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 The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But… "How would you limit the amount of men? Who gets to decide who qualifies for membership and who doesn’t? Limiting the inbox? What would that achieve? Women initiate all contact - are we forgetting couples now?. Also, imagine being the woman…. Now she’s got to fish through a pool of 10,000 instead of a couple hundred in her inbox. While I agree the system is flawed I’m not sure your suggestions would work. | |||
| 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 |
"I rather like that there's lots of men here and would hate to see that limited. The people who make an arse of themselves quickly make it easier for better people to stand out " Exactly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well they could get rid of people who can't spell "there are" for a start. Hint hint" What are you? My f**king Primary School Teacher? ☺️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well they could get rid of people who can't spell "there are" for a start. Hint hint" ,,, thats mi fuckrd | |||
| 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 |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. " Was I referring to myself? No Stop inferring & read what’s actually there - Slowly, if you can 😏 If you must know - My inspiration for making this thread came from a PewResearch article I just read about DatingApp dissatisfaction? Stating that men outnumber women 3:1. This was the impetus behind the app H*nge making it so women initiated interaction & men not being allowed to. Which lead to more user dissatisfaction & them abandoning it. But keep up the personal attacks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. Was I referring to myself? No Stop inferring & read what’s actually there - Slowly, if you can 😏 If you must know - My inspiration for making this thread came from a PewResearch article I just read about DatingApp dissatisfaction? Stating that men outnumber women 3:1. This was the impetus behind the app H*nge making it so women initiated interaction & men not being allowed to. Which lead to more user dissatisfaction & them abandoning it. But keep up the personal attacks " So men were leaving H inge because they couldn’t message first? Or did I read that wrong? Cause that would in itself be an illuminating fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. Was I referring to myself? No Stop inferring & read what’s actually there - Slowly, if you can 😏 If you must know - My inspiration for making this thread came from a PewResearch article I just read about DatingApp dissatisfaction? Stating that men outnumber women 3:1. This was the impetus behind the app H*nge making it so women initiated interaction & men not being allowed to. Which lead to more user dissatisfaction & them abandoning it. But keep up the personal attacks " Personal attack I don’t even know who you are. I just say it as I see it, I apologise for bruising your ego, would you like a plaster and a cuddle ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. Was I referring to myself? No Stop inferring & read what’s actually there - Slowly, if you can 😏 If you must know - My inspiration for making this thread came from a PewResearch article I just read about DatingApp dissatisfaction? Stating that men outnumber women 3:1. This was the impetus behind the app H*nge making it so women initiated interaction & men not being allowed to. Which lead to more user dissatisfaction & them abandoning it. But keep up the personal attacks Personal attack I don’t even know who you are. I just say it as I see it, I apologise for bruising your ego, would you like a plaster and a cuddle ? " You just can’t stop, can you Keyboard Tough Guy? 😄 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabswingers, other dating sites & apps are cooked for most users because let’s face…the demographic ratios work against us all. It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS TOO MANY MEN. Women’s accounts/inboxes get flooded with so many messages, that acknowledging or even politely declining would be a full time job. What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But… "Interesting post OP. But how would you feel if you were rejected as a member here? There isn't a simple fix to this massive problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. Was I referring to myself? No Stop inferring & read what’s actually there - Slowly, if you can 😏 If you must know - My inspiration for making this thread came from a PewResearch article I just read about DatingApp dissatisfaction? Stating that men outnumber women 3:1. This was the impetus behind the app H*nge making it so women initiated interaction & men not being allowed to. Which lead to more user dissatisfaction & them abandoning it. But keep up the personal attacks Personal attack I don’t even know who you are. I just say it as I see it, I apologise for bruising your ego, would you like a plaster and a cuddle ? " How can you “say it as you see it” AND not know anything about me at the same time? 🤷🏽♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. " That wasn't what he was saying ... you're projecting some weird inner anger. Who gets so irritated about a forum thread on a Sunday morning 🙄 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My only comment on this is around pricing, a sensitive subject, nonetheless. For serious members, £20 per month, or, you have to have a subscription to be on here, with public photos? Just a thought 🤓" You mean for men? Everyone would moan like hell!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabswingers, other dating sites & apps are cooked for most users because let’s face…the demographic ratios work against us all. It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS TOO MANY MEN. Women’s accounts/inboxes get flooded with so many messages, that acknowledging or even politely declining would be a full time job. What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But…
Interesting post OP.
But how would you feel if you were rejected as a member here?
There isn't a simple fix to this massive problem. "Rejected as a member? There is a site that famously does curate its users. I can’t mention the name of it HERE but its name involves “young cats”  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. Was I referring to myself? No Stop inferring & read what’s actually there - Slowly, if you can 😏 If you must know - My inspiration for making this thread came from a PewResearch article I just read about DatingApp dissatisfaction? Stating that men outnumber women 3:1. This was the impetus behind the app H*nge making it so women initiated interaction & men not being allowed to. Which lead to more user dissatisfaction & them abandoning it. But keep up the personal attacks " This isn't the case with H*nge. Men can message first. Maybe you are referring to B*umble. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. Was I referring to myself? No Stop inferring & read what’s actually there - Slowly, if you can 😏 If you must know - My inspiration for making this thread came from a PewResearch article I just read about DatingApp dissatisfaction? Stating that men outnumber women 3:1. This was the impetus behind the app H*nge making it so women initiated interaction & men not being allowed to. Which lead to more user dissatisfaction & them abandoning it. But keep up the personal attacks This isn't the case with H*nge. Men can message first. Maybe you are referring to B*umble." My bad 🤭 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a solution.. Go out to a pub a speak to a lady upfront.. No need of waiting for message replies or being in queue with 1000 other messages in inbox.. You can even speak to a couple, who knows if they like you? Or go to an adult club and talk to other visitors.. Online is not the only way to connect, you know?" JE ZUS CHRIST 
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"JE ZUS CHRIST
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab!"If it's not your problem is it actually a problem? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But…
How would you limit the amount of men? Who gets to decide who qualifies for membership and who doesn’t?
Limiting the inbox? What would that achieve?
Women initiate all contact - are we forgetting couples now?. Also, imagine being the woman…. Now she’s got to fish through a pool of 10,000 instead of a couple hundred in her inbox.
While I agree the system is flawed I’m not sure your suggestions would work.
"There was a website I was on about 10 years ago, where you could only join if the existing members would vote you in...if there was a system in place on fab where you have to create a profile and there's a window of time where existing members would vote (at least one fab to be accepted, and no fabs means you're out)- a single straight male profile would be voted by the people who are interested in "single straight men", and there could be a page with all these new profiles where you can go and make your choices if you wanted-I'm sure some women would love that power👀. Now I know it poses some problems, it would be extremely difficult to implement this system now as fab is already constructed in a specific way and it wouldn't be fair for only new profiles to be subjected to this...and most likely it would become a very shallow place where only the most attractive men would be allowed to join (I would be ok with that though 😏) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabswingers, other dating sites & apps are cooked for most users because let’s face…the demographic ratios work against us all. It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS TOO MANY MEN. Women’s accounts/inboxes get flooded with so many messages, that acknowledging or even politely declining would be a full time job. What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But… "The solution is already here. Message filters. I'm on here also as a part of a couple. Single guys are blocked from messaging as she isn't interested. Couples have to be verified, have photos and we set realistic age range of people we are willing to meet, as opposed to the generic 18-99. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"JE ZUS CHRIST
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab!
If it's not your problem is it actually a problem? "I’m doing well financially. Does that mean I shouldn’t be concerned about the cost of living crisis for anyone else? 🤨 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My only comment on this is around pricing, a sensitive subject, nonetheless. For serious members, £20 per month, or, you have to have a subscription to be on here, with public photos? Just a thought 🤓 You mean for men? Everyone would moan like hell!!" For everyone. I have no issue with paying a premium 🤓 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"JE ZUS CHRIST
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab!
If it's not your problem is it actually a problem?
I’m doing well financially. Does that mean I shouldn’t be concerned about the cost of living crisis for anyone else? 🤨"The post was mine. And that is some spectacular whataboutery! So nice of you to be concerned about all those other men unable to get their penises wet. There are some problems that we should all be concerned about. Men being unable to put together a decent profile and message is not one of them and limiting the number of men will have zero effect on that. If you are genuinely concerned then an actual solution might be lessons for men where they find out that women are human beings and not sex dispensers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So you’re basically saying, you’re not getting any action and that’s fabs fault because men are allowed to join, and poor old you is getting pushed to the back. Why don’t you just go full on self entitled and get fab to delete every other single males profile for a day, then the women would have no choice but to pick you. Because god forbid a woman is allowed her own mind to make her own decisions, on who she wants to sleep with. That wasn't what he was saying ... you're projecting some weird inner anger. Who gets so irritated about a forum thread on a Sunday morning 🙄" Yes, the OP didn't come close to saying that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well they could get rid of people who can't spell "there are" for a start. Hint hint" That annoyed me too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not the ratios that work against people here. It’s the fact that their profiles are poor and the way they contact people is just completely wrong. There are men on here who do well. Consistently. If ratios were the only factor then that wouldn’t happen." Ratios clearly not the only factor, but of course it is a factor, that's just simple maths. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"…. What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But… "….or more women. I vote for more women. Who’s with me? 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I never found it hard to sift through my inbox as a single woman. Filters help but even if I’d switched them off first a forum game: Click on friends messages and read those first Read messages from others you’re in an ongoing chat with Delete those who were outside my age preferences Delete the obvious ‘hey’ messages - anything you can read without even needing to open it Read the profiles for what’s left - skimming the contents tells you if it’s a definite no, a possible or a definite yes. Many delete themselves here (will fill in later or worse - “…” 🙄) Read the remaining messages and react accordingly. That was always my strategy. L " Too logical. Easier to whinge and moan about your overflowing inbox and decry the standard of the single men available. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be good if the number of messages sent to someone were limited if the other person hasn't responded...say after 5 messages = no response then you can't send anymore. It pisses me of that people are told to use "filters" but why should they....people just need to stop being dickheads (and I aim that at all genders)" I don't use the filters much either because I am open to meeting men, women and couples (single men are my preference). If I switched off the ability for single men to message me I'm cutting off my primary interest group, even though 95% of the messages I get are just rubbish sadly. I have it set so people must have a photo but that doesn't stop the garbage either. It's just something I've got to live with unfortunately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a solution.. Go out to a pub a speak to a lady upfront.. No need of waiting for message replies or being in queue with 1000 other messages in inbox.. You can even speak to a couple, who knows if they like you? Or go to an adult club and talk to other visitors.. Online is not the only way to connect, you know? JE ZUS CHRIST
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab!"And the reply is for whatever your intent was to ask.. Mau be you don't need it but the solution remains same for whoever you are concerned for in OP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not the ratios that work against people here. It’s the fact that their profiles are poor and the way they contact people is just completely wrong. There are men on here who do well. Consistently. If ratios were the only factor then that wouldn’t happen. Ratios clearly not the only factor, but of course it is a factor, that's just simple maths." I'm leaning towards agreeing with the post you're replying to, Leo. Some people just aren't built for communicating with the written word and some are incapable of self assessment, thinking whatever the issue is has nothing to do with them, it's always someone else's fault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More women use their filters. More men stop messaging women. Signs flag up on screen like 'you've messaged them four times already, go and have a wank', 'it's 2am, she's not gagging for your cock, go and have a wank' 'she posted about something, it's not an invitation to fuck her, go have a wank'. Everyone's happy." Yeah! And anti-waffle measures too. Word limits on posts, that kind of thing. Let's keep things snappy, peeps. 😉 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"JE ZUS CHRIST
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab!
If it's not your problem is it actually a problem?
I’m doing well financially. Does that mean I shouldn’t be concerned about the cost of living crisis for anyone else? 🤨
The post was mine. And that is some spectacular whataboutery! So nice of you to be concerned about all those other men unable to get their penises wet. There are some problems that we should all be concerned about. Men being unable to put together a decent profile and message is not one of them and limiting the number of men will have zero effect on that. If you are genuinely concerned then an actual solution might be lessons for men where they find out that women are human beings and not sex dispensers. "Did my original post refer sourly to men who “can’t get their dick wet”? No! It referred to the plight of women too! If you haven’t noticed women also have peeves on using modern dating apps/sites. Ladies of Fab put their peeves on their profiles. This isn’t blaming men, nor women - It’s about the online culture. I really love how one post about online culture has resulted in personal attacks, grammar Nazi-ing, misandry & pseudo-psychoanalysis | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be good if the number of messages sent to someone were limited if the other person hasn't responded...say after 5 messages = no response then you can't send anymore. It pisses me of that people are told to use "filters" but why should they....people just need to stop being dickheads (and I aim that at all genders)" That’s a great idea. It would improve the quality of messaging too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Clever head tap gif. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"JE ZUS CHRIST
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab!
If it's not your problem is it actually a problem?
I’m doing well financially. Does that mean I shouldn’t be concerned about the cost of living crisis for anyone else? 🤨
The post was mine. And that is some spectacular whataboutery! So nice of you to be concerned about all those other men unable to get their penises wet. There are some problems that we should all be concerned about. Men being unable to put together a decent profile and message is not one of them and limiting the number of men will have zero effect on that. If you are genuinely concerned then an actual solution might be lessons for men where they find out that women are human beings and not sex dispensers.
Did my original post refer sourly to men who “can’t get their dick wet”?
No! It referred to the plight of women too!
If you haven’t noticed women also have peeves on using modern dating apps/sites. Ladies of Fab put their peeves on their profiles.
This isn’t blaming men, nor women - It’s about the online culture.
I really love how one post about online culture has resulted in personal attacks, grammar Nazi-ing, misandry & pseudo-psychoanalysis
"Being brutally honest - the interaction between you two is the perfect example as to why a lot of people struggle on here. A misread message and a throw away comment has escalated and now neither of you can back down. You can see the same thing happening in people’s inbox’s and why they get pissed off. Thank you both for showing exactly how communication (or lack thereof) is such a major issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue, I suggest, is not the ratio. On another site I used to be on, a new profile had to meet minimum requirements to be accepted. A minimum length, a minimum level of detail etc. this alone would reduce the number of men throwing up a profile in 2 mins and them launching into FAF messaging to every woman on a given radius." I quite like this one. I have new members blocked as a general rule to avoid it a little, but I still get plenty of over a year old no pictures no text profiles messaging me. "More women use their filters. More men stop messaging women. Signs flag up on screen like 'you've messaged them four times already, go and have a wank', 'it's 2am, she's not gagging for your cock, go and have a wank' 'she posted about something, it's not an invitation to fuck her, go have a wank'. Everyone's happy." They already have some messages that pop up. Something along the lines of 'hey you already messaged this person, are you sure you want to send another' if they didn't respond to the previous. Or 'thia person is not looking for [your demographic]' if I remember right. They seem pretty clear and reasonable and are already heavily ignored. Expanding the range doesn't really help. That said, if there was a way to stop the weekday post midnight chemical friendly crew with their incessant 3 letter messages with a pop up that says 'go sleep it off and try when you're sober buddy' I'd like that 💜 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be good if the number of messages sent to someone were limited if the other person hasn't responded...say after 5 messages = no response then you can't send anymore. It pisses me of that people are told to use "filters" but why should they....people just need to stop being dickheads (and I aim that at all genders)" This is a good idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabswingers, other dating sites & apps are cooked for most users because let’s face…the demographic ratios work against us all. It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS TOO MANY MEN. Women’s accounts/inboxes get flooded with so many messages, that acknowledging or even politely declining would be a full time job. What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But… "The solution is to not stress about ratios. Nothing anyone else does affects my life on here, nor do the numbers. 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More women use their filters. More men stop messaging women. Signs flag up on screen like 'you've messaged them four times already, go and have a wank', 'it's 2am, she's not gagging for your cock, go and have a wank' 'she posted about something, it's not an invitation to fuck her, go have a wank'. Everyone's happy. Yeah! And anti-waffle measures too. Word limits on posts, that kind of thing. Let's keep things snappy, peeps. 😉" But then I can’t go off on a tangent, derail the entire thread and generally wind up the OP. That’s one of my simple pleasures on here. Especially the Chillout Yes/No threads 😌 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"…. '…. They already have some messages that pop up. Something along the lines of 'hey you already messaged this person, are you sure you want to send another' if they didn't respond to the previous. Or 'thia person is not looking for [your demographic]' if I remember right. " Yes. I get this pop up all the time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Site works beautifully for me and has since i joined in 2018. Nothing has to change at all. " Same  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More women use their filters. More men stop messaging women. Signs flag up on screen like 'you've messaged them four times already, go and have a wank', 'it's 2am, she's not gagging for your cock, go and have a wank' 'she posted about something, it's not an invitation to fuck her, go have a wank'. Everyone's happy. Yeah! And anti-waffle measures too. Word limits on posts, that kind of thing. Let's keep things snappy, peeps. 😉" Indeed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"…. '…. They already have some messages that pop up. Something along the lines of 'hey you already messaged this person, are you sure you want to send another' if they didn't respond to the previous. Or 'thia person is not looking for [your demographic]' if I remember right. Yes. I get this pop up all the time. " really didn't know that it's on mine only looking for men in Manchester get men miles away and I only looking for social but get men just wanting sex | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More women use their filters. More men stop messaging women. Signs flag up on screen like 'you've messaged them four times already, go and have a wank', 'it's 2am, she's not gagging for your cock, go and have a wank' 'she posted about something, it's not an invitation to fuck her, go have a wank'. Everyone's happy. Yeah! And anti-waffle measures too. Word limits on posts, that kind of thing. Let's keep things snappy, peeps. 😉 But then I can’t go off on a tangent, derail the entire thread and generally wind up the OP. That’s one of my simple pleasures on here. Especially the Chillout Yes/No threads 😌" Fear not, I'm pro waffle really. And you can't beat a good tangent. This is a good one, actually. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yeah! And anti-waffle measures too. Word limits on posts, that kind of thing. Let's keep things snappy, peeps. 😉" Yeah.... I'd not do well at that. I like to take my time. And I like words.   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be good if the number of messages sent to someone were limited if the other person hasn't responded...say after 5 messages = no response then you can't send anymore. It pisses me of that people are told to use "filters" but why should they....people just need to stop being dickheads (and I aim that at all genders) That’s a great idea. It would improve the quality of messaging too. " I also agree this would help. Not men so much though 😅 Maybe fab could also introduce a matching system. Sooo anyone can still send a message, but if it’s not someone you’ve liked or matched then it would go to a sub inbox of requests (like insta). That way the inbox is kept clear for those you actually want to converse with, which would lead to convs not getting lost in the ethos of a flooded inbox. I know you can separate friends messages in the inbox, but if I’m just starting to speak to someone, I wouldn’t necessarily make them my friend on here and give them access to those pics and vids straight away. So the requests system would help. I also think we should have a little box in messages that filters to just showing unread messages. Get through the admin quicker! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"JE ZUS CHRIST
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab!
If it's not your problem is it actually a problem? "Have you never heard for the greater good!!!! God damn the man is trying to stand out, his has found his niche by using the white knight route!!!  
Some men truly… truly…. Truly care!!!
Anyway… solutions….. one in, one out…. If you can recite the lore of how fab swingers came to be… you men get to stay!!
Otherwise…. Let ya ass be grass… don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"…. '…. They already have some messages that pop up. Something along the lines of 'hey you already messaged this person, are you sure you want to send another' if they didn't respond to the previous. Or 'thia person is not looking for [your demographic]' if I remember right. Yes. I get this pop up all the time. really didn't know that it's on mine only looking for men in Manchester get men miles away and I only looking for social but get men just wanting sex " I’ve never messaged you … be patient, I’ll get to sending one soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? " Like the Crystal Maze? I'm in! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relaunch the wink. Send a wink to those you like. If you get a wink in return then message features get enabled." I just delete winks what's the point of them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relaunch the wink. Send a wink to those you like. If you get a wink in return then message features get enabled." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? Like the Crystal Maze? I'm in!" I’m in a forum….its full of too many men!! What should I do? ^that type of text game? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be good if the number of messages sent to someone were limited if the other person hasn't responded...say after 5 messages = no response then you can't send anymore. It pisses me of that people are told to use "filters" but why should they....people just need to stop being dickheads (and I aim that at all genders) That’s a great idea. It would improve the quality of messaging too. I also agree this would help. Not men so much though 😅 Maybe fab could also introduce a matching system. Sooo anyone can still send a message, but if it’s not someone you’ve liked or matched then it would go to a sub inbox of requests (like insta). That way the inbox is kept clear for those you actually want to converse with, which would lead to convs not getting lost in the ethos of a flooded inbox. I know you can separate friends messages in the inbox, but if I’m just starting to speak to someone, I wouldn’t necessarily make them my friend on here and give them access to those pics and vids straight away. So the requests system would help. I also think we should have a little box in messages that filters to just showing unread messages. Get through the admin quicker! " This would be the worst for me I hate that you have to "match" on dating apps so I have to spend hours swiping to match with people before we can talk. One of the advantages of fab for me is that it isn't a swiping/matching system. I'd rather have a full inbox full of messages. Plus most men just swipe on every single woman anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relaunch the wink. Send a wink to those you like. If you get a wink in return then message features get enabled." Problem is, much like that app beginning with T, many men would just wink everyone in a scattergun approach hoping one may land. Although that often seems to happen with messages anyway. 🤷♂️ Ratios really don't matter. If you're 1 in 1000 or 1 of 10, if someone isn't interested in meeting you they won't just because there's a more limited pool of options. Life doesn't work like that and it certainly doesn't when it comes to sex. You don't get to meet just because you're an option. You get to meet because you've attracted interest, generated attraction and have shown you can communicate decently. Just having a profile entitles someone to absolutely nothing at all. This is what many struggle to comprehend and understand. 🤦♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"JE ZUS CHRIST
For the second time! I’m NOT referring to my personal experience!
I’m doing ok on Fab!
If it's not your problem is it actually a problem?
I’m doing well financially. Does that mean I shouldn’t be concerned about the cost of living crisis for anyone else? 🤨
The post was mine. And that is some spectacular whataboutery! So nice of you to be concerned about all those other men unable to get their penises wet. There are some problems that we should all be concerned about. Men being unable to put together a decent profile and message is not one of them and limiting the number of men will have zero effect on that. If you are genuinely concerned then an actual solution might be lessons for men where they find out that women are human beings and not sex dispensers.
Did my original post refer sourly to men who “can’t get their dick wet”?
No! It referred to the plight of women too!
If you haven’t noticed women also have peeves on using modern dating apps/sites. Ladies of Fab put their peeves on their profiles.
This isn’t blaming men, nor women - It’s about the online culture.
I really love how one post about online culture has resulted in personal attacks, grammar Nazi-ing, misandry & pseudo-psychoanalysis
"I think that you're not going to solve the online culture by altering ratios. It would just end up pissing everyone off. And apropos of online culture... Starting a post with UNPOPULAR OPINION is an invitation for discussion. Anyway, I have no beef with you, I already have my own Beef. 😈 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"…. '…. They already have some messages that pop up. Something along the lines of 'hey you already messaged this person, are you sure you want to send another' if they didn't respond to the previous. Or 'thia person is not looking for [your demographic]' if I remember right. Yes. I get this pop up all the time. really didn't know that it's on mine only looking for men in Manchester get men miles away and I only looking for social but get men just wanting sex " Oh it only works from the looking for tick boxes. Like if I try to message someone who doesn't have women tucked on the looking for it tells me they're not looking for women. The site would need to spend a fortune on AI to have it read and understand profile text to interpret whether or not someone fell within those sorts of categories. That said, I would love a distance filter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's a solution.. Go out to a pub a speak to a lady upfront.. No need of waiting for message replies or being in queue with 1000 other messages in inbox.. You can even speak to a couple, who knows if they like you? Or go to an adult club and talk to other visitors.. Online is not the only way to connect, you know?" This is my exact thoughts. I joined tinder for the first time a few years ago when I was dating 2021ish, had some success by what I would describe too and was surprised by it's effectiveness. But still if I was looking for seeming instant results and/or one off occasions there's no way that can be replicated quite like approaching people in a bar or something for effort to result ratio. I'm not half bad looking but by no means a Hollywood buff guy or something, yet I've had loads more times where 'I've felt the love' off of the opposite sex in those environments, I put it down to a few things that make it so: it's much easier to communicate and be you, first impressions etc. yet you aren't as critical of someone else in person possibly look past 'the flaws' you'd see on a profile, and I just think you can't understate how important non verbal communication is, I've had many women approach me (I know, can you imagine, a bloke who didn't make the first move, not had to spend an hour spamming thousands of messages to random profiles) just off of the way I present myself. Online platforms are like try before you buy I'd describe them and you look for specifics That being said, I'd say I love fab mostly. It works well for me and I know that's not going to fit everyones agenda but you can't please them all! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS (sic) TOO MANY MEN. " • No there isn't. It's just there are far fewer women on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS (sic) TOO MANY MEN. • No there isn't. It's just there are far fewer women on here." I had man today first message just said chat 🙄 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? Like the Crystal Maze? I'm in!" THAT WOULD BE SO COOL! I always wanted to go on that! Could also be a Total Wipeout assault course! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS (sic) TOO MANY MEN. • No there isn't. It's just there are far fewer women on here.I had man today first message just said chat 🙄" • And? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This would be the worst for me I hate that you have to "match" on dating apps so I have to spend hours swiping to match with people before we can talk. One of the advantages of fab for me is that it isn't a swiping/matching system. I'd rather have a full inbox full of messages. Plus most men just swipe on every single woman anyway. " Ok noted… so what about just having it that you can separate out those who you’ve not responded to and those you have? 🤷🏻♀️ I find my biggest problem (when I occasionally take my filters down) is that I lose convs as I can’t find them in the masses. So guys, or girls, with potential are lost. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? Like the Crystal Maze? I'm in! THAT WOULD BE SO COOL! I always wanted to go on that! Could also be a Total Wipeout assault course! " There's an obvious joke about big red balls, but I refuse to make it (mainly as mine are never red). But I LOVED Total Wipeout. I would never leave Fab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be good if the number of messages sent to someone were limited if the other person hasn't responded...say after 5 messages = no response then you can't send anymore. It pisses me of that people are told to use "filters" but why should they....people just need to stop being dickheads (and I aim that at all genders) That’s a great idea. It would improve the quality of messaging too. I also agree this would help. Not men so much though 😅 Maybe fab could also introduce a matching system. Sooo anyone can still send a message, but if it’s not someone you’ve liked or matched then it would go to a sub inbox of requests (like insta). That way the inbox is kept clear for those you actually want to converse with, which would lead to convs not getting lost in the ethos of a flooded inbox. I know you can separate friends messages in the inbox, but if I’m just starting to speak to someone, I wouldn’t necessarily make them my friend on here and give them access to those pics and vids straight away. So the requests system would help. I also think we should have a little box in messages that filters to just showing unread messages. Get through the admin quicker! This would be the worst for me I hate that you have to "match" on dating apps so I have to spend hours swiping to match with people before we can talk. One of the advantages of fab for me is that it isn't a swiping/matching system. I'd rather have a full inbox full of messages. Plus most men just swipe on every single woman anyway. " Nah I don't think "most" men swipe on women, I certainly didn't or any other men I know that use it anyway, and more likely swipe women away | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be good if the number of messages sent to someone were limited if the other person hasn't responded...say after 5 messages = no response then you can't send anymore. It pisses me of that people are told to use "filters" but why should they....people just need to stop being dickheads (and I aim that at all genders) That’s a great idea. It would improve the quality of messaging too. " Certainly wouldn't improve the quality I don't think but it would cut half the shit in a person's inbox.....I've a guy who has messaged me over 20 times, I've responded to none as he is way outside my age range, about 300 miles away and not my type....people will say "well why not block him"....Why should I...in real life I'd ignore just as I'm doing on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabswingers, other dating sites & apps are cooked for most users because let’s face…the demographic ratios work against us all. It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS TOO MANY MEN. Women’s accounts/inboxes get flooded with so many messages, that acknowledging or even politely declining would be a full time job. What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But… "There is a website where women initiate the contact. I've yet to talk to any man who's used it who has had a first contact from a woman. J | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? Like the Crystal Maze? I'm in! THAT WOULD BE SO COOL! I always wanted to go on that! Could also be a Total Wipeout assault course! There's an obvious joke about big red balls, but I refuse to make it (mainly as mine are never red). But I LOVED Total Wipeout. I would never leave Fab." I don't know what on about | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This would be the worst for me I hate that you have to "match" on dating apps so I have to spend hours swiping to match with people before we can talk. One of the advantages of fab for me is that it isn't a swiping/matching system. I'd rather have a full inbox full of messages. Plus most men just swipe on every single woman anyway. Ok noted… so what about just having it that you can separate out those who you’ve not responded to and those you have? 🤷🏻♀️ I find my biggest problem (when I occasionally take my filters down) is that I lose convs as I can’t find them in the masses. So guys, or girls, with potential are lost. " Yes I actually think that would be helpful, the ability to keep "conversations* in one folder and *new messages* in another would be a god send. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well they could get rid of people who can't spell "there are" for a start. Hint hint" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? " I have a riddle on my bio. So far the current high score is 37 by a couple. Nothing sets the mood for a saucy encounter quite like a brain teaser as foreplay 🤓 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? I have a riddle on my bio. So far the current high score is 37 by a couple. Nothing sets the mood for a saucy encounter quite like a brain teaser as foreplay 🤓 " Tbh Hush it’s not particularly difficult (I’m won’t give the answer away of course). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? I have a riddle on my bio. So far the current high score is 37 by a couple. Nothing sets the mood for a saucy encounter quite like a brain teaser as foreplay 🤓 " That's an easy one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? Like the Crystal Maze? I'm in! THAT WOULD BE SO COOL! I always wanted to go on that! Could also be a Total Wipeout assault course! There's an obvious joke about big red balls, but I refuse to make it (mainly as mine are never red). But I LOVED Total Wipeout. I would never leave Fab." I’d be shooting my shot with people I’m not interested in just so I could have a go. I’m as athletic as an elderly manatee but I really really want to try it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? I have a riddle on my bio. So far the current high score is 37 by a couple. Nothing sets the mood for a saucy encounter quite like a brain teaser as foreplay 🤓 Tbh Hush it’s not particularly difficult (I’m won’t give the answer away of course). " Oh really? Well how about this? I am not alive, but I can grow. I don’t have lungs, but I need air. I have no mouth, yet I can drown. What am I? Care to take a guess? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This would be the worst for me I hate that you have to "match" on dating apps so I have to spend hours swiping to match with people before we can talk. One of the advantages of fab for me is that it isn't a swiping/matching system. I'd rather have a full inbox full of messages. Plus most men just swipe on every single woman anyway. Ok noted… so what about just having it that you can separate out those who you’ve not responded to and those you have? 🤷🏻♀️ I find my biggest problem (when I occasionally take my filters down) is that I lose convs as I can’t find them in the masses. So guys, or girls, with potential are lost. Yes I actually think that would be helpful, the ability to keep "conversations* in one folder and *new messages* in another would be a god send. " There's a saved messages folder. 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? I have a riddle on my bio. So far the current high score is 37 by a couple. Nothing sets the mood for a saucy encounter quite like a brain teaser as foreplay 🤓 Tbh Hush it’s not particularly difficult (I’m won’t give the answer away of course). Oh really? Well how about this? I am not alive, but I can grow. I don’t have lungs, but I need air. I have no mouth, yet I can drown. What am I? Care to take a guess?" Fire 🔥 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I never found it hard to sift through my inbox as a single woman. Filters help but even if I’d switched them off first a forum game: Click on friends messages and read those first Read messages from others you’re in an ongoing chat with Delete those who were outside my age preferences Delete the obvious ‘hey’ messages - anything you can read without even needing to open it Read the profiles for what’s left - skimming the contents tells you if it’s a definite no, a possible or a definite yes. Many delete themselves here (will fill in later or worse - “…” 🙄) Read the remaining messages and react accordingly. That was always my strategy. L " Pretty much this for me too. It’s really not that difficult. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even by Fabs standards the idea that ratios are irrelevant is a truly bizarre idea. If there's an imaginary club where the ratio is 1 woman to 100 men, all straight and looking to hook up, the woman has 100 chances to find someone she likes with no competition, and the men have one chance with 99 competitors. Extrapolate those odds out into any context and the maths don't change." If the woman isn't interested in, or attracted to any of the 100 she'll leave and use another means of finding company. She won't settle just because those are the only options. This is why ratios are irrelevant. They promote the idea that a smaller pool to fish in guarantees success. It doesn't and never will. If the ratios were reversed and there were 100 women and just me, I wouldn't choose the best worst option. If anyone seriously thinks adjusting the numbers would benefit them then that just means their decision making processes are based on availability, rather than actual interest and attraction. I'd rather have a wank. 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even by Fabs standards the idea that ratios are irrelevant is a truly bizarre idea. If there's an imaginary club where the ratio is 1 woman to 100 men, all straight and looking to hook up, the woman has 100 chances to find someone she likes with no competition, and the men have one chance with 99 competitors. Extrapolate those odds out into any context and the maths don't change." Ratios only matter if everyone is equal. If there 99 perfect blokes for her then the odds are just over 1%. If half the blokes are the wrong height, 60% of the rest are the wrong shape or not attractive and only three of those remaining have the requisite attributes down below then the ratios are now 3:1. I would take those odds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even by Fabs standards the idea that ratios are irrelevant is a truly bizarre idea. If there's an imaginary club where the ratio is 1 woman to 100 men, all straight and looking to hook up, the woman has 100 chances to find someone she likes with no competition, and the men have one chance with 99 competitors. Extrapolate those odds out into any context and the maths don't change. Ratios only matter if everyone is equal. If there 99 perfect blokes for her then the odds are just over 1%. If half the blokes are the wrong height, 60% of the rest are the wrong shape or not attractive and only three of those remaining have the requisite attributes down below then the ratios are now 3:1. I would take those odds." Exactly. 👌💯% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even by Fabs standards the idea that ratios are irrelevant is a truly bizarre idea. If there's an imaginary club where the ratio is 1 woman to 100 men, all straight and looking to hook up, the woman has 100 chances to find someone she likes with no competition, and the men have one chance with 99 competitors. Extrapolate those odds out into any context and the maths don't change. If the woman isn't interested in, or attracted to any of the 100 she'll leave and use another means of finding company. She won't settle just because those are the only options. This is why ratios are irrelevant. They promote the idea that a smaller pool to fish in guarantees success. It doesn't and never will. If the ratios were reversed and there were 100 women and just me, I wouldn't choose the best worst option. If anyone seriously thinks adjusting the numbers would benefit them then that just means their decision making processes are based on availability, rather than actual interest and attraction. I'd rather have a wank. 🤷♂️" Spot on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not the ratios that work against people here. It’s the fact that their profiles are poor and the way they contact people is just completely wrong. There are men on here who do well. Consistently. If ratios were the only factor then that wouldn’t happen." Totally agree. The amount of men who don't read profiles... I've hidden my profile now as 99% never read it anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
even as a couple we find it hard to get replies and very rarely get messages from interested parties and we never take it to heart | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I reckon before you can send your message there needs to be a series of challenges including riddles, scavenger hunts and a bleep test. Is sending your well thought out ‘wuu2’ message really worth it? I have a riddle on my bio. So far the current high score is 37 by a couple. Nothing sets the mood for a saucy encounter quite like a brain teaser as foreplay 🤓 Tbh Hush it’s not particularly difficult (I’m won’t give the answer away of course). Oh really? Well how about this? I am not alive, but I can grow. I don’t have lungs, but I need air. I have no mouth, yet I can drown. What am I? Care to take a guess? Fire 🔥" You are correct ✅ How about this one then, Sparkle 🧠 I am lighter than air, but a million men cannot lift me. Careful! If you hold me, I will disappear. What am I? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This would be the worst for me I hate that you have to "match" on dating apps so I have to spend hours swiping to match with people before we can talk. One of the advantages of fab for me is that it isn't a swiping/matching system. I'd rather have a full inbox full of messages. Plus most men just swipe on every single woman anyway. Ok noted… so what about just having it that you can separate out those who you’ve not responded to and those you have? 🤷🏻♀️ I find my biggest problem (when I occasionally take my filters down) is that I lose convs as I can’t find them in the masses. So guys, or girls, with potential are lost. Yes I actually think that would be helpful, the ability to keep "conversations* in one folder and *new messages* in another would be a god send. There's a saved messages folder. 🤷♂️" But does that move any incoming messages from that person into the same folder? That's what I mean, to group new conversations and not just save old ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I disagree, sites always worked well for me and its worked well for the guys I've met as they've always been popular. People need to stop finding excuses why the site isn't working for them and concentrate on what they can do to improve their own experience" 💯 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This would be the worst for me I hate that you have to "match" on dating apps so I have to spend hours swiping to match with people before we can talk. One of the advantages of fab for me is that it isn't a swiping/matching system. I'd rather have a full inbox full of messages. Plus most men just swipe on every single woman anyway. Ok noted… so what about just having it that you can separate out those who you’ve not responded to and those you have? 🤷🏻♀️ I find my biggest problem (when I occasionally take my filters down) is that I lose convs as I can’t find them in the masses. So guys, or girls, with potential are lost. Yes I actually think that would be helpful, the ability to keep "conversations* in one folder and *new messages* in another would be a god send. There's a saved messages folder. 🤷♂️ But does that move any incoming messages from that person into the same folder? That's what I mean, to group new conversations and not just save old ones. " Honestly don't know but I'll try it as an experiment. 🤷♂️ But in terms of separating people you're interested in continuing to chat to from those you're not, it could be useful and as messages now show as threads I'd assume new ones may well be added to saved conversations. Maybe someone else knows? 🤔🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even by Fabs standards the idea that ratios are irrelevant is a truly bizarre idea. If there's an imaginary club where the ratio is 1 woman to 100 men, all straight and looking to hook up, the woman has 100 chances to find someone she likes with no competition, and the men have one chance with 99 competitors. Extrapolate those odds out into any context and the maths don't change. Ratios only matter if everyone is equal. If there 99 perfect blokes for her then the odds are just over 1%. If half the blokes are the wrong height, 60% of the rest are the wrong shape or not attractive and only three of those remaining have the requisite attributes down below then the ratios are now 3:1. I would take those odds." Why have you assumed you're one of the three that fit the woman's criteria? If we're talking a random and not controlled sample then it's equally likely you don't fit her criteria which is the whole principle of the maths. In a 1:100 ratio the 1 has a huge mathematical advantage in being successful over the 100. The basic mathematical probabilities of a 1:100 ratio don't change however you work it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even by Fabs standards the idea that ratios are irrelevant is a truly bizarre idea. If there's an imaginary club where the ratio is 1 woman to 100 men, all straight and looking to hook up, the woman has 100 chances to find someone she likes with no competition, and the men have one chance with 99 competitors. Extrapolate those odds out into any context and the maths don't change. Ratios only matter if everyone is equal. If there 99 perfect blokes for her then the odds are just over 1%. If half the blokes are the wrong height, 60% of the rest are the wrong shape or not attractive and only three of those remaining have the requisite attributes down below then the ratios are now 3:1. I would take those odds. Why have you assumed you're one of the three that fit the woman's criteria? If we're talking a random and not controlled sample then it's equally likely you don't fit her criteria which is the whole principle of the maths. In a 1:100 ratio the 1 has a huge mathematical advantage in being successful over the 100. The basic mathematical probabilities of a 1:100 ratio don't change however you work it." Because I have defined her requirements as such
The point is not the 3% - it is that it is highly unlikely everyone is a match. I know you are not saying this but I genuinely think the worst advice that is given on here is the idea that “everyone will find someone”. No they won’t. People want something specific (whatever that is) and the ratios that matter are those people who have the specific attributes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even by Fabs standards the idea that ratios are irrelevant is a truly bizarre idea. If there's an imaginary club where the ratio is 1 woman to 100 men, all straight and looking to hook up, the woman has 100 chances to find someone she likes with no competition, and the men have one chance with 99 competitors. Extrapolate those odds out into any context and the maths don't change. Ratios only matter if everyone is equal. If there 99 perfect blokes for her then the odds are just over 1%. If half the blokes are the wrong height, 60% of the rest are the wrong shape or not attractive and only three of those remaining have the requisite attributes down below then the ratios are now 3:1. I would take those odds. Why have you assumed you're one of the three that fit the woman's criteria? If we're talking a random and not controlled sample then it's equally likely you don't fit her criteria which is the whole principle of the maths. In a 1:100 ratio the 1 has a huge mathematical advantage in being successful over the 100. The basic mathematical probabilities of a 1:100 ratio don't change however you work it. Because I have defined her requirements as such
The point is not the 3% - it is that it is highly unlikely everyone is a match. I know you are not saying this but I genuinely think the worst advice that is given on here is the idea that “everyone will find someone”. No they won’t. People want something specific (whatever that is) and the ratios that matter are those people who have the specific attributes."I won't reply again as I don't want to derail the thread talking about data sets and controlled samples! I think we agree that ratios are not irrelevant but disagree on their importance, which is fair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More women use their filters. More men stop messaging women. Signs flag up on screen like 'you've messaged them four times already, go and have a wank', 'it's 2am, she's not gagging for your cock, go and have a wank' 'she posted about something, it's not an invitation to fuck her, go have a wank'. Everyone's happy. Yeah! And anti-waffle measures too. Word limits on posts, that kind of thing. Let's keep things snappy, peeps. 😉 But then I can’t go off on a tangent, derail the entire thread and generally wind up the OP. That’s one of my simple pleasures on here. Especially the Chillout Yes/No threads 😌" I enjoyed coming up with those! Made for very interesting statistical information 😅😁 S | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Even by Fabs standards the idea that ratios are irrelevant is a truly bizarre idea. If there's an imaginary club where the ratio is 1 woman to 100 men, all straight and looking to hook up, the woman has 100 chances to find someone she likes with no competition, and the men have one chance with 99 competitors. Extrapolate those odds out into any context and the maths don't change. Ratios only matter if everyone is equal. If there 99 perfect blokes for her then the odds are just over 1%. If half the blokes are the wrong height, 60% of the rest are the wrong shape or not attractive and only three of those remaining have the requisite attributes down below then the ratios are now 3:1. I would take those odds. Why have you assumed you're one of the three that fit the woman's criteria? If we're talking a random and not controlled sample then it's equally likely you don't fit her criteria which is the whole principle of the maths. In a 1:100 ratio the 1 has a huge mathematical advantage in being successful over the 100. The basic mathematical probabilities of a 1:100 ratio don't change however you work it. Because I have defined her requirements as such
The point is not the 3% - it is that it is highly unlikely everyone is a match. I know you are not saying this but I genuinely think the worst advice that is given on here is the idea that “everyone will find someone”. No they won’t. People want something specific (whatever that is) and the ratios that matter are those people who have the specific attributes.
I won't reply again as I don't want to derail the thread talking about data sets and controlled samples! I think we agree that ratios are not irrelevant but disagree on their importance, which is fair."The thing is.....sexual attraction isn't something you can equate to statistical analysis. Doing so oversimplifies things and assumes that ther has to be an outcome. There doesn't. People won't always just take what's on offer if it doesn't appeal. The ratio could be 1/1 or 1/1000. We're talking about meets/sex. Not something that's life threatening or essential. People don't HAVE to choose if there's no option that meets their needs/preferences. 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fabswingers, other dating sites & apps are cooked for most users because let’s face…the demographic ratios work against us all. It’s hard for single men to get responses/matches because THEIRS TOO MANY MEN. Women’s accounts/inboxes get flooded with so many messages, that acknowledging or even politely declining would be a full time job. What’s the solution? *limit the amount of men? *limit the amount of messages an inbox can hold? *make it so only women can initiate conversation? Again, it’ll never happen. But… "Men a probably the ones who spend more money on premium privileges (seeing matches etc) to help elevate their chances so it would probs wouldn't make best sense financially to limit thr amount of men | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The thing is.....sexual attraction isn't something you can equate to statistical analysis. " To be fair - my orgasms are statistically significant! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not the ratios that work against people here. It’s the fact that their profiles are poor and the way they contact people is just completely wrong. There are men on here who do well. Consistently. If ratios were the only factor then that wouldn’t happen." . This totally
Low effort bios and hi messages don't cut it for most of us. | |||
| 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 |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
