Pet Peeves in Swinger Personal Ads

[AndrewandAnn 359]

We mentioned this pet peeve of ours in another thread:

 

Ads that assure "absolute discretion!" while simultaneously posting "certifications" of just about everybody in the lifestyle they've ever met!

 

A little disconnect, perhaps?

[AndrewandAnn 359]

Just gave up on reading a profile on SLS. Local couple, may even run into them at a social someday. After getting about halfway through the "What We Are Looking For" heading, I decided to count the number of lines written: 66. I did not bother with even counting into the "Description" section, or beyond. Really????

 

We disagree.

 

The largest sexual organ is the brain.

 

Nothing turns us off faster than short, shallow, thoughtless profiles that say little to nothing about the couple, their interests, etc. We often block these couples out of hand.

 

On the other hand, we find well written, deeper, thoughtful profiles to be far more interesting as they give us some real insight into the couple so we can determine our level of potential compatibility.

[JustAskJulie 2,588]

We disagree.

 

The largest sexual organ is the brain.

 

Nothing turns us off faster than short, shallow, thoughtless profiles that say little to nothing about the couple, their interests, etc. We often block these couples out of hand.

 

On the other hand, we find well written, deeper, thoughtful profiles to be far more interesting as they give us some real insight into the couple so we can determine our level of potential compatibility.

 

I think there needs to be a balance. That said, re-reading divenaked's comment (and I may have said it earlier), I almost asked if it was our profile (but they've met us, so it's not an issue). Ours has gotten very long at times... then we realize that no one wants to read a book and we prune it back. It's probably still long by some people's standards, but we tried to cut out a lot of the extraneous content.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

I think there needs to be a balance. That said, re-reading divenaked's comment (and I may have said it earlier), I almost asked if it was our profile (but they've met us, so it's not an issue). Ours has gotten very long at times... then we realize that no one wants to read a book and we prune it back. It's probably still long by some people's standards, but we tried to cut out a lot of the extraneous content.

 

Right.

 

We are referring to longer profiles that contain relevant information.

 

However, to our way of thinking, there really isn't much that a person writes that isn't relevant in one way or another.

[divenaked 318]

Right.

 

We are referring to longer profiles that contain relevant information.

 

However, to our way of thinking, there really isn't much that a person writes that isn't relevant in one way or another.

 

This was like reading The Silmarilian when expecting Lord of the Rings....

[Sensualbicouple 121]

Personally I would rather read a long written but well versed profile any day than a profile that is one sentence, with "ask me" in almost all of their stats, as well as people who can't seem to string something together more than a daisy chain on a summers day. I like gaining much perspective on a persons profile and sometimes, you can tell what they maybe like, what they value, their experience thus far and what exactly they are looking for. A first impression devoid of an actual face to face meet is your calling card so people should make more effort to state what they want and who they are looking for which is all I would ask for.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

Personally I would rather read a long written but well versed profile any day than a profile that is one sentence, with "ask me" in almost all of their stats, as well as people who can't seem to string something together more than a daisy chain on a summers day. I like gaining much perspective on a persons profile and sometimes, you can tell what they maybe like, what they value, their experience thus far and what exactly they are looking for. A first impression devoid of an actual face to face meet is your calling card so people should make more effort to state what they want and who they are looking for which is all I would ask for.

 

Exactly.

 

Your profile is your First Impression. It's a sorting tool. And it's a time saver. We'd rather spend an extra three minutes reading a longer profile, only to determine that we are NOT a good fit, as opposed to wasting more time exchanging messages and/or emails, only to discover the same.

 

Frankly, time is our most valuable commodity. We have included very detailed information in our profile, both concerning ourselves and what we are looking for in potential playmates, to help narrow the field. It's a process of natural selection. People "turned off" by our longer profile are very likely not compatible with us, anyway.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

This was like reading The Silmarilian when expecting Lord of the Rings....

 

Laugh!

 

Well, it worked, right? You figured out you weren't a good match.

[Chicup 38]

This was like reading The Silmarilian when expecting Lord of the Rings....

 

I've read both, and so many geek points awarded to you for using that analogy.

[divenaked 318]

I've read both, and so many geek points awarded to you for using that analogy.

 

wow.....I never realized I was a geek....

[losAmantes 318]

that's just a sign of the coming times. It wasn't all that long ago that alcohol was illegal, (and still is in many counties here). I'd much rather be in the company of someone high on pot than on alcohol. And I don't remember anytime in my life, seeing a belligerent person due to 420. Would you feel the same way in Colorado or Washington..? Is it the drug, or the law that bothers you... We don't see anyone that smokes cigarettes, but that's just personal choice.. Drink too much.. there's the door. I think 420 is neither wrong, nor bothersome, unlike many of the other available legal vices.

 

Have to agree, there is no comparison, alcohol has a much higher social cost as well as physical cost. For some reason big brother has decided to vilify 420 and submit all federal and transportation employees to testing. If you're an airline pilot and get stupid drunk the day before you fly, that's all cool, smoke a joint a month before you fly and piss hot, you're grounded. Tell me, who would you rather fly with?

[Chicup 38]

wow.....I never realized I was a geek....

Its an honor, be proud.

[Dumuzi 18]

I always find it a bit obnoxious when people write "We are really good looking and in shape so we only play with people who look the same" or some similar statement. I mean, yes, we all have preferences but there are some things that we won't write in a profile because it could be offensive and actually turn-off the very people we are trying to attract.

[AskMeOk 148]

 

Although not a cliche, but equally annoying is when only one part of a "couple" participates in the quest for others. The non-participant then just has veto power with nothing invested, offers nothing...doesn't work for us. It takes four to be two couples!

 

That line is good enough to be IN a profile. Well said!

[funcoupledayton 2,707]

That line is good enough to be IN a profile. Well said!

 

I think it's best to keep negativity out of your profile. I'm not exactly sure what the statement means since usually one person in a couple does the online work or is more outgoing in the initial meeting. But, then it implies that only half of the couple actually plays. It's a confusing, awkward sentence. If I read this in a profile I'd probably feel like the writer was judgmental and would be difficult to talk to since their writing is confusing.

 

I would say, "We like couples where both partners equally enjoy all the aspects of swinging, from the first flirt to the wild play." or as my friends say, "We look for a quality we call 'into it' It's important to us that both of you are into it and into us" These are positive ways to say, "no taking one for the team" and "no dead fish" "don't drag your spouse into this"

 

You could still say it takes 4 to be 2 couples, that line is a bit catchy.

[Fours Company 169]

To us the most overused term in ads no seems to be "HWP" as in "we are Height/Weight Proportionate and you must be too". Why not just put "We don't play with fatties". Granted each person has a preference, but the irony is when you see their pics they are not exactly Charles Atlas & Twiggy themselves. Maybe we're sensitive to such things at our age, but it seems one area of vanilla society standards that have overtaken the LS based upon decades-old outdated charts that don't take into account lean mass vs. actual fat.

Another one seems to be "We are shaved or clean-shaved" and pretty much guarantees we will not be a match if they add "and you must be too". While we don't care what others due with their nether regions and would not refuse to play based upon that, yet they would reject us when the clothes come off just because we choose to resemble sexually mature adults and avoid itchy razor burns most of the time.

[Chicup 38]

The problem with HWP is that it's purely subjective. If you want to be technical and accurate it would be a body fat range, the problem is most people don't know, or think they know from their scales which are grossly inaccurate.

[AskMeOk 148]

We must agree. The older you get the less likely you will be HWP, whatever that means.... Surely, sex is a physical act, and participants can't be hampered in mobility or accessibility..... we get the issues with obesity. However, the position that "physical appearance is what it is all about" is a turn-off for us.

 

Ditto the issues with hair as long as it is trimmed. Thankfully, long gone are the days of licking something that looks like it belongs to a Wookie and hacking up pubic hairs like popcorn chaff in the movies.....

[Chicup 38]

Here is the rub. If you find something like that not to your liking, odds are you won't be what they are looking for either. Being still semi-young still we really like shaved for a few reasons, it's cleaner, it's harder to hide active STD's, and it more pleasant for oral sex. It's what our generation and younger does. Ill be ok with a landing strip, but I don't want the jungle. The last unshaven woman I've had sex with was 1991.

 

The same applies to HWP, while it's far to vague, if it's there and you don't feel you fit their definition move on. My wife and I are pretty fit, but occasionally we run into profiles where they are both extremely fit. If the profile implies that's the body type they want, we move on.

 

Let's not turn pet peeves into sexual preferences.

 

It's a pet peeve of mine when someone does not capitalize in their profile answers. It's a disappointment when a couple we find attractive is obviously not looking for a couple like us.

[Guest]

Ok, we've come across this twice now in our search through profiles. Pictures of your children in your profile pictures. Even though there is no face shots as far as we are concerned they are inappropriate and do not belong. We have come across this twice now.

 

The first was a new couple on one of the sites we use. It is the only profile pic that they have. The second is a couple that contacted us and provided us with their private photo access. One of the pictures was of the male half on his motorcycle with their child on the back (just after a full on vag pic). Again couldn't see the face.

 

Now most of us have kids and lots of people identify it in their profiles but other than that keep your kids out of your profiles.

 

Just our humble opinion.

[two4youinswva 3,067]

If the pictures are on SLS, they will be removed if you report them. They shouldn't have been approved in the first place, but occasionally some like this do slip through.

[PB&J 1,086]

Yes, we had that issue on a now-defunct site here in Ontario. One couple had a picture in their profile of them with their small child, face fully visible. I reported it and it was removed ASAP. Then another couple sent us their key, and their private pic was a formal portrait of them with all their kids. a) I reported it, and b) we never wanted to have anything to do with them. Boundaries, people!

[Guest]

This wasn't on SLS however reported to the site they are on. See what happens

[81lizard69 469]

Or the profile that says we have children and busy lives so playing with us is hard to plan.

 

Why even have a profile up if you are not planing to play anytime soon... By the time you have planned a meet and great then they decide not to play because they cant spring for half a hotel room you have lost a month... argh

[sunbuckus 3,565]

Or the profile that says we have children and busy lives so playing with us is hard to plan.

 

Why even have a profile up if you are not planing to play anytime soon... By the time you have planned a meet and great then they decide not to play because they cant spring for half a hotel room you have lost a month... argh

 

As a young couple who has young children who happen to have this warning on our profile (we state that we have young children that require a sitter so spontaneous meetings are out of the question), yes, meeting couples can be tough and the majority of the time, we head out to parties where we can meet a great number of couples in one night to maximize our swinging time. I will admit, the majority of the time, online messages to meet with us are usually deflected to meeting at a future party. This is partly because of babysitting needs but also for logical reasons...if we don't click with them, there are other couples for us and for them.

[Chicup 38]

 

Let people decide if you are attractive to them, saying it won't make it happen.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

To us the most overused term in ads no seems to be "HWP" as in "we are Height/Weight Proportionate and you must be too". Why not just put "We don't play with fatties". Granted each person has a preference, but the irony is when you see their pics they are not exactly Charles Atlas & Twiggy themselves. Maybe we're sensitive to such things at our age, but it seems one area of vanilla society standards that have overtaken the LS based upon decades-old outdated charts that don't take into account lean mass vs. actual fat.

Another one seems to be "We are shaved or clean-shaved" and pretty much guarantees we will not be a match if they add "and you must be too". While we don't care what others due with their nether regions and would not refuse to play based upon that, yet they would reject us when the clothes come off just because we choose to resemble sexually mature adults and avoid itchy razor burns most of the time.

 

Why don't we don't write, "We don't play with fatties"? Obviously, because saying so is rude and offense. Saying HWP is a harmless way of communicating that we are only interested in people who are not obese.

 

Frankly, if something as benign as "HWP" causes you distress, I think you should consider your own reaction and, more importantly, ask yourself, Why does something so harmless bother you so much?

[81lizard69 469]

Why don't we don't write, "We don't play with fatties"? Obviously, because saying so is rude and offense. Saying HWP is a harmless way of communicating that we are only interested in people who are not obese.

 

Frankly, if something as benign as "HWP" causes you distress, I think you should consider your own reaction and, more importantly, ask yourself, Why does something so harmless bother you so much?

 

 

I really agree with this. Heck.. its the silver tongue saying we would rather not play with you if you are to fat. My wife is small and there is no way she wants to be squished by a 300 pound man or woman. lol.. I really dont mind. But mind you I am over six feet tall and can bench press 300 pounds. A hefty chick would give me a nice work out. lol.. Its her preference not to play with the big ones and I back her up on that.

[mauijanedoe 1,414]

Frankly, if something as benign as "HWP" causes you distress, I think you should consider your own reaction and, more importantly, ask yourself, Why does something so harmless bother you so much?

 

We also rule out profiles that say anything along the lines of "we are HWP and you must be too." It's not that it causes any distress, but it - along with anything that has an explicit or implicit rider that "you must be too" - indicates that we're not going to be a match. It's the checklist approach to choosing acceptable playmates that determines incompatibility, not the thing itself, because it's a habit of mind that will likely get in the way of our enjoyment, so we pass.

[PB&J 1,086]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2638[/ATTACH]

 

Let people decide if you are attractive to them, saying it won't make it happen.

 

An Ontario site we're on actually has, as a category, your attractiveness level. You have to choose between "below average", "average", "above average", "very good looks", and "model material". It amazes me how many people select "very good looks" who should not be doing so, based on their pictures. It actually works very well as a selection criteria for us; we are much more likely to respond positively to someone who describes themselves as "average".

[SW_PA_Couple 4,019]

This requirement to choose might provide a good indication of a person's self image:

 

[Fours Company 169]

Why don't we don't write, "We don't play with fatties"? Obviously, because saying so is rude and offense. Saying HWP is a harmless way of communicating that we are only interested in people who are not obese.

 

Frankly, if something as benign as "HWP" causes you distress, I think you should consider your own reaction and, more importantly, ask yourself, Why does something so harmless bother you so much?

 

First off I should point out my attempt at a suggestion worded in a somewhat tough-in-cheek manner has apparently lost the intended result on a faceless forum that lacks other cues to it's intent. However one must admit by saying "we don't play with fatties" would at least be more honest then using a "harmless" term like HWP which by your own admission is saying the same thing.

 

As far as being something that causes us "distress", I can assure you how one chooses to word or communicate their intentions in their profile is their choice and will not bother us to the point we will drop out of the LS or need therapy or something. I was answering the OP's question and merely dislike the term due to, as already pointed out by mauijanedoe, the implication of using that term does indicate an overall way of thinking that would affect how one views everything else about the other couple on both sides.

 

Seeing how the LS is about finding compatibility there is nothing wrong with stating any superficial exclusions, whether they are based on looks, weight, race, age or social-economic factors (most of which we've been turned down for in the past), just the way the term is used and overused on profiles based upon a problematical formula created 70 years ago by an insurance carrier that does not take into account actual body composition and few people really understand anyway.

 

The other problem with some who use of this term as a condition seems to be that once you see their pictures or by their use of other terms such as "we are not Ken & Barbie" elsewhere in their profile is a clear indication to us they are not really what they themselves are seeking but just hoping to upgrade.

[D&D 362]

I wish that people would put all their real preferences, prejudices, desires, in their profile. That way it would make it much easier to determine who I can deal with! Nothing worse than meeting a couple who has crazy expectations but is afraid of putting that in their profile because they are afraid of scaring somebody off before they meet. If you have a preference that is somewhat of a hard boundary by all means put it in your profile!!!! I don't want to find that out while we are out to dinner or drinks

 

Secondly "HWP" is not the same as saying "fatty"... I can make a preference clear without being offensive about it. Furthermore it's much better to be polite and clear than downright rude.... Not exactly sure what the non HWP want here... do you want me to just lie to you or put something in my profile that is clear on what I want?

 

Lastly I'm not Adonis by any stretch of the imagination.... Lol.

[sunbuckus 3,565]

Regarding the "HWP and you must be too" clause in profiles. When we first started to swing, we saw this on several profiles and decided to follow suit. We aren't extremely overweight, we aren't super fit, we're average but we put it in our profile because we weren't attracted to those who were on the extremely obese side of the scale. However, once we had more and more swing experiences under our belt, our profile changed over time. We haven't had this clause in our profile in a very long time because we don't really rely on our profile to initiate connections with other couples and we have since realized that size is relative and is only one dimension when it comes to attraction.

 

I will say that on the rare occasion that we are perusing profiles, if I see the HWP clause, I will assume that they are super fit and that we are not a match and move on.

[Chicup 38]

Perhaps the way to interpret HWP is "The same as us, or better".

[AndrewandAnn 359]

First off I should point out my attempt at a suggestion worded in a somewhat tough-in-cheek manner has apparently lost the intended result on a faceless forum that lacks other cues to it's intent. However one must admit by saying "we don't play with fatties" would at least be more honest then using a "harmless" term like HWP which by your own admission is saying the same thing.

 

As far as being something that causes us "distress", I can assure you how one chooses to word or communicate their intentions in their profile is their choice and will not bother us to the point we will drop out of the LS or need therapy or something. I was answering the OP's question and merely dislike the term due to, as already pointed out by mauijanedoe, the implication of using that term does indicate an overall way of thinking that would affect how one views everything else about the other couple on both sides.

 

Seeing how the LS is about finding compatibility there is nothing wrong with stating any superficial exclusions, whether they are based on looks, weight, race, age or social-economic factors (most of which we've been turned down for in the past), just the way the term is used and overused on profiles based upon a problematical formula created 70 years ago by an insurance carrier that does not take into account actual body composition and few people really understand anyway.

 

The other problem with some who use of this term as a condition seems to be that once you see their pictures or by their use of other terms such as "we are not Ken & Barbie" elsewhere in their profile is a clear indication to us they are not really what they themselves are seeking but just hoping to upgrade.

 

Communicating one's desires about the physical appearances of potential playmates is hardly superficial. Humans are, by definition, visual creatures (that's why we have these two orbs featured prominently on our faces.) The physical appearances and attributes and relative attractiveness or in-attractiveness of others plays a prominent role in potential sexual selection or de-selection and are entirely germane to a couple's Lifestyle profile.

 

However, if you believe "HWP" and "we don't play with fatties" are equivalent, perhaps a re-examination of your understanding of successful interpersonal communication is in order? The two statements communicate ENTIRELY different thoughts, both about the people making the statement and to the people reading it. And what it says isn't very complimentary.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

I wish that people would put all their real preferences, prejudices, desires, in their profile. That way it would make it much easier to determine who I can deal with! Nothing worse than meeting a couple who has crazy expectations but is afraid of putting that in their profile because they are afraid of scaring somebody off before they meet. If you have a preference that is somewhat of a hard boundary by all means put it in your profile!!!! I don't want to find that out while we are out to dinner or drinks

 

Secondly "HWP" is not the same as saying "fatty"... I can make a preference clear without being offensive about it. Furthermore it's much better to be polite and clear than downright rude.... Not exactly sure what the non HWP want here... do you want me to just lie to you or put something in my profile that is clear on what I want?

 

Lastly I'm not Adonis by any stretch of the imagination.... Lol.

 

Ann and I agree completely.

 

This goes back to another discussion point regarding profiles that are thoughtful and of sufficient length versus those that only contain short, meaningless blurbs.

 

Ann and I have taken some time to carefully write a profile that both accurately depicts what are our expectations regarding potential playmates and what potential playmates can expect from us. To our way of thinking, it is best to accurately and thoroughly communicate all the important stuff right up front. We'd rather respond to a few well-qualified inquiries rather than fifty shots in the dark, and believe most other people would, too.

[Fours Company 169]

However, if you believe "HWP" and "we don't play with fatties" are equivalent, perhaps a re-examination of your understanding of successful interpersonal communication is in order? The two statements communicate ENTIRELY different thoughts, both about the people making the statement and to the people reading it. And what it says isn't very complimentary.

 

Perhaps I should reemphasize again that I was attempting to be facetious in suggesting someone write "we don't play with fatties" on their profile and I agree that it would be in sort of poor taste would anyone actually put that (though again, at least honest).

 

Anyone is free to state their preferences upfront and we respect that, if anything we prefer they do when it comes to the term HWP, because as Sun pointed out, we will at least know they are not a match for us due to assuming they are either hardbodies or really average and just looking to upgrade to hardbodies.

My issue is with the automatic overuse of the term, more than the preference itself and how one might come across using it as a clause as well as most people not really understanding the term and it's flaws.

 

But I posted my answer to the OP, had my intent apparently misunderstood (and apparently continues to be misunderstood), so I'll leave it at that, since to be honest, I'm beginning to feel like Charlie Brown with an extra nickel for Lucy (maybe someone will get that ).

[81lizard69 469]

OK NEW PEEVE REDISCOVERED.

 

Profiles with no relevant info... this couple contacted this week on a sight I am a member and will not re up when the time comes, posted a message to us that they like our profile and would like to meet. Fine I thought so I went to their profile and they had nuthin. Just a pic of what might be his and her genitalia. No age no description other than they were hwp! I sent them off a message that said I would like to play but need more info please. They replied that they do not give out info like that cause they dont want their reputations tarnished. I suggested G rated pics by email and a description of themselves. I will play the game to the bitter end.. Like I always do..

 

If you are going to swing at least put some useful info on your profile. esp if you are going to actively persue this lifestyle.

[Chicup 38]

However, if you believe "HWP" and "we don't play with fatties" are equivalent, perhaps a re-examination of your understanding of successful interpersonal communication is in order? The two statements communicate ENTIRELY different thoughts, both about the people making the statement and to the people reading it. And what it says isn't very complimentary.

 

Well let me think about my interpersonal communication skills..... nope still means we don't play with fatties.

 

Let me 'splain. HWP is a very subjective term. There is no standard definition of HWP. Its not +-10lbs of your body ideal. There is no way to actually quantify it. By saying it though, what you are excluding is really one type from your menu, and thats fatties. Technically someone who is too thin would qualify as not HWP but lets be honest, when is the last time you saw someone medically underweight in a profile? So if you are including fit people, thin people, and a few (honestly) extra pounds people, the only thing left to eliminate are the "fatties". It means no self identified BBW's. It means no one who puts "we have a few (ahem) extra pounds" in their profile.

 

Saying HWP is simply a nice way of saying no fatties, but its still "no fatties". Yes you are correct that from an interpersonal communication aspect is far more diplomatic, but I think the real sentiment is the same.

 

Now.... we can decide if its worth having in a profile, and I'd have to say no because being a subjective term, and a negative term, it could be a turn off for people you might be interested in, even if they are HWP (by the profile writers definition).

 

Which brings me to this ....

 

I wish that people would put all their real preferences, prejudices, desires, in their profile. That way it would make it much easier to determine who I can deal with! Nothing worse than meeting a couple who has crazy expectations but is afraid of putting that in their profile because they are afraid of scaring somebody off before they meet. If you have a preference that is somewhat of a hard boundary by all means put it in your profile!!!! I don't want to find that out while we are out to dinner or drinks

 

Secondly "HWP" is not the same as saying "fatty"... I can make a preference clear without being offensive about it. Furthermore it's much better to be polite and clear than downright rude.... Not exactly sure what the non HWP want here... do you want me to just lie to you or put something in my profile that is clear on what I want?

 

Lastly I'm not Adonis by any stretch of the imagination.... Lol.

 

In an idea world we would have such profiles with exactly who we would play with outlined in both positives and negatives. This is not an ideal world. For example.

 

My wife has absolutely no attraction to black males. Period. How would "no black males" be interpreted on our profile? Oh yea we must be filthy racists of course! Now lets say we then spell it out.

 

She really isn't racist but she has no attraction to black men. Sure you aren't, I bet your husband is insecure, and probably has a small dick.

Ok lets expand then.

She really isn't racist, she has black friends, and her husband doesn't mind at all and in fact has been disappointed we have had to turn down couples due to the male being black despite his wife being hot.

 

I think it either comes down to expanding your explanations, or risking erroneous interpretation. Negatives on a profile, while helpful I think, are more likely to turn off than find compatible people. The good news is most of these would never get to the drink stage.

 

Now I do agree if you have a hard boundary like "We always smoke pot while we swing" or "Your man can watch but not touch the three of us as we fuck your wife" those belong in a profile

[sunbuckus 3,565]

I wonder how many of these pet peeves or profile cliches are due to seeing them on other people's profiles and deciding it has some pertinent information (DDF, HWP, "We're fun!")...or perhaps they aren't really sure what to put in their profile so they put the "general" requirements not realizing that it comes off as cliche or generic.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

Well let me think about my interpersonal communication skills..... nope still means we don't play with fatties.

 

Let me 'splain. HWP is a very subjective term. There is no standard definition of HWP. Its not +-10lbs of your body ideal. There is no way to actually quantify it. By saying it though, what you are excluding is really one type from your menu, and thats fatties. Technically someone who is too thin would qualify as not HWP but lets be honest, when is the last time you saw someone medically underweight in a profile? So if you are including fit people, thin people, and a few (honestly) extra pounds people, the only thing left to eliminate are the "fatties". It means no self identified BBW's. It means no one who puts "we have a few (ahem) extra pounds" in their profile.

 

Saying HWP is simply a nice way of saying no fatties, but its still "no fatties". Yes you are correct that from an interpersonal communication aspect is far more diplomatic, but I think the real sentiment is the same.

 

Now.... we can decide if its worth having in a profile, and I'd have to say no because being a subjective term, and a negative term, it could be a turn off for people you might be interested in, even if they are HWP (by the profile writers definition).

 

Which brings me to this ....

 

 

 

In an idea world we would have such profiles with exactly who we would play with outlined in both positives and negatives. This is not an ideal world. For example.

 

My wife has absolutely no attraction to black males. Period. How would "no black males" be interpreted on our profile? Oh yea we must be filthy racists of course! Now lets say we then spell it out.

 

She really isn't racist but she has no attraction to black men. Sure you aren't, I bet your husband is insecure, and probably has a small dick.

Ok lets expand then.

She really isn't racist, she has black friends, and her husband doesn't mind at all and in fact has been disappointed we have had to turn down couples due to the male being black despite his wife being hot.

 

I think it either comes down to expanding your explanations, or risking erroneous interpretation. Negatives on a profile, while helpful I think, are more likely to turn off than find compatible people. The good news is most of these would never get to the drink stage.

 

Now I do agree if you have a hard boundary like "We always smoke pot while we swing" or "Your man can watch but not touch the three of us as we fuck your wife" those belong in a profile

 

There is a difference between expressing preference and expressing bigotry. Most people have the intellectual capacity to distinguish one from the other.

 

But, obviously, not everyone.

[AndrewandAnn 359]

I wonder how many of these pet peeves or profile cliches are due to seeing them on other people's profiles and deciding it has some pertinent information (DDF, HWP, "We're fun!")...or perhaps they aren't really sure what to put in their profile so they put the "general" requirements not realizing that it comes off as cliche or generic.

 

Good point.

 

It might even be more basic than that in the sense that people want to "fit in" by using words, descriptions, abbreviations, etc. that are familiar and unique to this particular social group we call the Lifestyle. The word "Lifestyle" is a good example of such.

 

This occurs universally in all social groups.

[Chicup 38]

 

 

There is a difference between expressing preference and expressing bigotry. Most people have the intellectual capacity to distinguish one from the other.

 

But, obviously, not everyone.

[mauijanedoe 1,414]

There is a difference between expressing preference and expressing bigotry. Most people have the intellectual capacity to distinguish one from the other.

 

But, obviously, not everyone.

 

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.

[sunbuckus 3,565]

There is a difference between expressing preference and expressing bigotry. Most people have the intellectual capacity to distinguish one from the other.

 

But, obviously, not everyone.

 

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.

 

I have to admit, I wasn't quite sure what AndrewandAnn meant so I figured I truly didn't have the intellectual capacity to think about what he might be getting at (or I just didn't want to tax my brain earlier). So, thank you for posting your thoughts, mauijane. If I understand the correct concept of bigotry, yes, I'm sure there are places on the forum where people are expressing their intolerance of different attitudes/opinions/play styles/race/etc. that differs from their own. However, even if they feel that they are right and others are wrong, the majority of the time, I have still seen the forum members being civil to each other. That is one of the things that I enjoy about this forum.

 

As for expressing preference versus expressing bigotry isn't the bottom line being that the speaker's mindset is what separates the two which would then translate into how they are able to neutrally (or not) communicate that preference or intolerance, depending on which one it is?

[mauijanedoe 1,414]

As for expressing preference versus expressing bigotry isn't the bottom line being that the speaker's mindset is what separates the two which would then translate into how they are able to neutrally (or not) communicate that preference or intolerance, depending on which one it is?

 

Hmmmm. I actually wasn't addressing preference vs. bigotry, but I'd have to say that mindset does not offer insurance against others hearing intolerance when you're expressing preference. If you think about all the ways people step on their metaphorical dicks when speaking in public or sending something out on the internets, sometimes quite innocently and with the best of intentions, it becomes clear that communication is a very chancy thing and most of us appear to be insufficiently precise, at least if our aim is to be understood in the exactly the way we wish to be understood.

[sunbuckus 3,565]

Hmmmm. I actually wasn't addressing preference vs. bigotry, but I'd have to say that mindset does not offer insurance against others hearing intolerance when you're expressing preference. If you think about all the ways people step on their metaphorical dicks when speaking in public or sending something out on the internets, sometimes quite innocently and with the best of intentions, it becomes clear that communication is a very chancy thing and most of us appear to be insufficiently precise, at least if our aim is to be understood in the exactly the way we wish to be understood.

 

I'm not arguing against you (in fact, I agree with what you're saying)...I suppose I'm still confused by AndrewandAnn's quote.

[81lizard69 469]

I have to admit, I wasn't quite sure what AndrewandAnn meant so I figured I truly didn't have the intellectual capacity to think about what he might be getting at (or I just didn't want to tax my brain earlier). So, thank you for posting your thoughts, mauijane. If I understand the correct concept of bigotry, yes, I'm sure there are places on the forum where people are expressing their intolerance of different attitudes/opinions/play styles/race/etc. that differs from their own. However, even if they feel that they are right and others are wrong, the majority of the time, I have still seen the forum members being civil to each other. That is one of the things that I enjoy about this forum.

 

As for expressing preference versus expressing bigotry isn't the bottom line being that the speaker's mindset is what separates the two which would then translate into how they are able to neutrally (or not) communicate that preference or intolerance, depending on which one it is?

 

I'm not arguing against you (in fact, I agree with what you're saying)...I suppose I'm still confused by AndrewandAnn's quote.

 

 

If I have learned one thing from life it is this. I am not responsible for what or how other people receive my message written or verbally presented. I have worked with many lawyers who craft words that are binding and I have found that nothing in life is binding. Everything changes.

 

So what does that have to do with the above posts.. Everything. 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.

 

Its just this fact that gets me with some of the less savvy posts where the bigotry and lack of writing skills comes into play and people post up their bigoted answers to posts. A post about No fatties demonstrates this whether he wanted to convey that or not. I think he did but he did not really see how others would view his post. Not only does he alienate possible friends he diminishes his usefulness to others that might post here but not be hwp. That post said alot with so few words hence proving the point that our prejudices do leak through what we say even though we intended a different reaction.. Thus proving that in his mind he is not responsible for his message or how it might effect others. He just wants sex from people like him.

 

True word smiths just want words to point to a clear meaning that says something specific and that idea is received by the people it is intended to. I am older and try to do that with as few words as possible. Did the original poster get his point across . Maybe. Did he send a message he wanted to yes. Does he care if it alienates others. No Was it a good post. definitely not. Is he responsible for how the message was received. No.. He got his message out.. that's all. It does not matter if it was bigoted or rude. It sent a message and that was its propose even though it was lowbrow.

[mauijanedoe 1,414]

I'm not arguing against you (in fact, I agree with what you're saying)...I suppose I'm still confused by AndrewandAnn's quote.

 

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:

 

There is a difference between expressing preference and expressing bigotry. Most people have the intellectual capacity to distinguish one from the other.

 

But, obviously, not everyone.

 

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.