FabSwingers.com > Forums > Ireland > Messages - hitting block more than reply
Messages - hitting block more than reply
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *1Cork OP Couple 3 weeks ago
Cork |
We receive creepy or incessant messages all too often. We used get excited about a new message alert on the top bar, now our expectations are so low, we are shocked if it’s a genuine and serious message.
There is simply a disproportionately high number of non-paying, non-verified and anonymous single male profiles on here. Incel type behaviour is a notmal daily encounter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *1Cork OP Couple 3 weeks ago
Cork |
We don’t want to block single men (open to contact from verified men), or all unverified profiles (open to messages from new local couples). Don’t think you can block unverified male profiles only? Please tell us if this can be done, as this is the grouping we get the worst messages from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *1Cork OP Couple 3 weeks ago
Cork |
"We nearly never block off the back of a poor message. That would be way too much admin"
It’s delete for a poor message alright. It’s block after a string of unresponded to poor messages though, normally messages that end up repeatedly asking why we haven’t responded to original message offering to “fuck right now”, or some variation of that. The 3rd to 6th message in the string can quite often turn nasty and abusive.
The creepy messages of “I think I know where you live” or “I think I know who you are” are an immediate block for safety reasons however. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Unfortunately with the site been free to access it has a tendency to draw in all the Messer's and young school boys who think that all they have to do is send a one word message to a female or couple and they will jump into bed with them that day.
I'm afraid it is a bit of just ignore those ones and filter out the genuine people on here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *1Cork OP Couple 3 weeks ago
Cork |
Is it conceivable that site might have to go fully ‘pay to join’ in order to provide a financial record link to anyone misbehaving to the point of transgressing laws? Look at the arrest of site owner and moderators in Pelicot case. Don’t think it’s sustainable to facilitate total anonymity on these sites anymore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is it conceivable that site might have to go fully ‘pay to join’ in order to provide a financial record link to anyone misbehaving to the point of transgressing laws? Look at the arrest of site owner and moderators in Pelicot case. Don’t think it’s sustainable to facilitate total anonymity on these sites anymore."
Paying doesn’t guarantee a financial link. There’s plenty of virtual cards available to use for things like this so that they don’t show on your bank statement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A large part of the success of this place is the low barriers to entry. It's easy for newbies to dip the toe casually and for free. It would change the place entirely to need to pay up front. I'm also unconvinced that paying members are any less messers than free ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You can block unverified, you can block no public pics on profile, you can block newbies 🤷♀️ even then you will get messages that don't suit you. Filters up and accept you are online and not everyone will look at your preferences before mailing and all it takes is for one message among the nonsense to make it worthwhile |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iscuits8Man 3 weeks ago
Meath / Dublin / Birmingham |
"100% agree that membership on here should be paid only. Even the small fee we pay would be a deterrent.
The fact that membership has to be paid by credit card would also be a huge deterrent "
I just go down with cash to the local post office, give yer one a little wink and within a few minutes my subsciption is renewed... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"100% agree that membership on here should be paid only. Even the small fee we pay would be a deterrent.
The fact that membership has to be paid by credit card would also be a huge deterrent "
Absolutely! Even to pay a fiver would deter alot of cretins imo 🤷♀️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *og-ManMan 3 weeks ago
somewhere |
"100% agree that membership on here should be paid only. Even the small fee we pay would be a deterrent.
The fact that membership has to be paid by credit card would also be a huge deterrent
I just go down with cash to the local post office, give yer one a little wink and within a few minutes my subsciption is renewed..."
And she blocks you  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is it conceivable that site might have to go fully ‘pay to join’ in order to provide a financial record link to anyone misbehaving to the point of transgressing laws? Look at the arrest of site owner and moderators in Pelicot case. Don’t think it’s sustainable to facilitate total anonymity on these sites anymore."
It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustBoWoman 3 weeks ago
Somewhere in Co. Down |
I've tight filters so I don't get too many messages and I just delete ones that I'm not interested in .I don't usually block its easy enough to just delete it unread when you can see the gist of the message anyhow.
I don't understand the idea of changing the entire site to suit only certain people and I think a lot of people wouldn't have joined if they had to pay upfront. I know I wouldn't have anyhow.
To be fair if messages annoyed me so much I would close off my filters and actually go searching for those I might be interested in rather than hoping they would appear in my inbox.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *1Cork OP Couple 3 weeks ago
Cork |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat."
This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim.
We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dfabMan 2 weeks ago
Dunboyne |
I'd be absolutely delighted if it was paid members only.
Come on, it's something like £35 a year for silver. Hardly breaking the bank.
Imagine? The 30,000 males to 500 females ratio becoming a much more reasonable 10,000 to 400!
Yes, at least 100 women won't pay but I suspect a free/cheap females/couples rate will amend that to 10,000 to 1,000 and it would be much more fun here and way less no shows also.
Perhaps that was what was envisioned originally 🤔 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd be absolutely delighted if it was paid members only.
Come on, it's something like £35 a year for silver. Hardly breaking the bank.
Imagine? The 30,000 males to 500 females ratio becoming a much more reasonable 10,000 to 400!
Yes, at least 100 women won't pay but I suspect a free/cheap females/couples rate will amend that to 10,000 to 1,000 and it would be much more fun here and way less no shows also.
Perhaps that was what was envisioned originally 🤔"
Don't a lot of men gift women gold and silver support on here? I'd say the ratio would be a bit closer but men would start thinking they "bought" access to these women. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustBoWoman 2 weeks ago
Somewhere in Co. Down |
"I'd be absolutely delighted if it was paid members only.
Come on, it's something like £35 a year for silver. Hardly breaking the bank.
Imagine? The 30,000 males to 500 females ratio becoming a much more reasonable 10,000 to 400!
Yes, at least 100 women won't pay but I suspect a free/cheap females/couples rate will amend that to 10,000 to 1,000 and it would be much more fun here and way less no shows also.
Perhaps that was what was envisioned originally 🤔"
And anxious lot of women probably wouldn't even join then.
Plus the ratio means bugger all because I know if I don't find a guy attractive in attitude and looks then I wouldn't fuck him regardless of what ever the ratio is on here.
As for mo shows well I can't comment on that because even as it is now I've never had one so far. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *refMan 2 weeks ago
Right up your street |
"We receive creepy or incessant messages all too often. We used get excited about a new message alert on the top bar, now our expectations are so low, we are shocked if it’s a genuine and serious message.
There is simply a disproportionately high number of non-paying, non-verified and anonymous single male profiles on here. Incel type behaviour is a notmal daily encounter."
It’s unpleasant - but necessary. If someone reveals themselves to be pushy, creepy etc, believe them and just block! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 2 weeks ago
|
Thank fook I rarely get any messages these days because of filters and block lists. But don't forget the exceptional amazing men here helping all our dreams come true they never get a shout out because everyones always moaning about the dick heads |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat.
This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim.
We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site."
I think the reference to the Pelicot case is a bit much to be honest. The biggest danger to her in that case was her own husband. And I'm not sure the owners of this site would appreciate what you said either. I get the point you're trying to make about the benefits of paid members only but maybe a little less of the drama. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat.
This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim.
We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site.
I think the reference to the Pelicot case is a bit much to be honest. The biggest danger to her in that case was her own husband. And I'm not sure the owners of this site would appreciate what you said either. I get the point you're trying to make about the benefits of paid members only but maybe a little less of the drama. "
There are multiple threads most months from men, with single guy profiles, looking for a guy to approach their wife on a night out (without her consent for this to happen), guys looking to chat about their wives, exchange their wives underwear etc etc so unfortunately, the Pelicot case does have some relevance to fab. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thank fook I rarely get any messages these days because of filters and block lists. But don't forget the exceptional amazing men here helping all our dreams come true they never get a shout out because everyones always moaning about the dick heads "
❤️❤️❤️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat.
This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim.
We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site.
I think the reference to the Pelicot case is a bit much to be honest. The biggest danger to her in that case was her own husband. And I'm not sure the owners of this site would appreciate what you said either. I get the point you're trying to make about the benefits of paid members only but maybe a little less of the drama.
There are multiple threads most months from men, with single guy profiles, looking for a guy to approach their wife on a night out (without her consent for this to happen), guys looking to chat about their wives, exchange their wives underwear etc etc so unfortunately, the Pelicot case does have some relevance to fab. "
There's a world of difference between asking a guy to chat up his partner on a night out where she's fully in control of everything that happens from there and the Pelicot case. Same thing with the guys looking to chat about the wife. They may not have a wife in the first place or might have bought the underwear themselves. I'd be very slow to drag in a terrible criminal case where the husband himself was the maim danger and compare that to what's going on fab.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustBoWoman 2 weeks ago
Somewhere in Co. Down |
"
There's a world of difference between asking a guy to chat up his partner on a night out where she's fully in control of everything that happens from there and the Pelicot case. Same thing with the guys looking to chat about the wife. They may not have a wife in the first place or might have bought the underwear themselves. I'd be very slow to drag in a terrible criminal case where the husband himself was the maim danger and compare that to what's going on fab.
"
Sorry but I don't agree at all. There is not a world of difference In all scenarios the woman has not given consent to have her pics shared or under wear shared with other men,or to go out on a night out and be set up by her partner just so that she can end up being a pawn in his fantasies. This is exactly how coercive behaviour begins and those men who see nothing wrong with it or try and find excuses why it's okay are exactly the type who find excuses as to why it is okay to partake in these activities without consent of all involved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat.
This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim.
We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site.
I think the reference to the Pelicot case is a bit much to be honest. The biggest danger to her in that case was her own husband. And I'm not sure the owners of this site would appreciate what you said either. I get the point you're trying to make about the benefits of paid members only but maybe a little less of the drama.
There are multiple threads most months from men, with single guy profiles, looking for a guy to approach their wife on a night out (without her consent for this to happen), guys looking to chat about their wives, exchange their wives underwear etc etc so unfortunately, the Pelicot case does have some relevance to fab.
There's a world of difference between asking a guy to chat up his partner on a night out where she's fully in control of everything that happens from there and the Pelicot case. Same thing with the guys looking to chat about the wife. They may not have a wife in the first place or might have bought the underwear themselves. I'd be very slow to drag in a terrible criminal case where the husband himself was the maim danger and compare that to what's going on fab.
"
As Bo said, there isn’t a world of difference. In all instances, there’s a lack of basic understanding of consent.
You can’t be fully in control of a situation that you have been put into without your knowledge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Let's be real... there is a very very small step between let's chat about our wives in a chat group to let's share pics of our wives...
Slippery slopes.
Consent should be at the very foremost in our thoughts when we consider getting involved in any sexual scenario, and if it isn't crystal clear then it's problematic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let's be real... there is a very very small step between let's chat about our wives in a chat group to let's share pics of our wives...
Slippery slopes.
Consent should be at the very foremost in our thoughts when we consider getting involved in any sexual scenario, and if it isn't crystal clear then it's problematic "
Ya, 100%.
So many lads thinking with their 🍆 without giving a thought for the situation they might be putting themselves into.
Even if there appears to be consent, you need to understand if there is coercive control.
Even on here, I've seen more than one couples profile that didn't quite feel right to me. One of them even ended up on the top fab list of the year! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In relation to the actual OP would blocking unverified profiles have lead to you missing out on any couples?
Might be worth looking to see how many good meets came from conversations with unverified accounts that you couldn't have just reached out to first anyway vs the hassle from the accounts your referencing here.
Sometimes these things have a simple enough answer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would personally like to choose who views my profile as I have had some people I know search for me here which I don’t like. They kept just adding a new profile each time so it has meant that for periods I hide my profile. It has also led me to blocking a lot of no pic not verified people with newer profiles who have just viewed my profile and also not give or take veris. l at times. I had a very bad incidence of stalking which started with pics from this site many years ago and ended up with me totally deleting my previous profile for a long time. Better protection and control of my account would work for me and I’m sure it wouldn’t be difficult to provide as a paid platinum option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *1Cork OP Couple 2 weeks ago
Cork |
We weren’t for a minute equating the seriousness of the Mr. Pelicot crime with any other potential crime involving consent (sharing intimate photos) or harassment (sexual or otherwise; online or otherwise), it’s only the recent development of authorities in France taking the view in that case that there IS a responsibility on the online platform that is abused by the perpetrators of any crime. There’s just (in our view) an intersection of this enforcement development in France, new laws catching up with online interaction methods in Ireland, and the continuing rise of toxic incel online culture worldwide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ustMe!Couple 2 weeks ago
co.down |
I don’t like to block people but I find that lately I have had to black quite a few ‘men’ and I say that lightly. They assume it’s ‘my loss’ and I’m a ‘Cunt’ if I politely decline their “wanna fuck” or “I can accommodate now” as a first message. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *1Cork OP Couple 2 weeks ago
Cork |
"In relation to the actual OP would blocking unverified profiles have lead to you missing out on any couples?
Might be worth looking to see how many good meets came from conversations with unverified accounts that you couldn't have just reached out to first anyway vs the hassle from the accounts your referencing here.
Sometimes these things have a simple enough answer "
Yes. We have on occasion met unverified couples for socials, usually after a number of messages that established they were genuine and no overlap in real life, some of whom we have subsequently met numerous times for play meets. We are conscious that we were newbies once. We also regularly impart advice to new unverified couples that message us, even without it ever progressing to meets. So no, we do not want to sacrifice that to filters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
