Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Male, 57
Bisexual Female, 62
0 miles · Hereford and Worcester
Forum
The Munch is definitely going ahead, the room is booked and paid for, and the details will be sent out by PM to those attending soon.
Chardonnay has had a berevement in her family, which has left her without the necessary time, or inclination required to run the munch. We did consider cancelling it, but we have decided that it's best for me to take on a lot more of the day to day running of the list, dealing with PMs etc.
Chardonnay has had a berevement in her family, which has left her without the necessary time, or inclination required to run the munch. We did consider cancelling it, but we have decided that it's best for me to take on a lot more of the day to day running of the list, dealing with PMs etc.
Thinking about this, perhaps a simple change to make would be adding a couple of simple, polite lines to the "new topic" page, right above the Subject and Message Body boxes where it would be very hard to miss when starting a new topic. It could say something along the lines of...
We already have threads about common topics like 'To Shave or Not' and 'Is Size Important'. If you have a problem getting into the chatroom please go here to get help instead of posting about it. If you are wondering why you've had a topic locked, please PM a Mod and ask instead of posting a new topic about it.
... or course where those links would go needs a bit of thought
We already have threads about common topics like 'To Shave or Not' and 'Is Size Important'. If you have a problem getting into the chatroom please go here to get help instead of posting about it. If you are wondering why you've had a topic locked, please PM a Mod and ask instead of posting a new topic about it.
... or course where those links would go needs a bit of thought
Quote by UKman37
...the forum posting rules allow people to post on anything and everything
Apart from:
Anything illegal, including (but not limited to!) the promotion, suggestion or allusion to , or any non consensual acts, drugs (including misuse of prescribed medicines), or any other kind illegal activity.
Anything hateful, like racist remarks, or using offensive terms offensively.
Abusive or aggressive behaviour towards other people on here.
Posting a telephone number anywhere on this site.
Escorting ads or any pay-for-sex type services like 0909 numbers, or pay-for 'gangbang/bukkake parties'.
Advertising for 'stars' for video shoots or photo shoots.
Attempting to sell a service or product of any kind.
Pposts that are only put up in order to exchange pictures, videos or offer photography services or some such.
and Spamming - this means posting a link to a site that is only for commercial purposes and is not a genuine Swingers resource.
Conversely, the forum rules allso allow the mods to delete "anything and everything", so your argment isn't very convincing to me!
I think the best way to look at this is to realise that the Mods are trying to make this site as useful and interesting to the readership as they can. What you consider to be a worthwhile post might not be what the Mods, or the readership at large want to read. Mods are giving their time for free to make the overall SH experience better, not to make your personal SH experience worse - when that happens it's simply an unfortunate side-effect of the very useful moderation process. The Mods have the best interests of the community at heart, and being experienced long-time users of the site themselves they know the community a lot better than you do.
Just adding in a couple of my personal thoughts on the locking issue...
I still like the idea of a place where simply crap threads (as opposed to blatant AUP violations that requie a mod-edit to delete offending content) get moved to rather than being locked. I've seen a few suggestions about what this could be called, and I've seen a few similar ones made elsewhere, but I think I now have the answer... the 4 forums should be:
"The Cafe", "Lets Meet up", "Dogging" and " :shock: "
I think that carries the right level of disapproval, and would cut down the amount of time and patience that mods use up dealing with 'why did my thread get locked' posts.
Secondly, does the forum software allow thread-merging? I've seen this used effectively to de-clutter techie forums where 90% of the uers sign up, ask a single question and leave happily when they get the answer, but it can confuse people. Linked to an automated e-mail from the forum explaining what has been done, and leaving the content open to be added to might be seen as less of a bitchslap by the poster... this might work especially well if the merge does not bump the old thread.
I still like the idea of a place where simply crap threads (as opposed to blatant AUP violations that requie a mod-edit to delete offending content) get moved to rather than being locked. I've seen a few suggestions about what this could be called, and I've seen a few similar ones made elsewhere, but I think I now have the answer... the 4 forums should be:
"The Cafe", "Lets Meet up", "Dogging" and " :shock: "
I think that carries the right level of disapproval, and would cut down the amount of time and patience that mods use up dealing with 'why did my thread get locked' posts.
Secondly, does the forum software allow thread-merging? I've seen this used effectively to de-clutter techie forums where 90% of the uers sign up, ask a single question and leave happily when they get the answer, but it can confuse people. Linked to an automated e-mail from the forum explaining what has been done, and leaving the content open to be added to might be seen as less of a bitchslap by the poster... this might work especially well if the merge does not bump the old thread.
What a sneaky way of getting a 'does size matter' thread past the mods! 
Anyway, I suggest you advertise for someone 'long but thin', partly because it's difficult to get really close when there's already someone else nearby, and partly because that's a description that a man might be happier to own up to!
Anyway, I suggest you advertise for someone 'long but thin', partly because it's difficult to get really close when there's already someone else nearby, and partly because that's a description that a man might be happier to own up to!
I've been on a few forums that dealt with this by having a special section for threads that were less, erm shall we say, enlightening, or had been done to death.
So along with 'the cafe', 'let's meet up', and 'dogging' there would be 'the other place', where junk threads go to die. All the things newbies regularly bring up but the old-times are fed up with could be stickied there (should I shave, does size matter etc.) , where they wouldn't annoy the regulars. Mods would simply move most of the junk threads threads there rather than lock them (unless of course they were really offensive).
So along with 'the cafe', 'let's meet up', and 'dogging' there would be 'the other place', where junk threads go to die. All the things newbies regularly bring up but the old-times are fed up with could be stickied there (should I shave, does size matter etc.) , where they wouldn't annoy the regulars. Mods would simply move most of the junk threads threads there rather than lock them (unless of course they were really offensive).
Just to balance things out a little, I'd like to point out that the manager of the Essex Munch pub made a point of finding me as things were winding down and saying how amazed he was that so many people managed to consume so much alcohol in such a confined space with absolutely no trouble whatsoever.
It would be easy for a newbie to see this thread and get scared, but that would be the wrong impression to take away from this thread. I believe that muches are actually far, far better behaved than most nights at pubs/clubs with similar numbers and age-ranges.
The fact that we've spent 22 pages agonising over the fact that behaviour at munches is occasionally not quite perfect is a sign of how much we care about these things, not that these things are commonplace, out of control, or happen more often than they would in everyday life.
It would be easy for a newbie to see this thread and get scared, but that would be the wrong impression to take away from this thread. I believe that muches are actually far, far better behaved than most nights at pubs/clubs with similar numbers and age-ranges.
The fact that we've spent 22 pages agonising over the fact that behaviour at munches is occasionally not quite perfect is a sign of how much we care about these things, not that these things are commonplace, out of control, or happen more often than they would in everyday life.
Quote by peenut
I don't wish to worry anyone, but this whole lack of air for sexual fun concept is rationalising insanity. !
I'd be very wary of labelling people as insane because they do something you don't want to do. Plenty of leisure activities involve risk, are people insane for enjoying rock-climbing, car racing, boxing, etc.?
Sorry, I've not made my original point very clearly... by 'very politically correct' I meant behaving in a totally vanilla way, ie none of the consensual bottom-patting, same sex kissing, or other behaviour that is totally legal and mutually acceptable for those invovled, but would raise eyebrows if the women's Institute were sharing the room with us.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that anything illegal or non-consensual is in any way acceptable.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that anything illegal or non-consensual is in any way acceptable.
I've avoided replying to this thread so far, becasue I've done things (consensually) at a munch that I shouldn't have, and I don't want to be the pot that calls the kettle black, but I want to add a few points that haven't come up so far, so with an apology to anyone my behaviour offended, here goes...
It's been suggested that munch organisers be given the power to ban people for life from munches. As a munch organiser, I have to say that that would be an unbearable burden. Running a munch can be hard work. Adding in the knowledge that at any time I could be summoned to the other end of the room to pronounce a permanent and lifestyle-changing judgement on something that I didn't see happening, based purely on hearsay eveidence from (mostly) drunk people, and quite possibly involving people I fancy/or have played with would probably put me off running munches. Anyone can run a munch, not everyone can be, should be, or wants to be a site mod, or have mod-like powers.
Secondly, having been briefly involved in the S&M scene has taught me that never, under any circumstances, does dressing a certain way mean that you 'are asking for it'. If you take that point of view, then you are removing other people's freedom to dress how they please, which is a freedom of self-expression that many people (myself included) think is very, very important.
Lastly, at the top of every page in this site, including the whole of 'lets meet up' and the 'what is a munch?' page, right above the top menu are the words "Meet Swingers". I think those words ahve a great deal of importance in this debate. While a munch is unarguably "a social event, often in a public place", it's also an event where you will, inevitably 'meet swingers'. Does that mean meeting people who are more likely to behave slightly outragously? Or should it mean 'meet swingers who are trying hard to act vanilla'? Would a munch be a good way for people to get to know what our community is like if we all behaved in a very politically correct way? I really don't know, but that is in a sense, what's being discussed here.
It's been suggested that munch organisers be given the power to ban people for life from munches. As a munch organiser, I have to say that that would be an unbearable burden. Running a munch can be hard work. Adding in the knowledge that at any time I could be summoned to the other end of the room to pronounce a permanent and lifestyle-changing judgement on something that I didn't see happening, based purely on hearsay eveidence from (mostly) drunk people, and quite possibly involving people I fancy/or have played with would probably put me off running munches. Anyone can run a munch, not everyone can be, should be, or wants to be a site mod, or have mod-like powers.
Secondly, having been briefly involved in the S&M scene has taught me that never, under any circumstances, does dressing a certain way mean that you 'are asking for it'. If you take that point of view, then you are removing other people's freedom to dress how they please, which is a freedom of self-expression that many people (myself included) think is very, very important.
Lastly, at the top of every page in this site, including the whole of 'lets meet up' and the 'what is a munch?' page, right above the top menu are the words "Meet Swingers". I think those words ahve a great deal of importance in this debate. While a munch is unarguably "a social event, often in a public place", it's also an event where you will, inevitably 'meet swingers'. Does that mean meeting people who are more likely to behave slightly outragously? Or should it mean 'meet swingers who are trying hard to act vanilla'? Would a munch be a good way for people to get to know what our community is like if we all behaved in a very politically correct way? I really don't know, but that is in a sense, what's being discussed here.
Let's go back to the original question
Moral is a word that covers a multitutde of sins! I suspect there have always been sexual practices that you wouldn not/could not participate in, if only because it's very hard to enjoy long-term-celibacy, monogamy, swinging and orgies in one lifetime, and that's without even considering illegal non-consensual activities.
I think the reason you are bothered is that there is a conflict between implicit attitudes and your conscious moral stance. Fear of suffocation is a natrual survival instinct, and as such it's diffcult to override your natural feelings on the subject by willpower alone.
Implicit attitudes are an interesting area of discussion, and I have a very good link or two in this area, but since the tests open up a whole can of worms about homophobia, racism and anti-semitism, I think I will do that in a seperate post rather than hijack yours.
I suggest you consider your position by taking the sexuality outt of the equation and go look at freediving , which is practially asphyxophilia turned into a sport instead of an erotic parctice.
Does the idea of taking part in this sport attract or repulse you? If you react strongly against it, then it's probably your survival instinct tht is causing your anxiety about your friend, if you are attracted to the sport, then maybe it is jealousy.
Quote by
I am having a crisis of concience, due to the revelation of a situation that has arisen recently.
...when he explains to me what it does for them both I feel sad. Am I so jaded (I really don't fucking think I am) that I really don't want to understand.
Concience says "be pleased for them" , but I just feel sad.
...I am fully aware of my own sexuality and like so many here on SH have indulged myself in practices that some people outside of this community would find questionable, or deplorable; unacceptable or criminal. So why am I so bothered by what two safe, sane, intelligent individuals are enjoying together.
This is a totally selfish question...I want know why I am bothered.
Am I becoming moral (finally) or just beginning to realise that there are some things even I would not / could not participate in.
Moral is a word that covers a multitutde of sins! I suspect there have always been sexual practices that you wouldn not/could not participate in, if only because it's very hard to enjoy long-term-celibacy, monogamy, swinging and orgies in one lifetime, and that's without even considering illegal non-consensual activities.
I think the reason you are bothered is that there is a conflict between implicit attitudes and your conscious moral stance. Fear of suffocation is a natrual survival instinct, and as such it's diffcult to override your natural feelings on the subject by willpower alone.
Implicit attitudes are an interesting area of discussion, and I have a very good link or two in this area, but since the tests open up a whole can of worms about homophobia, racism and anti-semitism, I think I will do that in a seperate post rather than hijack yours.
I suggest you consider your position by taking the sexuality outt of the equation and go look at freediving , which is practially asphyxophilia turned into a sport instead of an erotic parctice.
Does the idea of taking part in this sport attract or repulse you? If you react strongly against it, then it's probably your survival instinct tht is causing your anxiety about your friend, if you are attracted to the sport, then maybe it is jealousy.
Try Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies
Originally created to help musical writer's block, they can be applied to any creative situation. There are over 100 strategies, just click again if you get one that's not applicable to your current problem.
Failing that, speaking as a designer myself, find something obscure that the client would like and steal the ideas :twisted:
Originally created to help musical writer's block, they can be applied to any creative situation. There are over 100 strategies, just click again if you get one that's not applicable to your current problem.
Failing that, speaking as a designer myself, find something obscure that the client would like and steal the ideas :twisted:
New Order fans probably spread their votes too thinly. Moby has had as many albums out, but no-one is going to argue that he's done anything as strong as "Play", so all the votes went one way there. Then again, New Order were always a singles band, and none of their albums were strong all the way through.
Depeche Mode didn't even get into the shortlist of 125, despite an organised effort by their fanbase to stuff the ballot box - something they were outstandingly good at in the past, forcing the BPI to award 'Enjoy the Silence' single of the year when it only got to no.3 in the charts - funnily enough that was the only year the general public got to vote :-)
Depeche Mode didn't even get into the shortlist of 125, despite an organised effort by their fanbase to stuff the ballot box - something they were outstandingly good at in the past, forcing the BPI to award 'Enjoy the Silence' single of the year when it only got to no.3 in the charts - funnily enough that was the only year the general public got to vote :-)
The reflections trick is not too good on domestic cats, since they have often grown up around mirrors, but the citrus one is good, and your local garden centre might be able to supply special lemon scented gravel. Cats are territorial, and won't poo in someone else's territory. You'll probably find that you only have 1 or 2 cats that are trying to poo in yours, and that's only because it's unclaimed. What you have to do is teach the cats that the garden is yours, which they will understand if you hiss at them and chase them away whenever you see them. I know this is undignified, but it does work, and after a few times they'll get the message... but you'll be without your free supply of compost!
Stick your crayonned garments in the freezer, the wax will crumble and fall off if you bend the cloth when it's cold enough.
Stick your crayonned garments in the freezer, the wax will crumble and fall off if you bend the cloth when it's cold enough.
I try not to find any consensual sexual activity between adults offensive.
I'm interested in what people find particularly offensive about this picture. If you consider it to be a piece of bondage equipment then surely it's rather mild compared to the usual range of implements and harnesses?
Would it therfore be less offensive if it was made of black leather and studded, to look like bondage equipment rather than a brightly coloured toy?
Would it be less offensive if it was photographed in a gay context?
I'm interested in what people find particularly offensive about this picture. If you consider it to be a piece of bondage equipment then surely it's rather mild compared to the usual range of implements and harnesses?
Would it therfore be less offensive if it was made of black leather and studded, to look like bondage equipment rather than a brightly coloured toy?
Would it be less offensive if it was photographed in a gay context?
