Pet Peeves in Swinger Personal Ads

People post on their profile what they prefer and they infer their bigotry or intolerance of types of people and sex acts that they want and do not want to do. But those change. I am older and my old bigotry about playing with people who have older fatter bodies has changed. I see the folly of my old idea around that and now accept people I would not have before.

We too have experienced this transition during our time in the LS. While we both never fit the hardbody mold, there was a time when we were both younger, thinner and more choosier. In the beginning, I admit I tried to steer the "acquisition" towards the more looks-oriented, "ideal" crowd, but a funny thing happened as time went on. It was those couples who might normally be passed by the pretty-people and HWP conditional crowd, we found the most fun to be with. Granted the more cynical would say we were simply desperate or just connecting with people like ourselves, but I think of it as a maturing of our views and achieving the real goal of the LS. Looking back, we can see how many fun times we would have missed out on (and women that rocked my world) had we been so superficial as to judge the overall person based on extra pounds, stretch marks, etc., which we were no stranger to ourselves, especially the older we got. I realized it would have been hypocritically to expect more from others than we ourselves could offer and people would see us as just wanting to "upgrade".

I believe this is the natural progression for most in the LS the longer one is in it. What's young and buff today will be eventually slapped full-on with the hand of reality. I've been on both sides of the fit/things are starting to go to pot balance and still have a foothold on both sides, so I know the reality and to deny it with the "never will happen to me" mentality is delusion. Aging, health issues, family or work situation, even genetics finally kicking in is all it will take to start the hard-gains unraveling. Are there exceptions...of course. But for the majority, I don't believe so. This is of course not to say that one can't work harder and even overcome life's roll of the die, either partially or even totally. It's not an issue of defeatism or lack of dedication, just acceptance of likely inevitability.

This is what I see when I see profiles with conditionals like "HWP and you must be too". It says they are where we used to be and reality (and a certain LS maturity) has not yet smacked them in the kisser and by limiting themselves to strict clauses they might be passing by what could be some of the best play times and friendships. After all, in a room full of "perfect" people how can anyone play, when everyone else will never live up to their own standards. Unless the whole cloning thing takes off, they will never find any one else as good as them. One can see this unfolding nightly in a growing portion of the clubs today.

81lizard, mauijane, and Fours, thank you for the responses. I can see now that I was viewing the comment from another angle while there was another that I wasn't thinking about. Now I really am convinced that I don't have the intellectual capacity for this discussion.

81lizard, mauijane, and Fours, thank you for the responses. I can see now that I was viewing the comment from another angle while there was another that I wasn't thinking about. Now I really am convinced that I don't have the intellectual capacity for this discussion.

First off I don't think anyone whose followed your posts here would ever question your intellectual capacity, which is as sharp as the well though out arguments behind it...and I have to really work on this desperate attempt at flirting issue .

But perhaps you should be careful how you word things, since some posters here might lack the ability to perceive tongue-in-cheek answers or sarcasm and wind up derailing a whole thread because of it. That wasn't an example...no really....

I thought about this for awhile, trying to tease out exactly where exactly it didn't work. What I've come up with (and maybe this whole side conversation deserves its own thread) is that distinguishing between a preference and bigotry isn't a matter of intellectual capacity. Instead, it's a matter of what you think you are communicating not necessarily being understood in the same way. That's not a failure on the part of the listener, by the way. We all make assumptions as to meaning and if you don't want assumptions made that you don't intend, you really need to be very precise in your communication, in a way that acknowledges all the ways people can misunderstand you and addresses them in some way.

 

In this instance, a phrase like, "We're HWP and you should be too," is going to communicate that "we don't play with fatties" to many people, including smart ones. It's also going to eliminate people like sunbuckus, who will look at her perceived figure flaws and know that you wouldn't be interested in her. As well, it eliminates people like us, whose internal motto is laissez les bons temps rouler and who respond to those sorts of rules impositions with a big ole nuh uh

 

I'm guessing that Mr. and Mrs. Chicup's profile does not state anywhere that Mrs. C. is uninterested in black men, precisely because there is no way to do so without conveying all sorts of things they don't wish others to assume. Instead, I'm guessing they probably do what the rest of us with a preference do when approached by someone who doesn't meet their preferences: Thank them for their interest and say they don't feel they would be a good match.

A woman who says that she is attracted to men of a certain age, hair color/style, body type, manner of dress, manner of personal conduct, etc. is expressing her preferences.

A woman who says that she would never sleep with ______________ (fill in the blank with whatever rude epithet comes to mind) is expressing her bigotries.

The majority of people reading this thread understand the two statements communicate entirely different intentions and sentiments. I'm pretty sure that includes you, too.

Hmmm, well, I never know what people think they're saying, only how I'm hearing it. I'll show you what I mean with this, where AndrewandAnn said this:

 

 

 

I hear this: We have "We are HWP and you should be too" on our profile and, contrary to your belief that we mean something so rude as that we don't play with fatties, we actually mean that we only want fit, non-fat people as playmates. You should know - because nothing in your experience of us says that we're bigots - that it's merely a strong personal preference. But you're clearly not smart enough to figure that out.

 

Mind, I know that what I hear may not be even close to the intended meaning, but I also know that I'm not going to complicate my life trying to puzzle out what everyone really, truly means. Instead, I'm just going to quickly take it in, process what it means to me and either respond or not. Or I'm going to decide that I have no idea what's being said and move on, because I'm too lazy to pursue the intended meaning.

In any society, ordinary communication among adults occurs at level where a person with an average IQ can be understood by another person with an average IQ. Ordinary communication is not aimed at the very brightest or the very dimmest as this would prove to be tedious, inefficient and unnecessary as the people on the far fringes of the bell curve represent, by definition, a minority of the population.

Ann and I wrote our profile in such a way as to be clearly understood by the majority of people who read it. We don't bother ourselves trying to cater to the tiny minority who do not.

The bonus being that any reader who perverts our innocuous expression of the body types to which we are attracted (i.e, HWP) into a mean-spirited attack on the obese (i.e., we don't fuck fatties), is not someone with whom we would care to have any contact, anyway, nor they with us.

It's a win-win ;-)

But you don't fuck fatties

A woman who expresses that she is attracted to men of a certain age, hair color/style, body type, manner of dress, manner of personal conduct, etc. is expressing her preferences.

 

A woman who says that she would never sleep with ______________ (fill in the blank with whatever rude epithet comes to mind) is expressing her bigotries.

 

The majority of people reading this thread understand the two statements communicate entirely different intentions and sentiments. I'm pretty sure that includes you, too.

In any society, ordinary communication among adults occurs at level where a person with an average IQ can be understood by another person with an average IQ. Ordinary communication is not aimed at the very brightest or the very dimmest as this would prove to be tedious, inefficient and unnecessary as the people on the far fringes of the bell curve represent, by definition, a minority of the population.

Both of your posts display the exact same misapprehension, that communication is binary. That you say A and listeners, unless they are deficient, hear A. I wish you were correct, because it would make life orders of magnitude simpler, but what actually happens, even if you're very precise in the way you speak and write (and almost nobody is), is a distortion between the speaker and the listeners. In many cases, this doesn't matter and all parties are close enough that the distortions don't affect the outcome. Sometimes (and anyone who's ever gotten into an argument that seemingly comes out of nowhere knows this), the differences are material and it's a great deal of work to untangle the misunderstandings.

In the above example, you're assuming a shared viewpoint that doesn't actually exist and then presenting it as if - of course! - we all know exactly what is meant with each of the two statements. Unless the reader is stupid. That's just one of the many ways that communication goes awry and why it's just not a good idea to assume that the meaning you assign to something is universal.

To use your example, though, I'm actually never attracted to men from one particular group and so rarely to men from another that it might as well be never. I could phrase it in a way that leaves those two groups out of my preferences or I could say I would never choose a playmate from groups x and y. Both would be true and from my vantage point neither statement would reflect either bigotry or its absence. However, according to you, one would clearly be bigotry and the other would not.

In any society, ordinary communication among adults occurs at level where a person with an average IQ can be understood by another person with an average IQ. Ordinary communication is not aimed at the very brightest or the very dimmest as this would prove to be tedious, inefficient and unnecessary as the people on the far fringes of the bell curve represent, by definition, a minority of the population.

First off perhaps I should say I never thought a weak attempt at witticism could get a thread so far off the rails and for that I feel responsible for inadvertently being misunderstood in my original intention by certain posters here.

Secondly, in response to that continued misunderstanding (as well as them continuing to reinforce my original point), I thought it best to bow out of this thread. However do I feel I just have to re-emphasize an observation and feeling that perhaps was not conveyed properly the first time by metaphor alone so I will attempt ordinary communication seeing how it is tailored for those of average IQ's.

Both of your posts display the exact same misapprehension, that communication is binary. That you say A and listeners, unless they are deficient, hear A. I wish you were correct, because it would make life orders of magnitude simpler, but what actually happens, even if you're very precise in the way you speak and write (and almost nobody is), is a distortion between the speaker and the listeners. In many cases, this doesn't matter and all parties are close enough that the distortions don't affect the outcome. Sometimes (and anyone who's ever gotten into an argument that seemingly comes out of nowhere knows this), the differences are material and it's a great deal of work to untangle the misunderstandings.

 

In the above example, you're assuming a shared viewpoint that doesn't actually exist and then presenting it as if - of course! - we all know exactly what is meant with each of the two statements. Unless the reader is stupid. That's just one of the many ways that communication goes awry and why it's just not a good idea to assume that the meaning you assign to something is universal.

 

To use your example, though, I'm actually never attracted to men from one particular group and so rarely to men from another that it might as well be never. I could phrase it in a way that leaves those two groups out of my preferences or I could say I would never choose a playmate from groups x and y. Both would be true and from my vantage point neither statement would reflect either bigotry or its absence. However, according to you, one would clearly be bigotry and the other would not.

Yes, one is clearly understood BY MOST PEOPLE (caps for emphasis, not "yelling") to be an expression of preference and not bigotry. Most, but not all.

MOST people, for instance, would understand that while I am partial to petite redheads with big breasts, it does not equate to me being bigoted against tall brunettes with small breasts.

Well, we are most prejudiced... we only fuck humans, oh, and some toys.

It's a bit of an oxymoron, but if people are going to send me an e-mail, don't talk about how long and hard your shlong is or what you're going to do with me. Anybody can do that! Tell me something about yourself, I'm more turned on by someone's mind and intelligence. Don't get me wrong, attraction is part of it, but send me some generic "Hey sexy" e-mail and it goes right in the trash.

In Texas back in the late 1980's, "no blacks" was a very common phrase in some regional swingers magazines. Thankfully, we rarely see that anymore.

This reminded me of a recent experience where there were dozens of couples attending an event, and upon reviewing profiles on SLS, a number of us read a profile where this white couple explicitly stated they play within their own race, highlighted and bolded. No problem, however, imagine the surprise when during group play, the wife of the couple came over my way and proceeded to mount me, slide down, and help herself. Needless to say, it continues to be a topic among friends to this day. Quite an interesting experience to say the least.

Baiting profiles! Like the ones that are listed as a single woman that are not. All about her, pics of her, a write up about her and what she likes. Oh, but wait suddenly she only plays with her husband included. The husband that there is no stats, pics or info about. If you actually talk to them you can be sure it will be that guy on the other end. No thanks.

I hate it when a couple doesn't include pics of the guy! If you're looking for another couple, then PLEASE post pics of the guy too! Yeah, I'm sure your wife is lovely, but I'd like to see the guy too. *sigh* so many profiles do this and I can't figure out why. I mean, in theory both of them want to play, right?

I hate it when a couple doesn't include pics of the guy! If you're looking for another couple, then PLEASE post pics of the guy too! Yeah, I'm sure your wife is lovely, but I'd like to see the guy too. *sigh* so many profiles do this and I can't figure out why. I mean, in theory both of them want to play, right?

This is another one of ours! It is like the women are just supposed to do the guy, because he has a hot wife. Good luck with this approach.

We all know that if you are looking to play with a couple, to post a pic of her is the way to entice a man. Women would like o see a pic f him, we want to be enticed also.

We also ingnore ads where the man lists "man is 10000% heterosexual and does not believe in wandering hands". Does not have to be but we see it as a possible problem during play.

Even saw a SDC account where a Dutch man stated "I'm 1,000% hetero". Almost completely homosexual we think, since in the Netherlands a comma indicates the decimal place, it is not a groups of thousands separator.