It Matters

[Dustykat]

I’m sorry but no one is attractive if they are being rude, no matter how good looking your are or gender…..🧚🏻‍♀️

[Deleted Member]

5 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Gentlemen, no matter how much of a catch you think you are - making ambiguous posts is not a turn on?

👌🏼😂 Exactly!! Or…

Gentlemen, no matter how attractive or dominant you think you are; you don’t get to tell me how to behave outside of play!

[Fe****]

Interesting topic.
I think that there is a defining element at work here, and some hasty generalizations.
Attraction is very subjective, as is being rude.
Maybe some more clarification on the topic would go a long way

[Ae****]

32 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

I doubt he does either - but calling out ladies specifically, and making a sweeping generalisation at best in doing so, needed calling out.

It's undeniable that *some* ladies may act the way suggested for the reasons you state, but again that doesn't call for a generalisation or even validate a need for the OPs comment.

I think calling out is highly fashionable, tempting, rewarding and frequently knee-jerk etc. Often when i see calling out happening, I think the same things could have been put forward positively, instead of a starting point of negative assumptions. It's easy to call out, harder than checking what's meant, or assuming the best.

[Ae****]

35 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Gentlemen, no matter how much of a catch you think you are - making ambiguous posts is not a turn on?

Pretty much, yeah 😭

[ge****]

4 minutes ago, Aeonova said:

I think calling out is highly fashionable, tempting, rewarding and frequently knee-jerk etc. Often when i see calling out happening, I think the same things could have been put forward positively, instead of a starting point of negative assumptions. It's easy to call out, harder than checking what's meant, or assuming the best.

Which is precisely why in my original response to this thread I asked the question as to why the need to specifically call out ladies.

Interestingly the OP hasn't returned to answer yet - guess we shall see if/when he does.

[Deleted Member]

6 minutes ago, Aeonova said:

I think calling out is highly fashionable, tempting, rewarding and frequently knee-jerk etc. Often when i see calling out happening, I think the same things could have been put forward positively, instead of a starting point of negative assumptions. It's easy to call out, harder than checking what's meant, or assuming the best.

I agree it is easier to jump than assume the best…but as a woman on here it is extremely difficult to reject somebody without them getting offended and being quite nasty about it tbh, so I think most women will read this and assume that’s what happened.

[Ae****]

40 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Gentlemen, no matter how much of a catch you think you are - making ambiguous posts is not a turn on?

yh it's never gonna go well 🤦

[ey****]

my initial take was (and still is) that it was another example of a man telling women how to behave in order to please his dick.  

[Deleted Member]

Dude. This is awfully patronizing. And if you have an issue with a particular lady, I suggest you take it up with her privately instead of public passive aggressive spitting the dummy.

[Deleted Member]

Kinda pathetic that its mostly men arguing against this. Come on gents, do you have nothing better to do with your time?

I mean I can understand the women that take offence, although you have to ironically be pretty arrogant to see a post anonymously directed at an unknown subset of women and think you yourself are targeted.

I've known a couple girls who thought this behaviour was attractive, and one of them even responded pretty well when told that no, they're just being rude and bitchy not feisty and interesting. So at least some women might benefit from reading OPs post.


Hard to get is a Hollywood trope, there's a pretty thick like between being easy and just straight up being an asshole, you don't need to overcompensate to one just cuz you don't want to be the other.

[Deleted Member]

17 hours ago, OneKinkToRuleThemAll said:

Kinda pathetic that its mostly men arguing against this. Come on gents, do you have nothing better to do with your time?

I mean I can understand the women that take offence, although you have to ironically be pretty arrogant to see a post anonymously directed at an unknown subset of women and think you yourself are targeted.

I've known a couple girls who thought this behaviour was attractive, and one of them even responded pretty well when told that no, they're just being rude and bitchy not feisty and interesting. So at least some women might benefit from reading OPs post.


Hard to get is a Hollywood trope, there's a pretty thick like between being easy and just straight up being an asshole, you don't need to overcompensate to one just cuz you don't want to be the other.

It's quite an achievement to have a dig at both men and women because they didn't like the post. Quite twisted logic you've got going there. Men standing up for women in general = pathetic. Women standing up for women = arrogant.
If the OP had posted of a situation where he'd encountered a rude and arrogant woman - fair play. But to write a post warning all women to "keep in mind" not to behave badly? Insulting. As is your comment.

[ey****]

Depending on what route we're going down

generally there aren't really any universal turn ons.   Of course from ground that has been covered on many threads - there are things that are widely disliked (so for example while there is no universal perfect approach, particularly as no matter how good your profile/pics/message is you still might not be compatible - there are certainly approaches which will always be less favourable : a blank profile going "Hey bbe  wanna fuk?" is probably never going to get anyone wet) 

Going back a bit. I remember a thread where someone had been a bit disappointed because he'd been to play with someone (unclear if it was a pro or someone met online) and the play contained a lot of *** and was generally cruel/mean - and then - after the play was finished, she was of course.... well... nice to him.

And the fantasy in his head was that she was always this cruel, mean, bitch.   His little logic was also that the play "wasn't real" if being mean was "just an act"

I think some of my point here is a little bit - just because it doesn't turn you or I on - doesn't mean others don't like it.

But also, some of the ladies who might come across mean or bitchy or whatever - whether this is on a forum response or in a DM when rejecting, whatever - whether this behaviour is appropriate or inappropriate, they're not trying to turn you on.   It's not a constant hustle appealing to men's dicks.

[Ae****]

5 hours ago, Dragonflylover said:

It's quite an achievement to have a dig at both men and women because they didn't like the post. Quite twisted logic you've got going there. Men standing up for women in general = pathetic. Women standing up for women = arrogant.
If the OP had posted of a situation where he'd encountered a rude and arrogant woman - fair play. But to write a post warning all women to "keep in mind" not to behave badly? Insulting. As is your comment.

I personally read Onekink referring to subsets of men and women with her remarks. And if so, for the subsets she described, I'm inclined to agree with those thoughts.

[Ae****]

4 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Depending on what route we're going down

generally there aren't really any universal turn ons.   Of course from ground that has been covered on many threads - there are things that are widely disliked (so for example while there is no universal perfect approach, particularly as no matter how good your profile/pics/message is you still might not be compatible - there are certainly approaches which will always be less favourable : a blank profile going "Hey bbe  wanna fuk?" is probably never going to get anyone wet) 

Going back a bit. I remember a thread where someone had been a bit disappointed because he'd been to play with someone (unclear if it was a pro or someone met online) and the play contained a lot of *** and was generally cruel/mean - and then - after the play was finished, she was of course.... well... nice to him.

And the fantasy in his head was that she was always this cruel, mean, bitch.   His little logic was also that the play "wasn't real" if being mean was "just an act"

I think some of my point here is a little bit - just because it doesn't turn you or I on - doesn't mean others don't like it.

But also, some of the ladies who might come across mean or bitchy or whatever - whether this is on a forum response or in a DM when rejecting, whatever - whether this behaviour is appropriate or inappropriate, they're not trying to turn you on.   It's not a constant hustle appealing to men's dicks.

I know i said this but I don't think OP literally means "turn on" sexually! it's a phrase for his complaint, a way of saying Hey, i don't like this thing 😭😭

[Deleted Member]

6 hours ago, Dragonflylover said:

It's quite an achievement to have a dig at both men and women because they didn't like the post. Quite twisted logic you've got going there. Men standing up for women in general = pathetic. Women standing up for women = arrogant.
If the OP had posted of a situation where he'd encountered a rude and arrogant woman - fair play. But to write a post warning all women to "keep in mind" not to behave badly? Insulting. As is your comment.

This is the thing though, op isn't saying all women ate arrogant. He's saying women shouldn't be arrogant. Which is something you kinda can't argue against. It's everyone in the replies projecting shit on to him that "oh he's just like those a***** men that I deal with all the time" or "he's clearly just been rejected", when, what's just as likely is those men you're dealing with are just f**king a****** and this guy is sick of having to deal with the a****** women who think having a shit personality is an attractive personal trait. Cuz, shocker, there's a***** on both genders and someone can complain about one without having to mention the other.

I mean, if somebody posted a "listen lads, you need to stop being so arrogant, having a bad attitude isn't attractive" I probably wouldn't comment, cuz I'd just think to myself wow, she's dealing with some right knobheads. I wouldn't assume anything about her situation and I wouldn't take offence since it's only if you take the most negative possible implication can you get from that "all men have an attitude problem".

So yea, these comments do come off as pathetic, the men are defending people that haven't even been attacked, presumably just so they can be seen to be 'on women's side' (which is always a creepy f**king vibe) and the women are just projecting a bunch of implication that isn't there.

[Deleted Member]

5 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Depending on what route we're going down

generally there aren't really any universal turn ons.   Of course from ground that has been covered on many threads - there are things that are widely disliked (so for example while there is no universal perfect approach, particularly as no matter how good your profile/pics/message is you still might not be compatible - there are certainly approaches which will always be less favourable : a blank profile going "Hey bbe  wanna fuk?" is probably never going to get anyone wet) 

Going back a bit. I remember a thread where someone had been a bit disappointed because he'd been to play with someone (unclear if it was a pro or someone met online) and the play contained a lot of *** and was generally cruel/mean - and then - after the play was finished, she was of course.... well... nice to him.

And the fantasy in his head was that she was always this cruel, mean, bitch.   His little logic was also that the play "wasn't real" if being mean was "just an act"

I think some of my point here is a little bit - just because it doesn't turn you or I on - doesn't mean others don't like it.

But also, some of the ladies who might come across mean or bitchy or whatever - whether this is on a forum response or in a DM when rejecting, whatever - whether this behaviour is appropriate or inappropriate, they're not trying to turn you on.   It's not a constant hustle appealing to men's dicks.

The problem is, that kinda went without saying. The problem that I've come across a lot, and I'm betting this guy has, is there's a not insubstantial amount of women that are just a****** for, whatever reason, if they think it makes them more desirable or because they've never had that external prompting to work on their personality that I think everyone gets at some point in their life. I mean you're the one who brought up being rejected, that was never part of the discussion, were talking about the women that are interested, because they keep messaging, but see just, kinda terrible.

[Deleted Member]

2 minutes ago, OneKinkToRuleThemAll said:

The problem is, that kinda went without saying. The problem that I've come across a lot, and I'm betting this guy has, is there's a not insubstantial amount of women that are just assholes for, whatever reason, if they think it makes them more desirable or because they've never had that external prompting to work on their personality that I think everyone gets at some point in their life. I mean you're the one who brought up being rejected, that was never part of the discussion, were talking about the women that are interested, because they keep messaging, but see just, kinda terrible.

At least that's what I'd assume OP is talking about given my own experience, actually mostly on other platforms, most of the women on this app have been pretty cordial and rounded. I mean you could be right, he could just be seething about a harsh rejection, I just don't see why you feel the need to jump to that conclusion when the only evidence is "he's a man that's complaining".

[ey****]

I mean - ideally, people shouldn't be a******.  But. Here we are.

But people, in general, don't try to be a****** to turn people on.  Women tend not to go "woah, this guy is awesome - I'm going to show him that I'm interested by being rude to him" 

But then there's also the question of what actually constitutes as being rude or having a bad attitude in the first place.   

Consider that people have been accused of being rude for not replying to messages or accused of having a bad attitude due to not giving someone "a chance" - so it even depends on what metrices we're using here.

Which then also gets into another barrel of being owed politeness.  

I mean - the OP has been online in the last day, since posting this 3 days ago, so like - in some people's perspective he might be being rude for not clarifying his points - to others, he doesn't actually owe someone an explanation if he just wanted to get something off his chest.

So it all from there gets into perspectives.

[ey****]

2 hours ago, OneKinkToRuleThemAll said:

presumably just so they can be seen to be 'on women's side' (which is always a creepy f**king vibe)

So this is a kinda manipulative technique to try to isolate.

you ***t guys who stand up for women as creepy so that they will hopefully not do this any more - meaning women are left on their own looking just irrational...

2 hours ago, OneKinkToRuleThemAll said:

and the women are just projecting a bunch of implication that isn't there.

...as demonstrated by your attempts to gaslight here.

[ge****]

And here's the thing with threads like this one - OP arrives, lights the blue touch paper and lobs the grenade never to be seen again - yet the thread survives and people comment and as a result the discussion meanders on, not necessarily guided by the OP, but by the responses that followed - and there are a lot of very valid responses not necessarily all aimed at the OP, but valid all the same, on both sides.

There are clearly various ways the OP *could* be taken, but how it was meant we shall probably never know - even if he does return the chances are that his answers and reasons for the thread will be skewed by what has followed.

Do *some* women behave the way the OP suggests? It's undeniable *some* do. Was there a need for him to address "Ladies" as a whole? Undeniably there wasn't.

[Deleted Member]

3 hours ago, Aeonova said:

I personally read Onekink referring to subsets of men and women with her remarks. And if so, for the subsets she described, I'm inclined to agree with those thoughts.

I didn't read it that way. And Onekink is a man.

[Deleted Member]

If a post says "Ladies" I think it a reasonable assumption to think he is referring to all ladies. And of course we will never know which imagined subset he is referring to. You calling myself and other women arrogant for not liking his wording is not very nice.

And as you're replying to me, you will note that I didn't imply anything about the OP. I said "thanks for the lecture" and that making a pointed dig at people is never going to end well. I would say the same if a woman posted that about men. I say the same to you now that you've had a pointed dig at everyone in the thread. Enjoy the site.

[Deleted Member]

Just now, Dragonflylover said:

If a post says "Ladies" I think it a reasonable assumption to think he is referring to all ladies. And of course we will never know which imagined subset he is referring to. You calling myself and other women arrogant for not liking his wording is not very nice.

And as you're replying to me, you will note that I didn't imply anything about the OP. I said "thanks for the lecture" and that making a pointed dig at people is never going to end well. I would say the same if a woman posted that about men. I say the same to you now that you've had a pointed dig at everyone in the thread. Enjoy the site.

This is a response to Onekink's quoted reply to me.

[Ar****]

3 hours ago, OneKinkToRuleThemAll said:

the men are defending people that haven't even been attacked, presumably just so they can be seen to be 'on women's side' (which is always a creepy f**king vibe)

Soooooo... is it also that if a man defends the position of disabled people, or elderly, or an ethnic minority, or any one of a multitude of other examples, is he also doing that presumably just to be seen to be on their side? Or would they only do that when sticking up for women - because there is clearly something to gain (🙄) and could never be any altruistic reason such as might be the case in the other examples?

Or would it be a more accurate analogy to say that following this logic able-bodied people only champion disabled causes to get on side with the disabled? That civil rights activists are only interest in the fight for what they can get out of it? That women only advocate for men so they can be seen to be "on their side"? Where would that fall on the creepy vibe scale?