Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Ireland |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We nearly never block off the back of a poor message. That would be way too much admin" It’s delete for a poor message alright. It’s block after a string of unresponded to poor messages though, normally messages that end up repeatedly asking why we haven’t responded to original message offering to “fuck right now”, or some variation of that. The 3rd to 6th message in the string can quite often turn nasty and abusive. The creepy messages of “I think I know where you live” or “I think I know who you are” are an immediate block for safety reasons however. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it conceivable that site might have to go fully ‘pay to join’ in order to provide a financial record link to anyone misbehaving to the point of transgressing laws? Look at the arrest of site owner and moderators in Pelicot case. Don’t think it’s sustainable to facilitate total anonymity on these sites anymore." Paying doesn’t guarantee a financial link. There’s plenty of virtual cards available to use for things like this so that they don’t show on your bank statement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"100% agree that membership on here should be paid only. Even the small fee we pay would be a deterrent. " The fact that membership has to be paid by credit card would also be a huge deterrent | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"100% agree that membership on here should be paid only. Even the small fee we pay would be a deterrent. The fact that membership has to be paid by credit card would also be a huge deterrent " I just go down with cash to the local post office, give yer one a little wink and within a few minutes my subsciption is renewed... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"100% agree that membership on here should be paid only. Even the small fee we pay would be a deterrent. The fact that membership has to be paid by credit card would also be a huge deterrent " Absolutely! Even to pay a fiver would deter alot of cretins imo 🤷♀️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"100% agree that membership on here should be paid only. Even the small fee we pay would be a deterrent. The fact that membership has to be paid by credit card would also be a huge deterrent I just go down with cash to the local post office, give yer one a little wink and within a few minutes my subsciption is renewed..." And she blocks you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it conceivable that site might have to go fully ‘pay to join’ in order to provide a financial record link to anyone misbehaving to the point of transgressing laws? Look at the arrest of site owner and moderators in Pelicot case. Don’t think it’s sustainable to facilitate total anonymity on these sites anymore." It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat." This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim. We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd be absolutely delighted if it was paid members only. Come on, it's something like £35 a year for silver. Hardly breaking the bank. Imagine? The 30,000 males to 500 females ratio becoming a much more reasonable 10,000 to 400! Yes, at least 100 women won't pay but I suspect a free/cheap females/couples rate will amend that to 10,000 to 1,000 and it would be much more fun here and way less no shows also. Perhaps that was what was envisioned originally 🤔" Don't a lot of men gift women gold and silver support on here? I'd say the ratio would be a bit closer but men would start thinking they "bought" access to these women. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd be absolutely delighted if it was paid members only. Come on, it's something like £35 a year for silver. Hardly breaking the bank. Imagine? The 30,000 males to 500 females ratio becoming a much more reasonable 10,000 to 400! Yes, at least 100 women won't pay but I suspect a free/cheap females/couples rate will amend that to 10,000 to 1,000 and it would be much more fun here and way less no shows also. Perhaps that was what was envisioned originally 🤔" And anxious lot of women probably wouldn't even join then. Plus the ratio means bugger all because I know if I don't find a guy attractive in attitude and looks then I wouldn't fuck him regardless of what ever the ratio is on here. As for mo shows well I can't comment on that because even as it is now I've never had one so far. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We receive creepy or incessant messages all too often. We used get excited about a new message alert on the top bar, now our expectations are so low, we are shocked if it’s a genuine and serious message. There is simply a disproportionately high number of non-paying, non-verified and anonymous single male profiles on here. Incel type behaviour is a notmal daily encounter." It’s unpleasant - but necessary. If someone reveals themselves to be pushy, creepy etc, believe them and just block! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat. This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim. We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site." I think the reference to the Pelicot case is a bit much to be honest. The biggest danger to her in that case was her own husband. And I'm not sure the owners of this site would appreciate what you said either. I get the point you're trying to make about the benefits of paid members only but maybe a little less of the drama. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat. This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim. We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site. I think the reference to the Pelicot case is a bit much to be honest. The biggest danger to her in that case was her own husband. And I'm not sure the owners of this site would appreciate what you said either. I get the point you're trying to make about the benefits of paid members only but maybe a little less of the drama. " There are multiple threads most months from men, with single guy profiles, looking for a guy to approach their wife on a night out (without her consent for this to happen), guys looking to chat about their wives, exchange their wives underwear etc etc so unfortunately, the Pelicot case does have some relevance to fab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thank fook I rarely get any messages these days because of filters and block lists. But don't forget the exceptional amazing men here helping all our dreams come true they never get a shout out because everyones always moaning about the dick heads "❤️❤️❤️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat. This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim. We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site. I think the reference to the Pelicot case is a bit much to be honest. The biggest danger to her in that case was her own husband. And I'm not sure the owners of this site would appreciate what you said either. I get the point you're trying to make about the benefits of paid members only but maybe a little less of the drama. There are multiple threads most months from men, with single guy profiles, looking for a guy to approach their wife on a night out (without her consent for this to happen), guys looking to chat about their wives, exchange their wives underwear etc etc so unfortunately, the Pelicot case does have some relevance to fab. " There's a world of difference between asking a guy to chat up his partner on a night out where she's fully in control of everything that happens from there and the Pelicot case. Same thing with the guys looking to chat about the wife. They may not have a wife in the first place or might have bought the underwear themselves. I'd be very slow to drag in a terrible criminal case where the husband himself was the maim danger and compare that to what's going on fab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's a world of difference between asking a guy to chat up his partner on a night out where she's fully in control of everything that happens from there and the Pelicot case. Same thing with the guys looking to chat about the wife. They may not have a wife in the first place or might have bought the underwear themselves. I'd be very slow to drag in a terrible criminal case where the husband himself was the maim danger and compare that to what's going on fab. " Sorry but I don't agree at all. There is not a world of difference In all scenarios the woman has not given consent to have her pics shared or under wear shared with other men,or to go out on a night out and be set up by her partner just so that she can end up being a pawn in his fantasies. This is exactly how coercive behaviour begins and those men who see nothing wrong with it or try and find excuses why it's okay are exactly the type who find excuses as to why it is okay to partake in these activities without consent of all involved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's possible that given the continuing tightening up of the revenge porn and consent laws in the UK that fab might get boxed in enough to have to either shut down or institute a more robust system to protect its user's. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Like Hunter said above. Fab is the way it is by design. Low barrier to entry, ease of anonymity, and if men aren't the biggest slice of fabs income pie I'd eat my hat. This is the view I’d subscribe to. All well and good to say defend yourself with filters and ignore the ‘men behaving badly’, but the arrest of owner and moderators of site used/ abused by Mr. Pelicot will surely make Fab owner and admin/ moderators sit up and take notice. There’s a myriad of new laws around consent, revenge porn, harassment, etc. come into play since Fab model was launched. Not sure society will accept the “he/she/they should have used the filters” levelled at any future potential victim. We value the privacy and anonymity also, but not sure how sustainable it’ll be for Site Owner & Operator should Gards/ Peelers come knocking in an investigation that involves a crime arising from contact on the site. I think the reference to the Pelicot case is a bit much to be honest. The biggest danger to her in that case was her own husband. And I'm not sure the owners of this site would appreciate what you said either. I get the point you're trying to make about the benefits of paid members only but maybe a little less of the drama. There are multiple threads most months from men, with single guy profiles, looking for a guy to approach their wife on a night out (without her consent for this to happen), guys looking to chat about their wives, exchange their wives underwear etc etc so unfortunately, the Pelicot case does have some relevance to fab. There's a world of difference between asking a guy to chat up his partner on a night out where she's fully in control of everything that happens from there and the Pelicot case. Same thing with the guys looking to chat about the wife. They may not have a wife in the first place or might have bought the underwear themselves. I'd be very slow to drag in a terrible criminal case where the husband himself was the maim danger and compare that to what's going on fab. " As Bo said, there isn’t a world of difference. In all instances, there’s a lack of basic understanding of consent. You can’t be fully in control of a situation that you have been put into without your knowledge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let's be real... there is a very very small step between let's chat about our wives in a chat group to let's share pics of our wives... Slippery slopes. Consent should be at the very foremost in our thoughts when we consider getting involved in any sexual scenario, and if it isn't crystal clear then it's problematic " Ya, 100%. So many lads thinking with their 🍆 without giving a thought for the situation they might be putting themselves into. Even if there appears to be consent, you need to understand if there is coercive control. Even on here, I've seen more than one couples profile that didn't quite feel right to me. One of them even ended up on the top fab list of the year! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In relation to the actual OP would blocking unverified profiles have lead to you missing out on any couples? Might be worth looking to see how many good meets came from conversations with unverified accounts that you couldn't have just reached out to first anyway vs the hassle from the accounts your referencing here. Sometimes these things have a simple enough answer " Yes. We have on occasion met unverified couples for socials, usually after a number of messages that established they were genuine and no overlap in real life, some of whom we have subsequently met numerous times for play meets. We are conscious that we were newbies once. We also regularly impart advice to new unverified couples that message us, even without it ever progressing to meets. So no, we do not want to sacrifice that to filters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
