FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > I now think formal swinging should be....
I now think formal swinging should be....
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser." Is this a reverse psychology thing OP? | |||
 | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Is this a reverse psychology thing OP? " No genuine opinion. It would cut away many issues. | |||
"You'd be out then? "I wouldn't mind that. | |||
 | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Is this a reverse psychology thing OP? No genuine opinion. It would cut away many issues." Making it a singles only enterprise would also solve many other issues. If you exclude all people, then the issues would be eradicated completely... | |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Is this a reverse psychology thing OP? No genuine opinion. It would cut away many issues. Making it a singles only enterprise would also solve many other issues. If you exclude all people, then the issues would be eradicated completely..." Let the singles set up their own things preferably too (in an ideal world) | |||
"Perfect, I'm not a swinger "An interesting comment. | |||
"I prefer informal swinging anyway "It maybe better... | |||
| |||
"Like in yesterday's thread I shall be manning the coffee station ... other beverages are available . "Large black coffee please  | |||
"Perfect, I'm not a swinger An interesting comment."How so? | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Is this a reverse psychology thing OP? No genuine opinion. It would cut away many issues. Making it a singles only enterprise would also solve many other issues. If you exclude all people, then the issues would be eradicated completely..." At Stalin said, no person, no problem  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Perfect, I'm not a swinger An interesting comment.
How so? "It feeds into the idea of those who are here but do not count themselves as swingers. | |||
"For someone that discourage " deep conversations" , you sure have a lot of controversial topics to get off your chest on a swingers website OP "I never discouraged them | |||
"But sometimes I want an extra man, sometimes I want an extra woman, sometimes I'm greedy and want both or more! I like the variety on here "I understand what your saying but isn't 'the more the merrier' a potential dilution? | |||
| |||
| |||
"But sometimes I want an extra man, sometimes I want an extra woman, sometimes I'm greedy and want both or more! I like the variety on here I understand what your saying but isn't 'the more the merrier' a potential dilution?"Dilution? Of what? More the merrier, is literally that, merrier... | |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them." I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? | |||
 | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser." Would that lead to more ‘convenience couples’? People just getting together so they could join? They’d still put on their profiles that they play separately so be able to enjoy single person privileges although on a couples profile..... | |||
 | |||
"what? "We’re out, shall we go and play together instead  ? | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser." What do you mean by formal, OP? We have a hotwife dynamic, which means I sometimes meet single men. How would that work? Mrs kf x | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes " I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?"Mwahaha he said couples only right? Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together. Praise Jesus  | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus "Alleluia | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while." Don’t forget the lube  | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. What do you mean by formal, OP? We have a hotwife dynamic, which means I sometimes meet single men. How would that work? Mrs kf x" In an ideal world (a post on this thread) has reminded me that it is also a functional world too. You would have to find your own man off a site. Or 'loan' one from a couple. | |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them. I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? " Quick search and got this quote: 'Organized “wife swapping” was started in the 1940s on U.S. Air Force bases by fighter pilots and their wives. Researchers found it was “a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look after the widows."' Also 'swinging' is more an American term, 'Wife Swapping' is more British but an official term is 'polyamorous sexual activity'. Other terms include 'group sex', 'The Lifestyle' or 'mate swapping'. | |||
"Perfect, I'm not a swinger An interesting comment.
How so? It feeds into the idea of those who are here but do not count themselves as swingers."There are many interpretations of swinging. Why dilute the gene pool? People are free to use the site how they wish. If you want to dictate how it should be run then why not start your own website? | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. What do you mean by formal, OP? We have a hotwife dynamic, which means I sometimes meet single men. How would that work? Mrs kf x In an ideal world (a post on this thread) has reminded me that it is also a functional world too. You would have to find your own man off a site. Or 'loan' one from a couple." As a married couple who require discretion in this lifestyle, where would I find such a man?! Fab is perfect for this. "Loaning" one from a couple is a completely different dynamic. | |||
"Like in yesterday's thread I shall be manning the coffee station ... other beverages are available . "Think I need something a tad stronger seen as its Friday... Do you have pink gin?
Her x | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia "We can thruple? Polyamory? We don't want anyone to be left out | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube "So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. What do you mean by formal, OP? We have a hotwife dynamic, which means I sometimes meet single men. How would that work? Mrs kf x In an ideal world (a post on this thread) has reminded me that it is also a functional world too. You would have to find your own man off a site. Or 'loan' one from a couple. As a married couple who require discretion in this lifestyle, where would I find such a man?! Fab is perfect for this. "Loaning" one from a couple is a completely different dynamic. " I can see the discretion aspect. | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia
We can thruple? Polyamory?
We don't want anyone to be left out "We'd love to join... IF we're allowed that is 
Her x | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Is this a reverse psychology thing OP? No genuine opinion. It would cut away many issues." But it wouldnt as just as many couples are as bigger timewasters as single men and single women. A lot give it the big talk but would bottle out of actually meeting anyone. | |||
| |||
"Like in yesterday's thread I shall be manning the coffee station ... other beverages are available .
Think I need something a tad stronger seen as its Friday... Do you have pink gin?
Her x"Let's move straight to cocktails | |||
| |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia
We can thruple? Polyamory?
We don't want anyone to be left out
We'd love to join... IF we're allowed that is
Her x"ALLL THE YES 
my favourites all in one place  Px | |||
"Perfect, I'm not a swinger An interesting comment.
How so? It feeds into the idea of those who are here but do not count themselves as swingers.
There are many interpretations of swinging.
Why dilute the gene pool? People are free to use the site how they wish. If you want to dictate how it should be run then why not start your own website? "Not dictating but I am learning some things I never considered because I am not in that persons position. | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser." Do you think the owner of this site would keep it running if it wasn't making money? | |||
"So, you want the site owners to boot off every single single person from the site and make it couples only? " Why radicalize everything? | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia
We can thruple? Polyamory?
We don't want anyone to be left out
We'd love to join... IF we're allowed that is
Her x"See we're starting an orgy... and this is why Fab is just dandy as it is!
More the merrier! | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Do you think the owner of this site would keep it running if it wasn't making money?" Can money disturb swinging? | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you?"That will always be up to you. I am not here to change your opinion, merely state my own, if anyone’s words on here change your opinion, that is on you, not on them. I will reiterate, the vast majority of people using fab and other swinging sites have very, very few problems indeed, taking a snapshot of negative forum or status posts and saying “this isn’t working” is to deny the fact that there are tens of thousands of people signed up and having fun. | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes " Everything he said | |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them. I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? Quick search and got this quote: 'Organized “wife swapping” was started in the 1940s on U.S. Air Force bases by fighter pilots and their wives. Researchers found it was “a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look after the widows."' Also 'swinging' is more an American term, 'Wife Swapping' is more British but an official term is 'polyamorous sexual activity'. Other terms include 'group sex', 'The Lifestyle' or 'mate swapping'." Thanks for the pointer...I think I will do some research. | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Is this a reverse psychology thing OP? No genuine opinion. It would cut away many issues. Making it a singles only enterprise would also solve many other issues. If you exclude all people, then the issues would be eradicated completely... At Stalin said, no person, no problem "Wasn't that Bob: No woman, no cry? | |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them. I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? Quick search and got this quote: 'Organized “wife swapping” was started in the 1940s on U.S. Air Force bases by fighter pilots and their wives. Researchers found it was “a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look after the widows."' Also 'swinging' is more an American term, 'Wife Swapping' is more British but an official term is 'polyamorous sexual activity'. Other terms include 'group sex', 'The Lifestyle' or 'mate swapping'." People have been swinging, having group sex, orgies throughout history. As a single man coming onto a, what is promoted, as a swinggers site and then stating that it should just be for couples, then why not quite the site. It's a bit like people going on protests to safe the enviroment and throwing their fastfood wrappers in the streets. | |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them. I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? Quick search and got this quote: 'Organized “wife swapping” was started in the 1940s on U.S. Air Force bases by fighter pilots and their wives. Researchers found it was “a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look after the widows."' Also 'swinging' is more an American term, 'Wife Swapping' is more British but an official term is 'polyamorous sexual activity'. Other terms include 'group sex', 'The Lifestyle' or 'mate swapping'. People have been swinging, having group sex, orgies throughout history. As a single man coming onto a, what is promoted, as a swinggers site and then stating that it should just be for couples, then why not quite the site. It's a bit like people going on protests to safe the enviroment and throwing their fastfood wrappers in the streets." Life is a journey... | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Do you think the owner of this site would keep it running if it wasn't making money? Can money disturb swinging?" Disturb? Did you read your opening post? | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia
We can thruple? Polyamory?
We don't want anyone to be left out
We'd love to join... IF we're allowed that is
Her x
See we're starting an orgy... and this is why Fab is just dandy as it is!
More the merrier! "Room for one more? | |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them. I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? Quick search and got this quote: 'Organized “wife swapping” was started in the 1940s on U.S. Air Force bases by fighter pilots and their wives. Researchers found it was “a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look after the widows."' Also 'swinging' is more an American term, 'Wife Swapping' is more British but an official term is 'polyamorous sexual activity'. Other terms include 'group sex', 'The Lifestyle' or 'mate swapping'. Thanks for the pointer...I think I will do some research." 'The Lifestyle' by Terry Gould. | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you?"So maybe a site name change? 'Sexual experimentationists' | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser." So no threesomes then? If a single isn't classed a swinger as they don't have a partner, is a lesbian not a lesbian if they don't have a female partner? And a man not gay if he's not got a male partner? Whats your definition of a swinger OP? Why should it be couples only? | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia
We can thruple? Polyamory?
We don't want anyone to be left out
We'd love to join... IF we're allowed that is
Her x
ALLL THE YES
my favourites all in one place Px "Phew... There was us thinking we wasn't allowed 
We're on board!! 
Her x | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia
We can thruple? Polyamory?
We don't want anyone to be left out
We'd love to join... IF we're allowed that is
Her x
See we're starting an orgy... and this is why Fab is just dandy as it is!
More the merrier! "Exactly! No need to change it 
Her x | |||
| |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them. I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? Quick search and got this quote: 'Organized “wife swapping” was started in the 1940s on U.S. Air Force bases by fighter pilots and their wives. Researchers found it was “a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look after the widows."' Also 'swinging' is more an American term, 'Wife Swapping' is more British but an official term is 'polyamorous sexual activity'. Other terms include 'group sex', 'The Lifestyle' or 'mate swapping'. Thanks for the pointer...I think I will do some research. 'The Lifestyle' by Terry Gould." Cheers. | |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them. I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? Quick search and got this quote: 'Organized “wife swapping” was started in the 1940s on U.S. Air Force bases by fighter pilots and their wives. Researchers found it was “a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look after the widows."' Also 'swinging' is more an American term, 'Wife Swapping' is more British but an official term is 'polyamorous sexual activity'. Other terms include 'group sex', 'The Lifestyle' or 'mate swapping'. Thanks for the pointer...I think I will do some research. 'The Lifestyle' by Terry Gould." I think I did look for a literary book or two when we started this hobby and frankly they all looked a bit... Rubbish. We do need a definitive proper social history book written by a Dworkin or a Dawkins. | |||
"Like in yesterday's thread I shall be manning the coffee station ... other beverages are available .
Large black coffee please "Make that two please | |||
"Like any past-time it mutates over time and becomes something different. Some cling to the 'older' ways because it was better back then. Others embrace the change. But like anything it's how the individuals define it for themselves not someone else defining it for them. I wonder if there are any books out there on the subject of swinging...it's history? Quick search and got this quote: 'Organized “wife swapping” was started in the 1940s on U.S. Air Force bases by fighter pilots and their wives. Researchers found it was “a kind of tribal bonding ritual, with a tacit understanding that the two thirds of husbands who survived would look after the widows."' Also 'swinging' is more an American term, 'Wife Swapping' is more British but an official term is 'polyamorous sexual activity'. Other terms include 'group sex', 'The Lifestyle' or 'mate swapping'. Thanks for the pointer...I think I will do some research. 'The Lifestyle' by Terry Gould. I think I did look for a literary book or two when we started this hobby and frankly they all looked a bit... Rubbish. We do need a definitive proper social history book written by a Dworkin or a Dawkins. " As someone else said in the thread group sex has probably always happened. It's gained a 'media label' and 'definition' in the 20th Century. | |||
"Like in yesterday's thread I shall be manning the coffee station ... other beverages are available .
Large black coffee please
Make that two please "I'll slip in a couple of Biscoff with those | |||
"Like in yesterday's thread I shall be manning the coffee station ... other beverages are available .
Large black coffee please
Make that two please "We can't be here as singles though but there's room in my bed... | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
"Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title? | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?"“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? "That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth. | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia
We can thruple? Polyamory?
We don't want anyone to be left out
We'd love to join... IF we're allowed that is
Her x
ALLL THE YES
my favourites all in one place Px
Phew... There was us thinking we wasn't allowed
We're on board!!
Her x"Choo choo! All aboard the orgy train!  | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth."...and would suit your own description of the site. | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth....and would suit your own description of the site."If people come on here looking for sexual experiences and experimentation then even the language is clear...all that is left is to find the shoe that fits? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great " Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth."It has a truth to you because that is how you choose to view the lifestyle, however this is not true of everyone I am sure. Think of the word “community”, it can either be self defined (I.e. I am a member of this community) defined by association (this person is a member of x community because they actively participate) or defined by a physical trait or belief preference (the Christian community, the black community, the white community). Now which definition is true? For example I live in a rural area. Am I part of the rural community? I would say not, do I associate, socially with the rural community, occasionally, would a journalist, interviewing me about something affecting the village where I live lazily describe me as a “member of the rural community” quite probably, yes. In this instance you are the journalist, you are prescribing a trait you see onto people you know very little about and defining them based on something you are comfortable with. | |||
"You'd be out then? " | |||
| |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth.
It has a truth to you because that is how you choose to view the lifestyle, however this is not true of everyone I am sure.
Think of the word “community”, it can either be self defined (I.e. I am a member of this community) defined by association (this person is a member of x community because they actively participate) or defined by a physical trait or belief preference (the Christian community, the black community, the white community).
Now which definition is true?
For example I live in a rural area. Am I part of the rural community? I would say not, do I associate, socially with the rural community, occasionally, would a journalist, interviewing me about something affecting the village where I live lazily describe me as a “member of the rural community” quite probably, yes.
In this instance you are the journalist, you are prescribing a trait you see onto people you know very little about and defining them based on something you are comfortable with. "So you would say it is best for all people here to view themselves as part of a community? | |||
"Nah, this is a silly opinion. Happy to have a pint with anyone but don't invite everyone home. But some we do. This is swinging. And also just being generally respectful. M" Nice to see how you view it. I respect your opinion. | |||
| |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth.
It has a truth to you because that is how you choose to view the lifestyle, however this is not true of everyone I am sure.
Think of the word “community”, it can either be self defined (I.e. I am a member of this community) defined by association (this person is a member of x community because they actively participate) or defined by a physical trait or belief preference (the Christian community, the black community, the white community).
Now which definition is true?
For example I live in a rural area. Am I part of the rural community? I would say not, do I associate, socially with the rural community, occasionally, would a journalist, interviewing me about something affecting the village where I live lazily describe me as a “member of the rural community” quite probably, yes.
In this instance you are the journalist, you are prescribing a trait you see onto people you know very little about and defining them based on something you are comfortable with. So you would say it is best for all people here to view themselves as part of a community?"No. I would say that it is the right of people on here to define “swinging” (the community element was an analogy). Effectively, and this may sound rude OP, but I don’t mean it to; it is not up to you to define me, and my behaviours that is and will always be, my right alone | |||
"A lot of people just dont understand swinging, i blame that mr gray guy for most of it. The person who wrote that certainly doesn't understand the lifestyle or bdsm. We now have a lot of pseudo swingers jumping on the band wagon. Haha ill bet ripped for this opinion....dont worry, ill bet my coat. " All opinions are welcome. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth.
It has a truth to you because that is how you choose to view the lifestyle, however this is not true of everyone I am sure.
Think of the word “community”, it can either be self defined (I.e. I am a member of this community) defined by association (this person is a member of x community because they actively participate) or defined by a physical trait or belief preference (the Christian community, the black community, the white community).
Now which definition is true?
For example I live in a rural area. Am I part of the rural community? I would say not, do I associate, socially with the rural community, occasionally, would a journalist, interviewing me about something affecting the village where I live lazily describe me as a “member of the rural community” quite probably, yes.
In this instance you are the journalist, you are prescribing a trait you see onto people you know very little about and defining them based on something you are comfortable with. So you would say it is best for all people here to view themselves as part of a community?
No. I would say that it is the right of people on here to define “swinging” (the community element was an analogy). Effectively, and this may sound rude OP, but I don’t mean it to; it is not up to you to define me, and my behaviours that is and will always be, my right alone"Not about defining you...I was responding to your analogy sincerely. | |||
"It's interesting people's different views and opinions of this. The need of some to define swinging and that certain people should or shouldn't be allowed to use this site and or the term. "that's not swinging... Youre not a swinger... Therefore you shouldn't be..." and so on. Swinging isn't fab and fab isn't swinging... Its just a socialising site for over 18s with notionally shared or similar interests. I'm not sure I see the need for complicating it any further by erecting more barriers. " Maybe such comments as yours are the best voices for this place. | |||
| |||
"Unless I am meeting people I tend to avoid clubs as a single guy.its expensive fir single men and for often zero result" Not really speaking about clubs specifically but thanks for your comment. | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth.
It has a truth to you because that is how you choose to view the lifestyle, however this is not true of everyone I am sure.
Think of the word “community”, it can either be self defined (I.e. I am a member of this community) defined by association (this person is a member of x community because they actively participate) or defined by a physical trait or belief preference (the Christian community, the black community, the white community).
Now which definition is true?
For example I live in a rural area. Am I part of the rural community? I would say not, do I associate, socially with the rural community, occasionally, would a journalist, interviewing me about something affecting the village where I live lazily describe me as a “member of the rural community” quite probably, yes.
In this instance you are the journalist, you are prescribing a trait you see onto people you know very little about and defining them based on something you are comfortable with. So you would say it is best for all people here to view themselves as part of a community?
No. I would say that it is the right of people on here to define “swinging” (the community element was an analogy). Effectively, and this may sound rude OP, but I don’t mean it to; it is not up to you to define me, and my behaviours that is and will always be, my right alone Not about defining you...I was responding to your analogy sincerely.". But you are trying to define me and others that use the site by saying “you’re not swingers you’re something else”. Imagine a very frank and open conversation with someone who is unaware you are a member of this site “I am a free and liberal experimenter in sexual activities and debate, my appetites change as do my desires and needs. I am not constrained by societies view of normal sexual behaviour and I seek out others of a similar mind” “What now?” “What I am saying is that, I do not conform to societies usual comfort with sexual relationships” “Erm” “I’m a swinger” “Oh right, got it” If you want, you can start a website called “sexual experimentation hub” But I doubt you would have many sign up. | |||
"Unless I am meeting people I tend to avoid clubs as a single guy.its expensive fir single men and for often zero result Not really speaking about clubs specifically but thanks for your comment." My personal experience is that clubs are a great way too meet people and very atmospheric! | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that." But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. | |||
"Unless I am meeting people I tend to avoid clubs as a single guy.its expensive fir single men and for often zero result Not really speaking about clubs specifically but thanks for your comment. My personal experience is that clubs are a great way too meet people and very atmospheric!" ..to | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser. Is this a reverse psychology thing OP? No genuine opinion. It would cut away many issues. Making it a singles only enterprise would also solve many other issues. If you exclude all people, then the issues would be eradicated completely... Let the singles set up their own things preferably too (in an ideal world)" Maybe... I've been on all the usual dating sites and I always come back to Fabs. Not because I am a swinger, but I just love the site in general, and it has led me to meeting some great guys. I am not a verification collector, nor am I into swapping or group sex. But Fab allows me to join, as a horny slightly kinky single, and I enjoy a lot of what the site has to offer | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. " Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site!" So, just on websites like this? | |||
"Is there a badge. ID card or certificate? Will they get letters after their name? OP. I have thought about what would limit the negative experiences that people have through sites like fab and the most obvious answer (in terms of fab) was to limit single male profiles from messaging couples or single woman until they had been winked or messaged. However this would impact the revenue of fab, which would have a negative effect on fab for all users and make fab (as a business) probably unsustainable. It will also put pressure on couples and single woman and have the opposite to the desired affect, imagine they did make the first move, but at some point during the opening conversations changed their mind, many men (not all men) would take this badly and then the abuse would start. I think sometimes when we use the forums or read an angst ridden status, we can have the impression that fab is a minefield of disappointment and anger. But that really isn’t true, the vast majority of fab users are quietly and happily using the site with no complaints at all, they have learned to use the filters, manage their expectations and are having a really good time. Be they single or a couple. To say that only couples can exist formally in this lifestyle is a little silly. This isn’t “illswapyoumywifeforyours.com”. Even “swinging”,or the notion of it, is silly now. Fab and sites like it, are really just adult spaces for people that have a liberal attitude to sex and relationships, and enables them, should they choose to, seek one or more partners to discuss and enact these liberal attitudes I think the suggestion of a wink is a great one. I also understand the comment about the business side of things. The rest I will internalize in a while. Don’t forget the lube So your first points are to be disregarded then? I have nothing to learn from you? So maybe a site name change?
'Sexual experimentationists'
Or better thought of as "sexual experiences and experimention" within a framework? So maybe swinging is a bit of a defunct title?
“Swinging” is synonymous with “liberal attitude to sexual activity”, why complicate it? That definition isn't enough I think my definition has more of a ring of truth.
It has a truth to you because that is how you choose to view the lifestyle, however this is not true of everyone I am sure.
Think of the word “community”, it can either be self defined (I.e. I am a member of this community) defined by association (this person is a member of x community because they actively participate) or defined by a physical trait or belief preference (the Christian community, the black community, the white community).
Now which definition is true?
For example I live in a rural area. Am I part of the rural community? I would say not, do I associate, socially with the rural community, occasionally, would a journalist, interviewing me about something affecting the village where I live lazily describe me as a “member of the rural community” quite probably, yes.
In this instance you are the journalist, you are prescribing a trait you see onto people you know very little about and defining them based on something you are comfortable with. So you would say it is best for all people here to view themselves as part of a community?
No. I would say that it is the right of people on here to define “swinging” (the community element was an analogy). Effectively, and this may sound rude OP, but I don’t mean it to; it is not up to you to define me, and my behaviours that is and will always be, my right alone Not about defining you...I was responding to your analogy sincerely..
But you are trying to define me and others that use the site by saying “you’re not swingers you’re something else”.
Imagine a very frank and open conversation with someone who is unaware you are a member of this site
“I am a free and liberal experimenter in sexual activities and debate, my appetites change as do my desires and needs. I am not constrained by societies view of normal sexual behaviour and I seek out others of a similar mind”
“What now?”
“What I am saying is that, I do not conform to societies usual comfort with sexual relationships”
“Erm”
“I’m a swinger”
“Oh right, got it”
If you want, you can start a website called “sexual experimentation hub”
But I doubt you would have many sign up.
"A sexual experiences and experimental site for all non couples. Then we can have a sexuality breakdown so all could run in particular lanes. All crossover activity would be done in ones own time or elsewhere. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this." So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? | |||
". A sexual experiences and experimental site for all non couples. Then we can have a sexuality breakdown so all could run in particular lanes. All crossover activity would be done in ones own time or elsewhere." OP why do feel the need (on behalf of all of us) to impose a rigid structure and set of rules and in your own word “formalise” membership of this lifestyle? By its very nature this lifestyle is informal. I cannot see a benefit to the structure you have defined, it narrows the mind rather than opens it. In what the greater part of society would view as an open-minded activity. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? " It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined." ...their | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined." Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? | |||
" It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined." So you want to keep people separate and put them in boxes? What happened to equality? Give up OP | |||
". A sexual experiences and experimental site for all non couples. Then we can have a sexuality breakdown so all could run in particular lanes. All crossover activity would be done in ones own time or elsewhere. OP why do feel the need (on behalf of all of us) to impose a rigid structure and set of rules and in your own word “formalise” membership of this lifestyle? By its very nature this lifestyle is informal. I cannot see a benefit to the structure you have defined, it narrows the mind rather than opens it. In what the greater part of society would view as an open-minded activity. " There can be no limitation on activity nor would I seek to 'impose one' I would just set boundaries to participation on mine...people would be free to do as they chose elsewhere. So I would be catering 'exclusively' yes. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? " That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? | |||
" It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. So you want to keep people separate and put them in boxes? What happened to equality? Give up OP "Equality may not be similarity. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? " Helps prevent chaos. | |||
| |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser." That's nice that you think that.. Perhaps set up as a consultancy for the club's etc.. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos." That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle | |||
| |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined." A business plug without the plug then? Leave the couples here and everyone else should line your pocket instead. | |||
| |||
"Like in yesterday's thread I shall be manning the coffee station ... other beverages are available .
Large black coffee please "White 2 sugars plz | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos. That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle " Not the lifestyle..I do not think it is chaotic of itself. I'm more thinking strictly in the realm of couples (as I stated) having their defined exclusive thing. Others are free to do whatever they want. If couples decide they want more they seek it elsewhere. That's it in simplicity well run it would be a chaos restrictor. Now there would be some here that find things unchaotic and others that would. That's all. If the discussion has widened out about other types of behaviour I would prefer it if they were run in similar ways. That may reduce things practically but nothing can actually stop people experimenting and nothing on here states that I want to stop that. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. A business plug without the plug then? Leave the couples here and everyone else should line your pocket instead." I don't 'swing' for money. | |||
"Some of us quite like a bit of chaos! And the fact is that this site allows you to chat and interact with a huge variety of people and opens yours eyes to experiences you may not have known you wanted if you just 'stayed in your lane' "Imagination is always free to roam and often manifests itself into reality. So we have fab. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. A business plug without the plug then? Leave the couples here and everyone else should line your pocket instead. I don't 'swing' for money." I wouldn't set up a site for monies sake that's what I mean. I am also not making any accusations elsewhere about that! | |||
"Ok i like threesomes as an example. It is less chaos to meet a couple and actual ‘proper’ couple than it is to find another bi female and a single man. That couple already know what they want and have a time frame etc. Co-ordinating things between separate people is chaotic foe me. That is just my opinion. I wouldnt enforce this on others. Feels a bit mad youre trying to do the same OP. " I understand your situation and see the profit for you that things are a certain way. | |||
"Some of us quite like a bit of chaos! And the fact is that this site allows you to chat and interact with a huge variety of people and opens yours eyes to experiences you may not have known you wanted if you just 'stayed in your lane' "I agree here. I like the chaotic nature of the site. But that is how I use it and see it. The filters are for organising your profile for what you aren't or are interested in. So a couple only looking for MF couples can filter out single men and only have 'couples (male/female)' selected. I'd rather have the broad range with filters to narrow it. | |||
| |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos. That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle Not the lifestyle..I do not think it is chaotic of itself. I'm more thinking strictly in the realm of couples (as I stated) having their defined exclusive thing. Others are free to do whatever they want. If couples decide they want more they seek it elsewhere. That's it in simplicity well run it would be a chaos restrictor. Now there would be some here that find things unchaotic and others that would. That's all. If the discussion has widened out about other types of behaviour I would prefer it if they were run in similar ways. That may reduce things practically but nothing can actually stop people experimenting and nothing on here states that I want to stop that. " But couples can prevent the “chaos”. They just block singles and seek couples. Do couples not join fab because of the singles on here? I doubt it, but if that is the case I know of at least two alternative sites that are exclusively for couples (for your reference they are both dying on their arse). Segregation (which is what you are proposing) based on relationship status would seem counter productive. This site has profile management tools, those that do not want “chaos” use them, those that do, don’t. Everybody wins. In your scenario you are the only winner, which suggests to me that your desire for a rigid, structure approach to this lifestyle has something to do with the way this site doesn’t work for you. I may of course be wrong. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this." Ah, so you're looking to open your own website that is couples only. Let us know how you get on. | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. Ah, so you're looking to open your own website that is couples only. Let us know how you get on. " Is that a challenge...? | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. Ah, so you're looking to open your own website that is couples only. Let us know how you get on. Is that a challenge...?" As for couple dynamics there would be plenty of room for them to express their desires with other couples. I'm sure their inventive enough. Also those couples who want to play with others due to dynamics can seek their 'food' elsewhere. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos. That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle Not the lifestyle..I do not think it is chaotic of itself. I'm more thinking strictly in the realm of couples (as I stated) having their defined exclusive thing. Others are free to do whatever they want. If couples decide they want more they seek it elsewhere. That's it in simplicity well run it would be a chaos restrictor. Now there would be some here that find things unchaotic and others that would. That's all. If the discussion has widened out about other types of behaviour I would prefer it if they were run in similar ways. That may reduce things practically but nothing can actually stop people experimenting and nothing on here states that I want to stop that. But couples can prevent the “chaos”. They just block singles and seek couples. Do couples not join fab because of the singles on here? I doubt it, but if that is the case I know of at least two alternative sites that are exclusively for couples (for your reference they are both dying on their arse). Segregation (which is what you are proposing) based on relationship status would seem counter productive. This site has profile management tools, those that do not want “chaos” use them, those that do, don’t. Everybody wins. In your scenario you are the only winner, which suggests to me that your desire for a rigid, structure approach to this lifestyle has something to do with the way this site doesn’t work for you. I may of course be wrong. " Good points made by you. Especially about filters...should a straight guy have to have not looking for single guys emblazoned across his profile...if the site was not couples oriented? I have had many pleasant experiences through this site so historically it has been useful...no personal grudge. | |||
"Best get my coat and be off then...unless anyone wants to team up "Me me | |||
"Best get my coat and be off then...unless anyone wants to team up
Me me "Let's do it | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos. That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle Not the lifestyle..I do not think it is chaotic of itself. I'm more thinking strictly in the realm of couples (as I stated) having their defined exclusive thing. Others are free to do whatever they want. If couples decide they want more they seek it elsewhere. That's it in simplicity well run it would be a chaos restrictor. Now there would be some here that find things unchaotic and others that would. That's all. If the discussion has widened out about other types of behaviour I would prefer it if they were run in similar ways. That may reduce things practically but nothing can actually stop people experimenting and nothing on here states that I want to stop that. But couples can prevent the “chaos”. They just block singles and seek couples. Do couples not join fab because of the singles on here? I doubt it, but if that is the case I know of at least two alternative sites that are exclusively for couples (for your reference they are both dying on their arse). Segregation (which is what you are proposing) based on relationship status would seem counter productive. This site has profile management tools, those that do not want “chaos” use them, those that do, don’t. Everybody wins. In your scenario you are the only winner, which suggests to me that your desire for a rigid, structure approach to this lifestyle has something to do with the way this site doesn’t work for you. I may of course be wrong. Good points made by you. Especially about filters...should a straight guy have to have not looking for single guys emblazoned across his profile...if the site was not couples oriented? I have had many pleasant experiences through this site so historically it has been useful...no personal grudge. " You can block single guys.... | |||
"Best get my coat and be off then...unless anyone wants to team up
Me me
Let's do it "The question is - what couple to go for - MF, MM or another FF! Such choices to make | |||
"a couples ONLY enterprise. ANY organisation that sets up otherwise is onto a loser." What about people who only wanted threesomes, we would have been stuffed, or not if this was the case | |||
K | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos. That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle Not the lifestyle..I do not think it is chaotic of itself. I'm more thinking strictly in the realm of couples (as I stated) having their defined exclusive thing. Others are free to do whatever they want. If couples decide they want more they seek it elsewhere. That's it in simplicity well run it would be a chaos restrictor. Now there would be some here that find things unchaotic and others that would. That's all. If the discussion has widened out about other types of behaviour I would prefer it if they were run in similar ways. That may reduce things practically but nothing can actually stop people experimenting and nothing on here states that I want to stop that. But couples can prevent the “chaos”. They just block singles and seek couples. Do couples not join fab because of the singles on here? I doubt it, but if that is the case I know of at least two alternative sites that are exclusively for couples (for your reference they are both dying on their arse). Segregation (which is what you are proposing) based on relationship status would seem counter productive. This site has profile management tools, those that do not want “chaos” use them, those that do, don’t. Everybody wins. In your scenario you are the only winner, which suggests to me that your desire for a rigid, structure approach to this lifestyle has something to do with the way this site doesn’t work for you. I may of course be wrong. Good points made by you. Especially about filters...should a straight guy have to have not looking for single guys emblazoned across his profile...if the site was not couples oriented? I have had many pleasant experiences through this site so historically it has been useful...no personal grudge. " Erm. You don’t have to have “not looking for single guys” on your profile. You just go into your account settings and block them from messaging you. They can’t wink at you, they don’t appear in you “whose looked at me” page. They can fab your pictures, but you can block fabs so..... I don’t get what your issue is here? | |||
"We are the voice of the couples...the most powerful voice in the land of FAB, according to the OP! Therefore you must listen...we want singles to stay but you have to get agreement from us that you are worthy of avoiding the cull. To be worthy you have to be willing to meet us when we want you to...you’ll have a 2 hour window to impress us. Thank you
K "Do I get time to bake the cake and buy the gin before that 2 hour window or does it all have to be included | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos. That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle Not the lifestyle..I do not think it is chaotic of itself. I'm more thinking strictly in the realm of couples (as I stated) having their defined exclusive thing. Others are free to do whatever they want. If couples decide they want more they seek it elsewhere. That's it in simplicity well run it would be a chaos restrictor. Now there would be some here that find things unchaotic and others that would. That's all. If the discussion has widened out about other types of behaviour I would prefer it if they were run in similar ways. That may reduce things practically but nothing can actually stop people experimenting and nothing on here states that I want to stop that. But couples can prevent the “chaos”. They just block singles and seek couples. Do couples not join fab because of the singles on here? I doubt it, but if that is the case I know of at least two alternative sites that are exclusively for couples (for your reference they are both dying on their arse). Segregation (which is what you are proposing) based on relationship status would seem counter productive. This site has profile management tools, those that do not want “chaos” use them, those that do, don’t. Everybody wins. In your scenario you are the only winner, which suggests to me that your desire for a rigid, structure approach to this lifestyle has something to do with the way this site doesn’t work for you. I may of course be wrong. Good points made by you. Especially about filters...should a straight guy have to have not looking for single guys emblazoned across his profile...if the site was not couples oriented? I have had many pleasant experiences through this site so historically it has been useful...no personal grudge. Erm. You don’t have to have “not looking for single guys” on your profile. You just go into your account settings and block them from messaging you. They can’t wink at you, they don’t appear in you “whose looked at me” page. They can fab your pictures, but you can block fabs so..... I don’t get what your issue is here?" If I block single males doesn't (not looking for single guys) appear on my profile? I'm not looking (laugh) for any guys. It was on the last one when I (laugh) blocked their asses. This is not to be made into a major issue. | |||
"what?
We’re out, shall we go and play together instead ?
Mwahaha he said couples only right?
Well, he didn't say FF couples weren't included. Therefore we can still live our swinging lifestyle together.
Praise Jesus
Alleluia
We can thruple? Polyamory?
We don't want anyone to be left out "For you, yes | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos. That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle Not the lifestyle..I do not think it is chaotic of itself. I'm more thinking strictly in the realm of couples (as I stated) having their defined exclusive thing. Others are free to do whatever they want. If couples decide they want more they seek it elsewhere. That's it in simplicity well run it would be a chaos restrictor. Now there would be some here that find things unchaotic and others that would. That's all. If the discussion has widened out about other types of behaviour I would prefer it if they were run in similar ways. That may reduce things practically but nothing can actually stop people experimenting and nothing on here states that I want to stop that. But couples can prevent the “chaos”. They just block singles and seek couples. Do couples not join fab because of the singles on here? I doubt it, but if that is the case I know of at least two alternative sites that are exclusively for couples (for your reference they are both dying on their arse). Segregation (which is what you are proposing) based on relationship status would seem counter productive. This site has profile management tools, those that do not want “chaos” use them, those that do, don’t. Everybody wins. In your scenario you are the only winner, which suggests to me that your desire for a rigid, structure approach to this lifestyle has something to do with the way this site doesn’t work for you. I may of course be wrong. Good points made by you. Especially about filters...should a straight guy have to have not looking for single guys emblazoned across his profile...if the site was not couples oriented? I have had many pleasant experiences through this site so historically it has been useful...no personal grudge. Erm. You don’t have to have “not looking for single guys” on your profile. You just go into your account settings and block them from messaging you. They can’t wink at you, they don’t appear in you “whose looked at me” page. They can fab your pictures, but you can block fabs so..... I don’t get what your issue is here? If I block single males doesn't (not looking for single guys) appear on my profile? I'm not looking (laugh) for any guys. It was on the last one when I (laugh) blocked their asses. This is not to be made into a major issue." Yes it does, so that bisexual guys and gay guys know that they probably shouldn’t contact you, it’s a “signpost” If you click not looking for M/M couples it will say that too. I think I’m going to leave this here because I am genuinely confused as to why you have the opinion you have (other than to “prevent chaos”). You do you chap . Good luck with the new couples site | |||
"We are the voice of the couples...the most powerful voice in the land of FAB, according to the OP! Therefore you must listen...we want singles to stay but you have to get agreement from us that you are worthy of avoiding the cull. To be worthy you have to be willing to meet us when we want you to...you’ll have a 2 hour window to impress us. Thank you
K
Do I get time to bake the cake and buy the gin before that 2 hour window or does it all have to be included "Buying gin and bringing cake - you are in! Take a wristband...you are allowed the freedom of Fabland... God that power felt good... | |||
" I think I’m going to leave this here because I am genuinely confused as to why you have the opinion you have (other than to “prevent chaos”). You do you chap . Good luck with the new couples site "Reading between the lines i think thats why (possibly) the OP has the opinion he has, if people were separated, couples only site, singles only site, bi ladies only site, bi men only site etc then there would be less ‘cross over’ less need to state what you're not looking for or be ‘harassed’ by someone you're not looking for. I could be reaching but thats my interpretation. | |||
" I think I’m going to leave this here because I am genuinely confused as to why you have the opinion you have (other than to “prevent chaos”). You do you chap . Good luck with the new couples site
Reading between the lines i think thats why (possibly) the OP has the opinion he has, if people were separated, couples only site, singles only site, bi ladies only site, bi men only site etc then there would be less ‘cross over’ less need to state what you're not looking for or be ‘harassed’ by someone you're not looking for. I could be reaching but thats my interpretation. "If that’s the case I find it strange, I’ve never felt harassed but then I use filters. As for having “not looking for......” on my profile, if that’s all I have to worry about, then life is peachy | |||
" I think I’m going to leave this here because I am genuinely confused as to why you have the opinion you have (other than to “prevent chaos”). You do you chap . Good luck with the new couples site
Reading between the lines i think thats why (possibly) the OP has the opinion he has, if people were separated, couples only site, singles only site, bi ladies only site, bi men only site etc then there would be less ‘cross over’ less need to state what you're not looking for or be ‘harassed’ by someone you're not looking for. I could be reaching but thats my interpretation. "But what if you want a bit of everything?? Do you have to be a member on every single site to be able to look? I barely manage with he one | |||
"Threeseomes are banned. Separate meets are banned. It must ALL be done as a couple with another couple no matter your individual couple dynamics. Sounds great Too radical...nothing is banned just sought in other ways 'in my world' but others have mentioned here why this way works for them and I understand that. But you said this site, and others like it, should be couples only. Yes...in my ideal world but I never tried to limit their access to other involvements off a site! So, just on websites like this? No on my website like this. So im ‘your world’ fab swingers would be couples only and another sex experimentation site would have singles, bi singles, tv/ts? It could be any particular site (let's not limit it to fab) Couples should have there own thing and on and on and on...if things were narrowed down (not business optional in some cases) things may be slightly more streamlined. Ok why? Why do you feel this would be a good idea? What would be the benefits? Would there be pitfalls? That is the question is it not. I respect the OPs opinion, though I may not agree with it, I have read how he feels it should look, it’s structure. But what I am not getting is why he feels it should be this way. So OP (sorry for putting you on the spot). Why does it need your rigid structure and definition, this life we call fab? Helps prevent chaos. That’s not an answer worthy of you. It’s too easy. There is no chaos. Or none that I am experiencing. So again I will ask why or ask you to elaborate on what you think is chaotic about this lifestyle Not the lifestyle..I do not think it is chaotic of itself. I'm more thinking strictly in the realm of couples (as I stated) having their defined exclusive thing. Others are free to do whatever they want. If couples decide they want more they seek it elsewhere. That's it in simplicity well run it would be a chaos restrictor. Now there would be some here that find things unchaotic and others that would. That's all. If the discussion has widened out about other types of behaviour I would prefer it if they were run in similar ways. That may reduce things practically but nothing can actually stop people experimenting and nothing on here states that I want to stop that. But couples can prevent the “chaos”. They just block singles and seek couples. Do couples not join fab because of the singles on here? I doubt it, but if that is the case I know of at least two alternative sites that are exclusively for couples (for your reference they are both dying on their arse). Segregation (which is what you are proposing) based on relationship status would seem counter productive. This site has profile management tools, those that do not want “chaos” use them, those that do, don’t. Everybody wins. In your scenario you are the only winner, which suggests to me that your desire for a rigid, structure approach to this lifestyle has something to do with the way this site doesn’t work for you. I may of course be wrong. Good points made by you. Especially about filters...should a straight guy have to have not looking for single guys emblazoned across his profile...if the site was not couples oriented? I have had many pleasant experiences through this site so historically it has been useful...no personal grudge. " Is all this just because you don't like men contacting you, or fabbing your photos, or have you been a victim of catfish profiles? | |||
