FabSwingers.com mobile

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

Men:women:couples:trans ratios

Jump to newest
 

By *elix Sighted OP   Man
6 weeks ago

Cloud 8

Do you think the fab experience would be fairer and better for all if fab admins controlled the ratios of people allowed on the site?

Let’s say, for example, on a ‘one in one out’ basis they allowed 30% men, 30% women, 20% couples, 20% trans (and the verification process for that was robust); do you think there would be less grief and more fabulous sexy sex with fabulous sexy sexers?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he Filthy Gorgeous OnesCouple
6 weeks ago

Black Rock

It’s all about member payments not fairness……

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_FickleWoman
6 weeks ago

Cambridge

Nope...

What about sexual preference & attraction?

In any case, attraction is subjective, so there's no way to regulate that...

What do you mean by fairer & better?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uitedGent.Man
6 weeks ago

Milton Keynes

Why would they do that 😅

I’m pretty sure they want as many people as possible paying a fiver

Why is everyone looking for a shortcut.

Standout. Make effort. Reap what thy sows.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee04Man
6 weeks ago

Essex

Put the work in, just accept if someone says no it’s no and move on. If I ever get told you’re not for me I thank them for their time replying and move on. No point flogging a dead horse so to speak.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *partharmonyCouple
6 weeks ago

Tonbridge

How would they decide who doesn't get in? Why would that criteria make it better for those who wouldn't use that criteria to find people they like.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *reyToTheFairiesWoman
6 weeks ago

Carlisle usually

Nah.

What if they only let the uggos in?

And it would just encourage more men to make profiles misrepresenting who they actually are 💜

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enerationfornicationMan
3 weeks ago

not far from...


"It’s all about member payments not fairness……"

Compared to most other sites, I don't think they your being forced into buying a "membership"

I was part of another site a few years back, and I was always getting messages saying "you have received a message from..." ( pay $xx to read and send a reply...)

Let's hope I don't give someone an idea

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
3 weeks ago

Hove, mainly…

More the merrier

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eautifully TwistedWoman
3 weeks ago

Telford

Even if they only allowed a certain amount of people in I don't see how that would make the experience any better nor easier.

We are all searching for different things and I personally like variety. It's one of the reasons why I stay.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
3 weeks ago

Crumpet Castle

No. The idea falls apart as soon as it is read.

Where are the bi people ?

What happens to the couple when one of them leaves ?

What happens to the woman who discovers she's a lesbian?

Where do the gay couples fit in and what if there are more lesbian couples than homosexual couples ?

How come there are 40% men and 40% women and 20% trans?

Will the trans be fully trans or chicks with dicks?

How many of the trans will be short hair or bits removed ?

How many of the trans will be men or women ....... prob 19% men and 1% women.

Do we all send pics of our genitals for proof ?

What if one of the trans has had an epiphany and changes back, Can they still be a member ?

Where do we put the toilets and how many would be needed ?

I think no. The whole thing sounds like a day out at Brighton.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asoMan
3 weeks ago

Sheffield


"Do you think the fab experience would be fairer and better for all if fab admins controlled the ratios of people allowed on the site?

Let’s say, for example, on a ‘one in one out’ basis they allowed 30% men, 30% women, 20% couples, 20% trans (and the verification process for that was robust); do you think there would be less grief and more fabulous sexy sex with fabulous sexy sexers?"
that’s Orwellian!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
3 weeks ago

Hove, mainly…

…..I think no. The whole thing sounds like a day out at Brighton….

Indeed and no one bats an eyelid or gives them a second glance. The number of blokes wearing T shirts, boots and skirts…

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *utoftheBluexWoman
3 weeks ago

Bot Farm

No

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *vaRoseWoman
3 weeks ago

Ankh-Morpork


"Do you think the fab experience would be fairer and better for all if fab admins controlled the ratios of people allowed on the site?

Let’s say, for example, on a ‘one in one out’ basis they allowed 30% men, 30% women, 20% couples, 20% trans (and the verification process for that was robust); do you think there would be less grief and more fabulous sexy sex with fabulous sexy sexers?"

How would you verify?

Fairer and better in what way? For who?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eyond PurityCouple
3 weeks ago

North East Lincolnshire

Having every person pay for the site to use the features would make it less populated and give them more money to make the verification process better.

It wouldn’t make any difference if they limited people - it would still be the same percent that would be attractive to us…

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
3 weeks ago

Crumpet Castle


"Do you think the fab experience would be fairer and better for all if fab admins controlled the ratios of people allowed on the site?

Let’s say, for example, on a ‘one in one out’ basis they allowed 30% men, 30% women, 20% couples, 20% trans (and the verification process for that was robust); do you think there would be less grief and more fabulous sexy sex with fabulous sexy sexers?

How would you verify?

Fairer and better in what way? For who?"

I think that 'robust verification' means they have to send in a pic of them all at it. Only then can you use the word 'genuine' or 'sucks like a Dyson'

Personally I think a snapshot of their curtains should be enough proof. ( no not beef curtains )

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lowupdollTV/TS
3 weeks ago

Herts/Leeds

The diversity is what keeps this site mostly a pleasant site to spend time on, it creates some checks and balances on how people behave. By comparison, in the fabguys forum the default setting is hostile mixed with wanking chat, and that’s a ray of sunshine compared to a certain gay hook up app.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *utoftheBluexWoman
3 weeks ago

Bot Farm


"Having every person pay for the site to use the features would make it less populated and give them more money to make the verification process better.

It wouldn’t make any difference if they limited people - it would still be the same percent that would be attractive to us…

"

Agree. That would leave behind at least kids pretending they are adults and d*unks signing up for a quick wank

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aGaGagging for itCouple
3 weeks ago

Newcastle upon Tyne

Controlling ratios doesn't affect your success rate (which I'm guessing is what the post is really about). By allowing all in allows the maximum number of people to be involved and therefore the maximum number of people in your preferred category. It's then up to you to filter / select.

Yes, there will be potentially more competition (e.g. single guys), but it's up to you to bring your A game and stand out. Cream rises to the top!

Choice is key, not limiting it!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
3 weeks ago

Crumpet Castle


"Having every person pay for the site to use the features would make it less populated and give them more money to make the verification process better.

It wouldn’t make any difference if they limited people - it would still be the same percent that would be attractive to us…

Agree. That would leave behind at least kids pretending they are adults and d*unks signing up for a quick wank "

Day 2 out at Brighton

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *viatrixWoman
3 weeks ago

Back in Surrey, Dahlings!

Lol, more sex for whom?

So just because there’d be a “fairer” (🤣) men to women ratio- we as women would have to put out to men we’re not attracted to at all?

Hilarious 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *utoftheBluexWoman
3 weeks ago

Bot Farm


"Having every person pay for the site to use the features would make it less populated and give them more money to make the verification process better.

It wouldn’t make any difference if they limited people - it would still be the same percent that would be attractive to us…

Agree. That would leave behind at least kids pretending they are adults and d*unks signing up for a quick wank

Day 2 out at Brighton"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *eeNKayCouple
3 weeks ago

Stockport


"Having every person pay for the site to use the features would make it less populated and give them more money to make the verification process better.

It wouldn’t make any difference if they limited people - it would still be the same percent that would be attractive to us…

Agree. That would leave behind at least kids pretending they are adults and d*unks signing up for a quick wank

Day 2 out at Brighton"

Today I learned that Brighton is an ... _Interesting_ night out ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top