Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

Preference vs Discrimination

last reply
123 replies
6.1k views
1 watcher
0 likes
Works both ways, we could go, but we dont shag couples or single fems, life's a bitch aint it lmao
Sorry, just had to stick me oar in... BUT I do think this is a spin off from other thread & unfair treatment of an SH member
This was the line that was considered as unfair in the other thread

"Jiggle, I have no idea who you are, sorry. After looking at your pics, I'm wondering why you would want to attend this particular social.
So if that wasn't cos he is not a black guy what else could lawr be referring too? Maybe its a reference like "well mate, your not black and everyone attending only wants to play with black guys so they wont want to play with you"???
Jiggle is a wonderful guy(which I no isn't in question) but he is one of the few reliable people that always attends socials as he loves them.
I think its all been a case of bad wording, you just have to be so careful in the way we put things & take better care next time
Minxie :rascal: x x Now shoot me :P
Quote by Ahabs
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.
I have always been under the impression that a social is non-playing. I have always been confused when I have seen "Socials" being organised in a club. I have expected that playing would be part of it as entrance fees would have been paid so how could it be a social.
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?
A social organiser can choose whatever criteria they want. Those not meeting it can be refused entry. It is the organisers right.
However there is a way to do this in a way that can make the refused person feel like shit or not. I organise socials and if someone applies that has obviously not read my criteria then I will Private Message them and explain why. I would not bring it into the public domain as this would then cause embarrasement all around.
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?
The event was advertised without a strict criteria. It was very wooly and when I read it, it looked like an open invite. If it was a closed group then this should have been spelt out by the organiser. This is more a lesson in how to organise than peoples preference as people were just getting confused.
Swinging is never set in stone. What people dislike this week they may like next week. Using the "BalckGuys4Fems" group as an example, the guys and girls would get bored with each other if it was the same ones in there all the time. So new people going in or attending socials are essential for the group not to go stale. These new people do not just wake up and decide this is the only group they want to be in. They could see an advert and think they would attend to see if they may like it or what the fem and hubby have discusssed is it for them. By excluding them then the group is not going to keep going.
Your example of the couples and single fem social. If they had an invite that was open then yes you should be invited. If the criteria clearly stated that no single men were allowed then no you shouldn't. The "BalckGuys4Fems" social did not state no single white guys.
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?
The only thing it would have is give the organiser the insight that the person has been on site a while. Personally, it would let me ask the person apllying to come are they known by other people or do they frequent a single room or are they known in the forum. This would then give me the confidence, after talking to someone I already know that know them, that they are not idiots that will spoil the night or axe wielding nutters.
Post counts and how long people have been on site are just tools for the organiser to use.
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?
How do you know? This is where the swinging set in stone bit comes in. An individual may want to go to talk and see what goes on before he and his partner goes. Or it may just be a turn on for the white guy to see black men with white women, but they may not want to join in and just watch. There are numbers of other ways that people like to play and I wouldn't tell them that it isn't right (unless it is illegal).
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts

Then why pretend this was something else? dunno
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?
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 :dunno: . Kind of one sided discussion then
I dont know about that one.
We discriminate against fat or hairy guys then, or is that ok? Discrimination goes on, a sad fact of life. Are we going to be banned for our discrimination towards fat guys? Or is that called " our choice " ?
Quote by kentswingers777

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 dunno . Kind of one sided discussion then

I dont know about that one.
We discriminate against fat or hairy guys then, or is that ok? Discrimination goes on, a sad fact of life. Are we going to be banned for our discrimination towards fat guys? Or is that called " our choice " ?
I think I was getting my England mixed up at that point. I have been speaking good England ever since I was a little children lol .
I need to qualify what I mean by discrimination for that one point. When I said discrimination I meant racial discrimination. That is being hurtful and hateful just because you can.
An example of this would be if you looked on my profile and saw that I was dressed in a KKK outfit and stated in my profile that I would not sleep with any black, asian or Jew because they are the devils spawn.
Well I shouldn't just be banned I should be jailed and the key thrown away.
Hope that clarifies it
Dave_Notts
If I have a preference, this, in certain ways could be seen as racist.
If I said "I don't want black people as my friends" I would be branded a racist. What's the difference if I say in an add "no black men.
TBH, I think people should be allowed to have thier own opinions, even if they are ageist/sexist/racist.
Quote by 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 dunno . Kind of one sided discussion then

I dont know about that one.
We discriminate against fat or hairy guys then, or is that ok? Discrimination goes on, a sad fact of life. Are we going to be banned for our discrimination towards fat guys? Or is that called " our choice " ?
I think I was getting my England mixed up at that point. I have been speaking good England ever since I was a little children lol .
I need to qualify what I mean by discrimination for that one point. When I said discrimination I meant racial discrimination. That is being hurtful and hateful just because you can.
An example of this would be if you looked on my profile and saw that I was dressed in a KKK outfit and stated in my profile that I would not sleep with any black, asian or Jew because they are the devils spawn.
Well I shouldn't just be banned I should be jailed and the key thrown away.
Hope that clarifies it
Dave_Notts
We will see if Prince Harry gets " jailed and the key thrown away ".
IF we said in our profile that we would not want any black or Asian guys to respond to our advert, would that also be classed as discrimination?
If it was then a lot on here would be showing racial discrimination......no?
Where does one draw the line on this? It has all got a bit silly really.
I was always brought up by my parents as " sticks and stones ", seems that has gone now.
Quote by kentswingers777

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 dunno . Kind of one sided discussion then

I dont know about that one.
We discriminate against fat or hairy guys then, or is that ok? Discrimination goes on, a sad fact of life. Are we going to be banned for our discrimination towards fat guys? Or is that called " our choice " ?
I think I was getting my England mixed up at that point. I have been speaking good England ever since I was a little children lol .
I need to qualify what I mean by discrimination for that one point. When I said discrimination I meant racial discrimination. That is being hurtful and hateful just because you can.
An example of this would be if you looked on my profile and saw that I was dressed in a KKK outfit and stated in my profile that I would not sleep with any black, asian or Jew because they are the devils spawn.
Well I shouldn't just be banned I should be jailed and the key thrown away.
Hope that clarifies it
Dave_Notts
We will see if Prince Harry gets " jailed and the key thrown away ".
Why? He was at a fancy dress party and not calling for the extermination of all Jews.
Now if he did call for the extermination of the Jews then I would galdly turn the key.

IF we said in our profile that we would not want any black or Asian guys to respond to our advert, would that also be classed as discrimination?
No, that is a preference
If it was then a lot on here would be showing racial discrimination......no?
It wasn't, so they aren't.
Where does one draw the line on this? It has all got a bit silly really.
I was always brought up by my parents as " sticks and stones ", seems that has gone now.
Where does one draw the line? By the use of language.
For example
"I prefer not to play with a black person". This to me is a preference.
"I would not sleep with any black, asian or Jew because they are the devils spawn.". This is not a preference but a hate filled outburst that does not belong aywhere.
And this is the crux of the matter. This thread was started by someone to make it a discrimination and preference issue. In my view it has nothing to do with that, but to do with the use of language.
Dave_Notts

Quote by meat2pleaseu
...... and black ( as in Caribbean, Asian et al ) just don't turn me on in general. Sounds harsh but it's MY preference......

Well you have had to deal with RPM for ages, he's enough to put you off anything from Men to Londoners to the entire human race.......ooops, i forgot, he's not really human is he? :mrgreen:
Ya cheeky git meaty! flipa
in the words of Achmed the Dead Terrorist...

A quick look thru the adds & anyone can see folks wishing to play with blacks only or whites (I used the term black & white purely for ease of reference ok)
SH site owners & mod staff do not remove those adds for fear of offence do they?
I bloody well hope not!
I do have my own preferences & I have many good mates on SH that respect them as well as I respect theirs
I'm bloody good friends with a female that does not fancy black guys, I will never cross the road to avoid her - that's plain stupid loon
The thing is, wrong words were used & mistake has been made & now been rectified.
I'm happy this has been raised in the forums, coz we discuss almost everything else don't we?
Sorry Davey, Was refering to his comments that have come out in the press this weekend.
You not read the papers? lol
Quote by kentswingers777
Sorry Davey, Was refering to his comments that have come out in the press this weekend.
You not read the papers? lol

No :shock: Why whats happened?
Right, off to google Prince Harry
**In edit** Now read it. Did Ahmed make a complaint? If he did then it is a racist comment. If this is what they called each other and accepted it as in nicknames then how can it be. Other people can be offended but it is not directed at them. Very similar to when I see music videos and songs calling each other or niggas. I was shocked when I first heard it, but have had to get used to the younger people having a different vocabulary and knowing that they are doing it without disrespect to the other person. In fact it seems to be a respect thing. Would I use the word? Hell no, I would probably use it wrongly and get me head kicked in
Dave_Notts
Here it is .....
EMMA ALBERICI: Prince Harry is behind the lens as the camera pans across an airport lounge. His fellow servicemen are sleeping while waiting for a flight to Cyprus.
He zooms in on the face of a Pakistani soldier and whispers this commentary.
PRINCE HARRY: Ah, our little friend, Ahmed.
EMMA ALBERICI: The officer is Ahmed Raza Khan who served with the Prince for a year before returning to Pakistan. His uncle Iftikhar Raja lives in London and was deeply offended by the Prince's video.
IFTIKHAR RAJA: I am a British-Pakistani. I am proud to be British, I'm proud to be Pakistani. I come from Pakistan, so, the proper word for that is Pakistan not " ".
EMMA ALBERICI: Prince Harry, who is third in line to the throne, made the comments in footage shot while he was training as an officer at the Sandhurst Military Academy in 2006. It was released by the newspaper, News of the World in 2009.
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote by kentswingers777
IF we said in our profile that we would not want any black or Asian guys to respond to our advert, would that also be classed as discrimination?
If it was then a lot on here would be showing racial discrimination......no?
Where does one draw the line on this? It has all got a bit silly really.
I was always brought up by my parents as " sticks and stones ", seems that has gone now.

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.
Quote by DeeCee

IF we said in our profile that we would not want any black or Asian guys to respond to our advert, would that also be classed as discrimination?
If it was then a lot on here would be showing racial discrimination......no?
Where does one draw the line on this? It has all got a bit silly really.
I was always brought up by my parents as " sticks and stones ", seems that has gone now.

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
.
Superbly put Deecee.
Cheers 777...wink
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?
Quote by Ahabs

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.
I do not think you are a racist or trouble making. You have a point that you are getting across............just I do not agree with it and we are discussing it. In the end we may have to agree to disagree. I would still have a pint with you at social though.
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,
No it doesn't have to follow any code at all. Just confusion will come in if some things are not "organised and specified" as criteria.
For example an event advertised:
Black guys for white fem social at Chams.
When? This stops confusion as it allows people to arrange time off work and baby sitters.
Who can go? Is it only members of the room, only black guys, only white fems, can black fems go, can white guys go, can black couples go, can white couples go, can mixed couples go, can bi couples go, etc, etc, as the organiser you have the right to invite who ever you wish. By not putting up who was wanted to attend at this social, has caused confusion.

despite this social having been organised for almost what... 4 years now??
Time means nothing. Have you seen the state of this government and they have been going longer than 4 years lol
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?
PS Then why did you not tell anybody and said it is a full blown playing party at a club instead of dressing it up as social. You have just confused me more now. Are you saying that a social that has been organised for 4 years is not a social but a full blown party and people are supposed to work this out by.......guessing? .......telepathy?
Its all about the advertising .
If you are happy to define yourself, and promote yourself as a simple comodity then thats 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 comodify 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 descrimination 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 descriminated 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 like that silk and Big G. I have lived as a minority, all be it for sort periods. I have never had a problem, I have never considered myself discriminated against. Yes I have been approached, as an oddity, something different, but that is just normal. We all push our experience, do we not?
I have no idea of the build up to this thread, to be honest, I'm not that interested.
However, Silk & Big G I have to say what a fantastic post.
worship :worship: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Quote by staffcple
Silk & Big G I have to say what a fantastic post.

Seconded, very well written.
Silk I like posts that are thought provoking, that is a great post. :thumbup:
Quote by Silk and Big G
Its all about the advertising .
If you are happy to define yourself, and promote yourself as a simple comodity then thats 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 comodify 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 descrimination 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 descriminated 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

Big G ........... Well said! kiss
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
Were you on the debating team at uni Ahabs? smile
Quote by Lucyandmike7
Were you on the debating team at uni Ahabs? smile

I might have been - but wouldn't use that to get my foot in the door (unless that does it for you ;) )
Quote by Ahabs
Were you on the debating team at uni Ahabs? smile

I might have been - but wouldn't use that to get my foot in the door (unless that does it for you ;) )
Can't you just be yourself? dunno
That would get someone through my door way quicker than a list of descriptives! wink
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.
Lucy 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. lol
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?
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. lol
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.