Deleted Member Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 On 7/3/2022 at 7:08 AM, CopperKnob said: Each to their own. Whilst, I'd agree IRL tell you a lot more about the person, I don't consider vetting someone thoroughly can be done in 3-4 weeks before meeting IRL to be a red flag. What would be a red flag, for me, is for someone to say that my way of ensuring personal safety, my security is a red flag. But then, that tells me all I need to know about that individual Not only are you saying that men and women are incapable of vetting each other in the space of three or four weeks before meeting in person, but that meeting, likely in a public place would put you at risk. No one here is saying it needs to be a sexual encounter, or in an environment that might raise alarm bells for anyone's safety. The insinuation here is insidious. Do you not instantly vet someone as soon as you read their message and check out their profile? If you decide to respond, do you not continue that process with each subsequent message? Are you saying you're incapable of determining in three or four weeks if you want to meet someone in real life on not? That suggests you have a problem with your own ability to make judgement calls. What do you want to know that you can't glean over the phone or in video chats? Or even over text? Do you even ask appropriate questions before finding out if in person you're actually compatible? You admit meeting in person is the best way to determine if someone is worth pursuing, but want to avoid the reality of being able to make the best determination for many more months. It sounds like for a lot of people the online fantasy is more appealing than the reality of possibly connecting in person. Safety isn't the issue here, if you're not meeting in a public space then what are you doing? but it is the excuse when someone clearly isn't sure, and is either talking to multiple people, or playing games. People go on blind dates in public spaces all the time, they meet in clubs and bars, social events, they don't need weeks or months to determine if they like the other person enough to want to pursue anything romantic or sexual with them. If you have concerns about meeting someone, tell them as soon as possible and don't meet them. It really is that simple.
CopperKnob Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 1 hour ago, PoisonJohnny said: Not only are you saying that men and women are incapable of vetting each other in the space of three or four weeks before meeting in person, but that meeting, likely in a public place would put you at risk. No one here is saying it needs to be a sexual encounter, or in an environment that might raise alarm bells for anyone's safety. The insinuation here is insidious. Do you not instantly vet someone as soon as you read their message and check out their profile? If you decide to respond, do you not continue that process with each subsequent message? Are you saying you're incapable of determining in three or four weeks if you want to meet someone in real life on not? That suggests you have a problem with your own ability to make judgement calls. What do you want to know that you can't glean over the phone or in video chats? Or even over text? Do you even ask appropriate questions before finding out if in person you're actually compatible? You admit meeting in person is the best way to determine if someone is worth pursuing, but want to avoid the reality of being able to make the best determination for many more months. It sounds like for a lot of people the online fantasy is more appealing than the reality of possibly connecting in person. Safety isn't the issue here, if you're not meeting in a public space then what are you doing? but it is the excuse when someone clearly isn't sure, and is either talking to multiple people, or playing games. People go on blind dates in public spaces all the time, they meet in clubs and bars, social events, they don't need weeks or months to determine if they like the other person enough to want to pursue anything romantic or sexual with them. If you have concerns about meeting someone, tell them as soon as possible and don't meet them. It really is that simple. I've only read the first few lines because this has been done to death. Did you see where ai used the words 'for me'. That was the indicator that I was speaking personally 🤷♀️
Deleted Member Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 1 hour ago, CopperKnob said: I've only read the first few lines because this has been done to death. Did you see where ai used the words 'for me'. That was the indicator that I was speaking personally 🤷♀️ So? You responded to me. I suspect you read it all, its disingenuous to say otherwise. But I agree, it has. You're not really advancing your point here, your red flag argument (needing to chat for longer) doesn't ensure your actually any safer, all it does is cast a large amount of doubt that you lack the ability to make an accurate judgement about other people, or your slow at obtaining the information you need. Whilst I understand you want to remain safe, the safety argument is somewhat rendered mute and useless when it's evidently clear there's no risk to your personal safety in meeting someone unless you're meeting people outside of daytime public spaces. Which would pose the greatest risk to your safety and I assume you don't do that... Sitting down in a coffee shop with someone you are allegedly interested in is not threatening (besides nerves) and poses virtually zero personal risk to you, or anyone else regardless of the length of time you have been talking online, be that four weeks or four months etc. Honestly, if you think your safety is in greater threat by meeting anyone after just a month of talking but not after 6 months, then I don't know what to say other than learn to ask more relavent and probing questions to get the answers you need. If it feels wrong, don't continue and certainly dont meet up.
ge**** Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 45 minutes ago, PoisonJohnny said: So? You responded to me. I suspect you read it all, its disingenuous to say otherwise. But I agree, it has. You're not really advancing your point here, your red flag argument (needing to chat for longer) doesn't ensure your actually any safer, all it does is cast a large amount of doubt that you lack the ability to make an accurate judgement about other people, or your slow at obtaining the information you need. Whilst I understand you want to remain safe, the safety argument is somewhat rendered mute and useless when it's evidently clear there's no risk to your personal safety in meeting someone unless you're meeting people outside of daytime public spaces. Which would pose the greatest risk to your safety and I assume you don't do that... Sitting down in a coffee shop with someone you are allegedly interested in is not threatening (besides nerves) and poses virtually zero personal risk to you, or anyone else regardless of the length of time you have been talking online, be that four weeks or four months etc. Honestly, if you think your safety is in greater threat by meeting anyone after just a month of talking but not after 6 months, then I don't know what to say other than learn to ask more relavent and probing questions to get the answers you need. If it feels wrong, don't continue and certainly dont meet up. Why the constant need to prove someone who does things differently to you "wrong" - can you not just accept that other people may have a different approach to sites like this one, and whatever their reason it's "their" reason and doesn't need to be justified. . I don't usually meet others until several weeks or even months have passed - and that approach works for both myself and those I have met and usually works out pretty damned well. . Why is that my preferred approach? Because I want to be as sure as I can be that there is a connection and chemistry in place that will translate into face to face meeting rather than investing my time and *** (often people I talk to will live a distance away) in something where either of us may instantly realise the other person is not for us. . There's nothing wrong with that approach, just as there's nothing wrong with yours either - they're just different approaches that we have individually found to work for us. . All it means when you find someone who does it differently to you is your approaches differ, so you either accept that and move on, or see if a compromise can be found. . Would I meet someone quicker if I felt comfortable to do so, or if the opportunity allowed, I have and I would - likewise there are people I've not met for as long as years after we first started talking. . There is no "right" way to it - only "your" way and if that way works for the individual then that is all that matters.
ey**** Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 lots of words and I feel also getting done to death but 1) people's vetting processes are their own. if you don't like how an individual wishes to vet you, they're not for you 2) not meeting for a coffee within 7 days isn't necessarily/always a vetting thing. Sometimes it's a life thing. 3) "chat and see where things go" doesn't have to be in person 4) patience is a kinda vetting anyway. Like "no one is saying this meeting has to be sexual" no, of course not... but if you're going to push push push someone "for a coffee" what else are you going to push them for? 2nd date? Sex? Play they're not sure about? Limits? Sex without a condom? and these are the kinda flags pushy folk set off.
Deleted Member Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 47 minutes ago, gemini_man said: Why the constant need to prove someone who does things differently to you "wrong" - can you not just accept that other people may have a different approach to sites like this one, and whatever their reason it's "their" reason and doesn't need to be justified. . I don't usually meet others until several weeks or even months have passed - and that approach works for both myself and those I have met and usually works out pretty damned well. . Why is that my preferred approach? Because I want to be as sure as I can be that there is a connection and chemistry in place that will translate into face to face meeting rather than investing my time and *** (often people I talk to will live a distance away) in something where either of us may instantly realise the other person is not for us. . There's nothing wrong with that approach, just as there's nothing wrong with yours either - they're just different approaches that we have individually found to work for us. . All it means when you find someone who does it differently to you is your approaches differ, so you either accept that and move on, or see if a compromise can be found. . Would I meet someone quicker if I felt comfortable to do so, or if the opportunity allowed, I have and I would - likewise there are people I've not met for as long as years after we first started talking. . There is no "right" way to it - only "your" way and if that way works for the individual then that is all that matters. I don't need to prove anyone wrong. I just don't like the insinuation that meeting after three or four weeks means two people haven't vetted each other thoroughly or that people are incapable of doing so within that time frame. Or that in doing so you will pose a greater personal risk than someone you have spoken to for 6 months, or that you're just after one thing... That's all quite insulting to be honest. No reasonable person would think that. It comes across as a statement only a misandrist would make. I'm not disputing people have different ways to approach, or have different expectations on time frames. But it still remains true that meeting in person is the best way to know if anything is worth perusing in real life. Until that point, it's all fantasy. For what it's worth, I always try to make things as real as possible before meeting, that means less online messaging and more phone and video calls, you get a much better gauge on someone, the subtleties people do that you can see and hear, mannerisms, if they squirm to questions, body language is so important. If they don't want any of that, if they baulk for any reason I know then they are not the right fit for me. I would love to stop responding, and let this thread go quietly. I'm bored of seeing the notifications now.
CopperKnob Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 16 minutes ago, PoisonJohnny said: I don't need to prove anyone wrong. I just don't like the insinuation that meeting after three or four weeks means two people haven't vetted each other thoroughly or that people are incapable of doing so within that time frame. Or that in doing so you will pose a greater personal risk than someone you have spoken to for 6 months, or that you're just after one thing... That's all quite insulting to be honest. No reasonable person would think that. It comes across as a statement only a misandrist would make. I'm not disputing people have different ways to approach, or have different expectations on time frames. But it still remains true that meeting in person is the best way to know if anything is worth perusing in real life. Until that point, it's all fantasy. For what it's worth, I always try to make things as real as possible before meeting, that means less online messaging and more phone and video calls, you get a much better gauge on someone, the subtleties people do that you can see and hear, mannerisms, if they squirm to questions, body language is so important. If they don't want any of that, if they baulk for any reason I know then they are not the right fit for me. I would love to stop responding, and let this thread go quietly. I'm bored of seeing the notifications now. And yet, all you have to do is stop responding and/or tap the 3 little dots to unfollow... By your thinking, any female who has boundaries in place or limits and who expresses these in open and honest communication as their POV is a misandrist? And yet, there are very few people in the community that have absolutely no limits. By that very same token, any man in the community is a misogynist simply because they have also have limits? Way to label yourself.
Deleted Member Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 29 minutes ago, CopperKnob said: And yet, all you have to do is stop responding and/or tap the 3 little dots to unfollow... By your thinking, any female who has boundaries in place or limits and who expresses these in open and honest communication as their POV is a misandrist? And yet, there are very few people in the community that have absolutely no limits. By that very same token, any man in the community is a misogynist simply because they have also have limits? Way to label yourself. Now you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. If any woman, for any reason doesn't wish to meet another man, If it's communicated clearly and honestly that's absolutely fine. Both can discuss and move on if necessary, or agree to a compromise yes? You insinuatiated things that only a misandrist would. It's clear I have no problem with any woman not wishing to meet up. Only that in my experience the longer its left the less likely it will happen. Fantasists will fantasise. You can give me all your personal anecdotes all you want, it doesn't change the fact you're less likely to meet the longer you go without meeting. I don't think you're thinking rationally, dear me. If you meet someone after a month that doesnt equal not having any limits or boundaries. Wild assumptions with negative connotations against men again. Can this stop please? I get it's your perogative to endlessly chat online for months on end, you're very attractive, articulate, and probably talking to lots of different men, its great you can pick who you want to meet like that. Let's just leave leave it here shall we.
ge**** Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 2 hours ago, PoisonJohnny said: I don't need to prove anyone wrong. I just don't like the insinuation that meeting after three or four weeks means two people haven't vetted each other thoroughly or that people are incapable of doing so within that time frame. Or that in doing so you will pose a greater personal risk than someone you have spoken to for 6 months, or that you're just after one thing... That's all quite insulting to be honest. No reasonable person would think that. It comes across as a statement only a misandrist would make. I'm not disputing people have different ways to approach, or have different expectations on time frames. But it still remains true that meeting in person is the best way to know if anything is worth perusing in real life. Until that point, it's all fantasy. For what it's worth, I always try to make things as real as possible before meeting, that means less online messaging and more phone and video calls, you get a much better gauge on someone, the subtleties people do that you can see and hear, mannerisms, if they squirm to questions, body language is so important. If they don't want any of that, if they baulk for any reason I know then they are not the right fit for me. I would love to stop responding, and let this thread go quietly. I'm bored of seeing the notifications now. The key in all that is the word "insinuation" - personally I've not seen anything insinuated in the responses made, merely people expressing their preferred way of doing things - just because someone wants to be as sure as they can be that they will be safe before meeting doesn't mean they automatically think *every* person that contacts them is a danger, but sadly as we here daily in the news, there are *some* that are a danger even in public spaces etc, or who may be able to put on a decent public front only to turn nasty once things aren't so public - so I totally understand why anyone would want to keep their guard up until they are ready to lower it. . Whilst of course until you actually meet someone face to face you can't know for sure if you want to take things further, and even sometimes having met them you can't 100% know they are right for you, I disagree that until you have done so it's all fantasy as you suggest. . I've met many people through sites like this down the years, the majority of whom I've met after weeks/months of getting to know each other and it's worked fine for me - in fact in my experience the longer we have taken to meet the better it has been - the few times where we've moved to meet quickly have not worked out so well. . Now I appreciate that's my experience and my approach, but it's what has worked for me, and obviously others on this thread - it's not wrong any more than your approach is not wrong, as I said further up if it's what works for you then great - but there is no insinuation or misandry in having a different approach, other than what you may choose to read into it when it's simply not there. . Perhaps agreeing to disagree is the way forward in this instance, you do it your way, others will do it their way, and accept that because their way may be different to yours simply means incompatibility nothing more.
Ky**** Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 this was an interesting thread by lockfairy, can ppl please stop turning it into a toxic slanging match, there are some of us on here who need to discuss important issues like lock raised
Deleted Member Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, Kymi said: this was an interesting thread by lockfairy, can ppl please stop turning it into a toxic slanging match, there are some of us on here who need to discuss important issues like lock raised Is it really that "important" as suggest? A good % of the forum thread topics created on here are about 'male behaviour', so its hardly like there is ample opportunity to discuss this, possibly the opposite if anything. Am happy to share reference examples if requested should you somehow not be aware. I don't see the "toxic slanging match" myself. The mods are here to moderate. If your enthusiastic to moderate, you should volunteer? Edited July 5, 2022 by Deleted Member Typo
CopperKnob Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 17 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said: Is it really that "important" as suggest? A good % of the forum thread topics created on here are about 'male behaviour', so its hardly like there is ample opportunity to discuss this, possibly the opposite if anything. Am happy to share reference examples if requested should you somehow not be aware. I don't see the "toxic slanging match" myself. The mods are here to moderate. If your enthusiastic to moderate, you should volunteer? You're quite able to create and post your own thread anytime you please about any topic you like And, if you missed the point, the OP was about male behaviour Kymi asked quite nicely for people to stop being antagonistic towards each other that's all. There was no need for anyone to respond
CopperKnob Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 @Lockfairy, I apologise. This was an absolutely lovely post to read. Good luck to you and your continued adult, non kinky but with a sprinkling of kink conversation with someone who sounds marvellous.
FETMOD-KF Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 I think that I don't like to interject unless things like insults come out or whatever - but - there's a lot that's become circular and away from the original point and humour of the first post. I think the bickering side of things isn't required so would kinda ask for the thread to be taken back towards the original good nature vibe
ey**** Posted July 5, 2022 Posted July 5, 2022 to get to a more on-topic vibe one of the things I liked about the original post rather than it being any type "this type of demographic are bad" post (not that venting isn't often justified or needed) but it was more of a celebration of the type of behaviour people want to see.
Recommended Posts