to get meeting people, as SH is clear on guidelines that THESE are No Hanky Panky (though I suspect one or two will push boundaries).
If however there is STILL confusion, then am sure in future the organisers of such (and other) socials will substitute with "Get Together", "Meet Up", "Party"
Orgasminator
Quote by Sassy-Seren
Using just 3 as an axample, I don't meet married/attached guys, anyone under 30 years old or ( flame me for this if you like ) black guys. It doesn't make me ageist, racist or whatever the word is for marriedist - it's just my own personal views. The age thing is because I don't feel comfortable shagging guys younger than my own son. The marrieds is because I don't want to do anything without his partner knowing and black ( as in Caribbean, Asian et al ) just don't turn me on in general. Sounds harsh but it's MY preference.
And as a black guy fully aware of your preference, GOOD ON YOU.. no one should badger you into having to change your mind for fear of recrimination.
Sadly, it would seem this organiser was:
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/290136.html
The sad thing is, like yourself, one of the women that wanted to get on the guestlist DOESN'T have an interest in black guys either. In the past a "few" exceptions were made for people who don't hold to the preference, only for them to later say they felt out of place. Surprise surprise!
Orgasminator
Well, that was assumed a given - you don't join in uninvited (even IF he had been a black guy at the time), either way, she wasn't rude, simply told him no and clarifying her preference...
Did he have a right to cry "discrimination!" ?
Would I have a right to yell "Sexual discrimination! Is it cause I is not gay?" If turned away from the Lesbians for lesbians social?
Did he have a right to cry "discrimination!" ?
Would I have a right to yell "Sexual discrimination! Is it cause I is not gay?" If turned away from the Lesbians for lesbians social?
Orgasminator
I would hasten to add that most (or all) of these areas of discrimination are not exhaustive - I know people that don't want to know with:
* Married
* Smokers
* Drinkers
* Non-car owners (yes, I got turned down by one!)
* Pet owners
* People with kids living with them
AGAIN, its their preference which I feel should be respected. A friend of mine was telling me of an experience at a club in the middle of playing with two (black) guys - one asian fellow (complete stranger to her) decided to join in: didn't ask, just "grabbed" her. She told him "sorry - black guys only". He stormed off complinging "discrimination!
What was she supposed to do? Abandon her preference to keep HIM happy?
* Married
* Smokers
* Drinkers
* Non-car owners (yes, I got turned down by one!)
* Pet owners
* People with kids living with them
AGAIN, its their preference which I feel should be respected. A friend of mine was telling me of an experience at a club in the middle of playing with two (black) guys - one asian fellow (complete stranger to her) decided to join in: didn't ask, just "grabbed" her. She told him "sorry - black guys only". He stormed off complinging "discrimination!
What was she supposed to do? Abandon her preference to keep HIM happy?
Orgasminator
I've just been accosted over the phone as to "How discriminatory this whole concept is!" (good thing I just happened to be lying there awake contemplating my navel), so I've started a discussion thread on the link:
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/290294.html
ALL contributors welcome to input and debate THERE (not HERE!)
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/290294.html
ALL contributors welcome to input and debate THERE (not HERE!)
Orgasminator
Okay, I've read some arguments for or against.
Many of the arguments against are on the simple basis "its not full proof and hence doesn't offer full or 100% protection", to which I say "Neither do condoms - but we still insist on them so we avoid being unfortunate during a meet".
So what are we saying? Yes to condoms THOUGHT they're not 100%, but NO to verification BECAUSE its not 100% ??
Verification - I'm for it: it may not be perfect, but it just does as well to cut out most of the numpties ;)
Many of the arguments against are on the simple basis "its not full proof and hence doesn't offer full or 100% protection", to which I say "Neither do condoms - but we still insist on them so we avoid being unfortunate during a meet".
So what are we saying? Yes to condoms THOUGHT they're not 100%, but NO to verification BECAUSE its not 100% ??
Verification - I'm for it: it may not be perfect, but it just does as well to cut out most of the numpties ;)
Orgasminator
Swinging should be fun (not difficult) between people who share or agree similar tastes and preferences ... you could say they are "like-minded".
However, every now and then you get someone who isn't a match question your "preference" and throw the "Discrimination!" word at you.
Lets be clear - the 6 most common areas in life (in general) that people are discriminated on are:
Gender
Religion
Age
Disability
Ethic Origin
Sexuality
This forms the helpful acronym 'GRADES'.
I have lost count the number of times I've been approached (especially on email) by a gay/bi male wanting to play with me and I've turned down the offer, imagine if he then challenged me that I'm "discriminating" based on his sexuality - what then? I forfeit my personal choice and preference and play with him against will to avoid being discriminatory??
To be specific, some socials that I cannot attend:
* Couples and single fems
* Couples and couples
* Lesbians only
* Swingers age 35 - 45
* Indians for indians
One the one hand, I like to think in person (despite how bolshy I may be online) am a reasonable fellow that gets on and has a laugh with everyone (yes, even bi-males!) and so SHOULD have no problem attending such socials, ...
... on the other hand, I don't support any of those preferences and so should not be surprised if told "Err, sorry mate - you're sweet, but not that sweet".
Personally, I would defend to the death ANY swinger's personal choice - even WHEN it works AGAINST me. Its the basis of being "like-minded"
(Other wise in 5 years time, I'd FINALLY get to attend the 35-45's social, only to find it over run with 18-21 year olds .... grrrr!)
Ok, at the risk of being EXTREMELY offensive: I've just got off the phone to a female friend, and she could not seem to understand why I CANNOT Play with a 90 year old gay male. Suffice to say she hung up the phone on me as we could not seem to agree the post title.
However, every now and then you get someone who isn't a match question your "preference" and throw the "Discrimination!" word at you.
Lets be clear - the 6 most common areas in life (in general) that people are discriminated on are:
Gender
Religion
Age
Disability
Ethic Origin
Sexuality
This forms the helpful acronym 'GRADES'.
I have lost count the number of times I've been approached (especially on email) by a gay/bi male wanting to play with me and I've turned down the offer, imagine if he then challenged me that I'm "discriminating" based on his sexuality - what then? I forfeit my personal choice and preference and play with him against will to avoid being discriminatory??
To be specific, some socials that I cannot attend:
* Couples and single fems
* Couples and couples
* Lesbians only
* Swingers age 35 - 45
* Indians for indians
One the one hand, I like to think in person (despite how bolshy I may be online) am a reasonable fellow that gets on and has a laugh with everyone (yes, even bi-males!) and so SHOULD have no problem attending such socials, ...
... on the other hand, I don't support any of those preferences and so should not be surprised if told "Err, sorry mate - you're sweet, but not that sweet".
Personally, I would defend to the death ANY swinger's personal choice - even WHEN it works AGAINST me. Its the basis of being "like-minded"
(Other wise in 5 years time, I'd FINALLY get to attend the 35-45's social, only to find it over run with 18-21 year olds .... grrrr!)
Ok, at the risk of being EXTREMELY offensive: I've just got off the phone to a female friend, and she could not seem to understand why I CANNOT Play with a 90 year old gay male. Suffice to say she hung up the phone on me as we could not seem to agree the post title.
Orgasminator
Quote by Ian
but it would make for a darn cheap way to get into Chams without membership for a fair few.
But the prices shown on page one of this thread are the normal prices
In which case (as I still haven't memorised the whatever differences in entry prices between members and guest-listed entry) I'm at a loss - you wouldn't findme kicking up a fuss bout not being able to attend a "couples only" social.
Either way, may I suggest anyone wishing to discuss/debate what right the black4white room has in who goes on the guestlist do so on Cafe forum and leave this thread be for its intended purposes... ie, the guestlist??
Orgasminator
Quote by two-4-more
the relevance of neither ian or jiggle being bi to me is blatantly obvious... You have said you only want people who are interested in black men to attend, therefore as neither is bi then neither should be on your list as surely they are both only interested in women and not men of any variety!
If I may,...
Since when did the subject of being BI suddenly become the deciding factor? If I've read that right, that could suggest that the men tat wish to attend the social are themselves bi, and clearly, that is not the case.
Again, (maybe this needs clarification), the blackguys4fems room (sometimes called the Fems4blackguys room) is built on the PREFERENCE of women who enjoy the company of black men, so it makes sense for "one or two" black men to be there. With that, the social is an opportunity to get those names and faces together - 3 of such socials were held last year, 4 the year before. It was never a problem then.
As for "white guys going to the room", no one polices who may and may not go into whatever room, that is personal choice so long as once there,they respect the people they find there. On a few occasions I've seen people with ZERO interest in BBW's go into the BBW room for the sole purpose of hurling "fat" insults - they were summarily kicked and reported.
No one is saying "oh, if you're not a black guy or like black guys you can't go to Chams", but merely "its a bit hard to understand WHY anyone with NO interest in the theme of the room would want to join THIS guestlist on THIS particular evening for THIS social. IF you happen to be there and find people there, that's a different matter.
As far as this "debate" is concerned, at this point I have no choice but sadly to see it as some people choosing to accept the "preference" argument when it suits their purpose, and otherwise throw toys out of the pram when it doesn't, hence challenging others to DROP their preference. Sad day it would be if that was the case.
Lawr, no one is going to think less of you whatever decision you take, you've voluntarily chosen to organise a social - those in support will continue to support. I for one can't see a problem
PS: Put my name down ;)
Orgasminator
Yes, I remember that fellow that travelled all the way from London to Leeds. If memory serves me right, he was attending a BBW Social which he DOES support the BBW theme? It would be strange if BBW's didn't float his boat as I'd wonder what he was hoping to accomplish. As ginger-jo and several girls from the BBW room would say "If BBW's not your thing, walk on by".
Anyway to summarise, I feel preferences should be maintained, you feel preferences don't matter. We'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry if I sound sarcastic here, but does it make sense that I put my name down for every "Couples and single fem only" social (as a single male) and simply say "Am going for the social side".
Or even the BBW social in Southampton due, couples and single fems only, lets not forget the "lesbians for lesbians" party.
Whatever happened to "people have preferences, please respect them". I really don't see the big deal in "If you're not into interracial, in this case, fems for black guys, then the guestlist for this social ma not be right for you".
Anyway to summarise, I feel preferences should be maintained, you feel preferences don't matter. We'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry if I sound sarcastic here, but does it make sense that I put my name down for every "Couples and single fem only" social (as a single male) and simply say "Am going for the social side".
Or even the BBW social in Southampton due, couples and single fems only, lets not forget the "lesbians for lesbians" party.
Whatever happened to "people have preferences, please respect them". I really don't see the big deal in "If you're not into interracial, in this case, fems for black guys, then the guestlist for this social ma not be right for you".
Orgasminator
But that's exactly the point Fabio,
The venue itself is NOT exclusive for this social,ie, anyone that finds themselves at Chams on the night irrespective of anything going on or social holding does so off their own back (Lord knows I've bumped into people who happened to be there on the night and got chatting) - THIS thread was intended for anyone that wished to go on THIS guestlist as part of THIS social supporting the theme of THIS room, as opposed to just lookign for 'any guestlist going' to get into Chams on the night, which it could be construed as.
Like I said before, I wouldn't put my name down for a social that the organising group did not appeal to me -it makes no sense. I really don't see what the problem is.
And, no offence, people concluding "Well we wont be attending anymore of this room socials" on the basis of this I feel can be likened to being held to ransom "You WILL accept us on YOUR guest list (even though we have NO interest in who you are or what you do whatsoever) otherwise we shall think less of you!".
The venue itself is NOT exclusive for this social,ie, anyone that finds themselves at Chams on the night irrespective of anything going on or social holding does so off their own back (Lord knows I've bumped into people who happened to be there on the night and got chatting) - THIS thread was intended for anyone that wished to go on THIS guestlist as part of THIS social supporting the theme of THIS room, as opposed to just lookign for 'any guestlist going' to get into Chams on the night, which it could be construed as.
Like I said before, I wouldn't put my name down for a social that the organising group did not appeal to me -it makes no sense. I really don't see what the problem is.
And, no offence, people concluding "Well we wont be attending anymore of this room socials" on the basis of this I feel can be likened to being held to ransom "You WILL accept us on YOUR guest list (even though we have NO interest in who you are or what you do whatsoever) otherwise we shall think less of you!".
Orgasminator
Hiya Jiggle,
Am sure no offence was intended, but sometimes with these things (ie, an issue potentially involving "race") people have to be careful with choices of words used: too strong and its quickly branded racist, in this case, too soft and a completely wrong idea is taken.
I personally feel in no way is the social supposed to suggest "You're not welcome", but merely more of "you realise the theme right?", hence my example to the Bi/Gay/CD/TV room.
I also (personally) don't think there was a question about your legitimacy, chin up mate.
Now, back to the party ....
Am sure no offence was intended, but sometimes with these things (ie, an issue potentially involving "race") people have to be careful with choices of words used: too strong and its quickly branded racist, in this case, too soft and a completely wrong idea is taken.
I personally feel in no way is the social supposed to suggest "You're not welcome", but merely more of "you realise the theme right?", hence my example to the Bi/Gay/CD/TV room.
I also (personally) don't think there was a question about your legitimacy, chin up mate.
Now, back to the party ....
Orgasminator
Quote by Dawnie
As jiggle has over 400 posts and yet Lawr less than twenty, I think that maybe he could be seen as more 'genuine' than you Lawr
Anyway, I am really struggling as to get my head round the need to fancy a black bloke here. Ian (him in doors) has been to a black for white social because because he is known by many chatters, and Ian is very much a white bloke. Stop making it so much about colour, it should be about people having fun and getting to know each other
After all, this is advertised as a social, not a shag-a-thon :thumbup:
Oh and please respect each others privacy and take your verifications private :thumbup:
Just a couple of things I'm confused about:
1) Does number of postings prove an individuals legitimacy/ability to organise a social, much less "suitability" to the social? (ie, Jiggle's 400 to Lawr's 20? If so might as well let Jiggle organise the social then, even though, no offence, I doubt he ever set foot in the BlackGuys4Fems room?)
2) The "need to fancy a black bloke" has always been the theme/nature/preference of the room and the ladies that have become known to be regulars of the room (likewise, the black guys that attend the room also) - hence the social bringing these people who share the same interest together. Its not strictly about colour, but about preference - you wouldn't find me debating a "right" to attend a Bi/Gay/CD/TV room social if I have no interest in the preference of the room whatsoever. As far as Ian being invited to the social, I would suspect its simply because he, a notable number of other Ops/Mods as well as other SH members (for example, DebbieAndyEssex) whilst neither being black have always assisted the room to maintain order as well as its socials. Again, sympathising with Jiggle (unless I am mistaken) is unknown to most people who regularly visit and interact in that room. It has not been an issue in the past as has been run past admins by myself and given the seal of approval, as this is not the first, second nor third social, so I don't see why it should inviting controversy now.
3) About it being a social and not a shag-a-thon, well, I was almost certain that munches were "no hanky panky" whereas socials could take any form depending how organised, and in the past (as the risk of outing people) there HAS been lots of playing taking place (sometimes, within an hour of entry till almost following morning when Chams staff have had to drag some out of the playrooms as the place was closing). My guess is anyone not there supporting the theme of the room runs the risk of being left sitting like billy-no-mates (sometimes, even if they WERE black - hence why verification BY A ROOM REGULAR is usually requested)
I really can't see what the problem is here - unless ofcourse it suggests Lawr (who is a known REGULAR member of the BlackGuys4Fems room for several years, irrespective of his number of posts) hence has to make the social open to ALL of SH, irrespective of what theme or preference or reason the people attending want to come .. but it would make for a darn cheap way to get into Chams without membership for a fair few.
It should also be noted that the issue of whether
Orgasminator
Okay, just a couple of things....
Jess has left???
Mandy, congrats on upcoming cake cutting (might I sneak in?)
But probably most importantly - I think I've lost details on how to send payment, anyone care to assist?
Hang on, I got that wrong... THIS is most important:
HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!!
Jess has left???
Mandy, congrats on upcoming cake cutting (might I sneak in?)
But probably most importantly - I think I've lost details on how to send payment, anyone care to assist?
Hang on, I got that wrong... THIS is most important:
HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!!
Orgasminator
Quote by rolo
I am really sorry but my daughter gave me a suprise chrissi pressy she has paid for a weekend away and it happens to be the same weekend......sorry folks maybe next time but you all enjoy and Happy Birthday Mr starxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hey hun, be sure to enjoy your present ;) xxx
Orgasminator
Basically, am crap at following the forums - if someone wished me happy birthday on here, I'd probably find it a year later - best thing is to PM me as I like to check my inbox and clear out cobwebs every couple of days.
PS: What constitutes a good night? ;) hehehe xxx
PS: What constitutes a good night? ;) hehehe xxx
Quote by Hunnibabe
Ahh that was a shame babes..... and I hate to say it but it was a good night!... I promise to let you know when our next one is....Have a lovely Christmas xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Damn - only just seen this tonight. Hope you all had fun.
Orgasminator
Pending location location location, and date once arranged, I would STILL Like to attend, as a single male (ie, no hidden gf/partner/wife, as once accused in east midlands by a stranger who didn't know me) that DOES like to play and not just "here to chat". Phew!
Okay, whether the couple like to play with others, only males or only females, that's up to them - all I ask is that they don't give me grief about it when I proposition them. ...
"How dare you ask if you can play with my wife! We only play with other females as you males bring nothing to the table!"
My response: "Really? And what about the £30 I paid on the door so YOU BOTH could get in for free?"
Lol.
Seriously, agree with the rationale and motivation - the logistics can be finalized, I reckon, with little or no fuss . Hope you're feeling less cock-eyed hun xxx
Okay, whether the couple like to play with others, only males or only females, that's up to them - all I ask is that they don't give me grief about it when I proposition them. ...
"How dare you ask if you can play with my wife! We only play with other females as you males bring nothing to the table!"
My response: "Really? And what about the £30 I paid on the door so YOU BOTH could get in for free?"
Lol.
Seriously, agree with the rationale and motivation - the logistics can be finalized, I reckon, with little or no fuss . Hope you're feeling less cock-eyed hun xxx
