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 Swingers Chat |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? " completely agree...and no easier to find a decent guy on here than it is outside of here, even if you're looking for completely different reasons! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think he said that, he just described the supply & demand nature of the site." Yes he did, he said women that would look at astras dont on here they only look at astons | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"maybe he should become an aston instead of whinging like a little bitch " I agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I (Mr) think that a lot of men (not all!) have the popular misconception that because women are on the site, they are all willing to shag anything that comes their way, and if not, how dare they choose to refuse. Equally though, I feel that some female site members can be extremely picky and very rude, although sometimes that's a result of them being in the minority on the site, therefore the ball is at their feet so to speak. Again, this isn't my blanket _iew of male and female fab members, just some of what I/we have experienced. "I agree, most men think women will shag anything, which is why in my opinion most men send cock pics not face pics. Women are picky, i am, i wont ever settle for meeting someone I don't actually find picky. i try not to be rude in messages, but sometimes when you have pages of messages its hard not to snap a rude reply back to someone that clearly hasnt read the profile prior to messaging | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
- 54 year old. Whereas in real life I wouldn't know how to do that, or even get the chance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Same can be said for guys aswell "If good looking women said yes to more men I wouldn't get many offers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My standards are the same both on and off site. I have been without for over 4 months because I am unwilling to change my preferences. Thank for my wand! "like i said on the last thread if i don't get a person of my preference, i stay at home and play with myself and will continue to do so until i get what i like  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I (Mr) think that a lot of men (not all!) have the popular misconception that because women are on the site, they are all willing to shag anything that comes their way, and if not, how dare they choose to refuse. Equally though, I feel that some female site members can be extremely picky and very rude, although sometimes that's a result of them being in the minority on the site, therefore the ball is at their feet so to speak. Again, this isn't my blanket _iew of male and female fab members, just some of what I/we have experienced.
I agree, most men think women will shag anything, which is why in my opinion most men send cock pics not face pics.
Women are picky, i am, i wont ever settle for meeting someone I don't actually find picky.
i try not to be rude in messages, but sometimes when you have pages of messages its hard not to snap a rude reply back to someone that clearly hasnt read the profile prior to messaging
"this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? " What I want is not affected by supply and demand either, as he maintains. It assumes I'll adjust my criteria so I can meet, depending on who is available. And if what he describes as better options are available, that will warp my perception and put me off more average people. I've said many times that I won't adjust my criteria. If I can't get what I want, I do without. And there's nothing warping my _iew of anyone. If there were no "better options" on here at all, I still wouldn't want what I don't want. Some men just can't get their head around thinking that isn't the same as theirs. They're so convinced they have it so bad and it's so easy for women. This is largely because a lot of them *would* adjust their criteria to get a meet, and they'll go for the best choice available to them. If they had the choice on here that women have, it would be easy for a lot of them. They can't understand it's not as easy as they think (for many, not all women) because we're not like them in terms of how we think. Many of us won't take the best choice available so supply and demand is irrelevant. We want what we want and if nobody suitable is available, we'll look elsewhere or go without. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't really have standards as I enjoy the company of all kinds of women, as they say, variety is the spice of life "Nandos is spicy  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? What I want is not affected by supply and demand either, as he maintains. It assumes I'll adjust my criteria so I can meet, depending on who is available. And if what he describes as better options are available, that will warp my perception and put me off more average people. I've said many times that I won't adjust my criteria. If I can't get what I want, I do without. And there's nothing warping my _iew of anyone. If there were no "better options" on here at all, I still wouldn't want what I don't want. Some men just can't get their head around thinking that isn't the same as theirs. They're so convinced they have it so bad and it's so easy for women. This is largely because a lot of them *would* adjust their criteria to get a meet, and they'll go for the best choice available to them. If they had the choice on here that women have, it would be easy for a lot of them. They can't understand it's not as easy as they think (for many, not all women) because we're not like them in terms of how we think. Many of us won't take the best choice available so supply and demand is irrelevant. We want what we want and if nobody suitable is available, we'll look elsewhere or go without." exactly right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? What I want is not affected by supply and demand either, as he maintains. It assumes I'll adjust my criteria so I can meet, depending on who is available. And if what he describes as better options are available, that will warp my perception and put me off more average people. I've said many times that I won't adjust my criteria. If I can't get what I want, I do without. And there's nothing warping my _iew of anyone. If there were no "better options" on here at all, I still wouldn't want what I don't want. Some men just can't get their head around thinking that isn't the same as theirs. They're so convinced they have it so bad and it's so easy for women. This is largely because a lot of them *would* adjust their criteria to get a meet, and they'll go for the best choice available to them. If they had the choice on here that women have, it would be easy for a lot of them. They can't understand it's not as easy as they think (for many, not all women) because we're not like them in terms of how we think. Many of us won't take the best choice available so supply and demand is irrelevant. We want what we want and if nobody suitable is available, we'll look elsewhere or go without." Agree 100% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i try not to be rude in messages, but sometimes when you have pages of messages its hard not to snap a rude reply back to someone that clearly hasnt read the profile prior to messaging " So true. I try to ignore or block but sometimes the sheer arrogance of thinking I'll fuck anyone and all they need to do is send a cock pic and a "hi" and I'll be gagging for them gets to be too much. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"I read it that the OP meant because there are more men that women the women can maintain or raise their 'standards'. Whereas the men don't have this option so much. Purely because of supply & demand." They do have the option though. They can choose not to meet. They don't have to change their preferences or lower their standards. I don't - I've already said I'll go without rather than do that. Few men seem to consider that an option. We often hear how women are less picky in the real world and how many of the women here wouldn't get second looks in the real world. So why don't these guys who can't get what they want here, and moan about it, go back to the real world? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't really have standards as I enjoy the company of all kinds of women, as they say, variety is the spice of life
Nandos is spicy "Yes they are, especially them paninis | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't really have standards as I enjoy the company of all kinds of women, as they say, variety is the spice of life
Nandos is spicy Yes they are, especially them paninis "Panini and coffee then  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read it that the OP meant because there are more men that women the women can maintain or raise their 'standards'. Whereas the men don't have this option so much. Purely because of supply & demand. They do have the option though. They can choose not to meet. They don't have to change their preferences or lower their standards. I don't - I've already said I'll go without rather than do that. Few men seem to consider that an option. We often hear how women are less picky in the real world and how many of the women here wouldn't get second looks in the real world. So why don't these guys who can't get what they want here, and moan about it, go back to the real world? " Again fully agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't really have standards as I enjoy the company of all kinds of women, as they say, variety is the spice of life
Nandos is spicy Yes they are, especially them paninis
Panini and coffee then "Yes a big cappuccino and what about a cake to or biscuit they got? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read it that the OP meant because there are more men that women the women can maintain or raise their 'standards'. Whereas the men don't have this option so much. Purely because of supply & demand. They do have the option though. They can choose not to meet. They don't have to change their preferences or lower their standards. I don't - I've already said I'll go without rather than do that. Few men seem to consider that an option. We often hear how women are less picky in the real world and how many of the women here wouldn't get second looks in the real world. So why don't these guys who can't get what they want here, and moan about it, go back to the real world? Again fully agree" i don't mean this as a blanket statement but many of the men who message me would probably sell their granny for a leg over with something female or vaguely female and that is not attractive is it? i will only meet a man who is discerning as i am  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It works for guys too....I have said no to more than I have said yes too....and that've over a period of several years. My block list has more than its share of ladies, not just guys who want to take my cock or ass lol!" Exactly, you have the choice to accept the best available or take your time and find the people you actually want to meet. We all have the same right to say no thanks. It's only if someone feels they absolutely have to have a shag and that's more important than their preferences, that they are tempted to meet people who don't fit their preferences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't really have standards as I enjoy the company of all kinds of women, as they say, variety is the spice of life
Nandos is spicy Yes they are, especially them paninis
Panini and coffee then Yes a big cappuccino and what about a cake to or biscuit they got? "Cake wins every time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read it that the OP meant because there are more men that women the women can maintain or raise their 'standards'. Whereas the men don't have this option so much. Purely because of supply & demand. They do have the option though. They can choose not to meet. They don't have to change their preferences or lower their standards. I don't - I've already said I'll go without rather than do that. Few men seem to consider that an option. We often hear how women are less picky in the real world and how many of the women here wouldn't get second looks in the real world. So why don't these guys who can't get what they want here, and moan about it, go back to the real world? Again fully agree i don't mean this as a blanket statement but many of the men who message me would probably sell their granny for a leg over with something female or vaguely female and that is not attractive is it? i will only meet a man who is discerning as i am "Exactly, men might shag anything, women on other hand tend to have preferences, however those preferences arent necessarily astons | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? " It seems that I'm the offending poster! I feel like I should defend myself, so for those who are interested, I didn't at all assume that women change their standards for this site! This is what I actually said in the other thread: (read thebthread to get the full picture) 100% of men are imperfect, yes. 100% of women are also imperfect but men get very little choice when it comes down to it. The only reason you think it's hard is because you're extremely picky, and the reason you're extremely picky is because you can be! My point is that majority of women on here are just the same as the men, 75% or so seem to be mad/weird in some way, but we are not in a position to be particularly picky. Standards, etc rely on supply and demand. For example, to illustrate it, imagine you have 50 cars to choose from. You have 40 odd normal cars, astras, etc, run of the mill cars, you also have an Aston Martin. All of a sudden, the 40 cars are no good anymore, they just don't look right, they just aren't as comfortable... Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? It seems that I'm the offending poster! I feel like I should defend myself, so for those who are interested, I didn't at all assume that women change their standards for this site! This is what I actually said in the other thread: (read thebthread to get the full picture) 100% of men are imperfect, yes. 100% of women are also imperfect but men get very little choice when it comes down to it. The only reason you think it's hard is because you're extremely picky, and the reason you're extremely picky is because you can be! I don't think its hard at all, i meet men i like, and those would be same away from the site My point is that majority of women on here are just the same as the men, 75% or so seem to be mad/weird in some way, but we are not in a position to be particularly picky. Men can be picky, most choose not to be Standards, etc rely on supply and demand. Standards rely on personal taste For example, to illustrate it, imagine you have 50 cars to choose from. You have 40 odd normal cars, astras, etc, run of the mill cars, you also have an Aston Martin. All of a sudden, the 40 cars are no good anymore, they just don't look right, they just aren't as comfortable... Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand." Ive never chosen astons and never will So your analogy is completely wrong in my _iew | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? It seems that I'm the offending poster! I feel like I should defend myself, so for those who are interested, I didn't at all assume that women change their standards for this site! This is what I actually said in the other thread: (read thebthread to get the full picture) 100% of men are imperfect, yes. 100% of women are also imperfect but men get very little choice when it comes down to it. The only reason you think it's hard is because you're extremely picky, and the reason you're extremely picky is because you can be! My point is that majority of women on here are just the same as the men, 75% or so seem to be mad/weird in some way, but we are not in a position to be particularly picky. Standards, etc rely on supply and demand. For example, to illustrate it, imagine you have 50 cars to choose from. You have 40 odd normal cars, astras, etc, run of the mill cars, you also have an Aston Martin. All of a sudden, the 40 cars are no good anymore, they just don't look right, they just aren't as comfortable... Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand." but that is not true because if 100 men message me and they are not to my liking then i won't meet, i will do it myself, so if i never get another man to my liking then i will never meet again on here simples | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? It seems that I'm the offending poster! I feel like I should defend myself, so for those who are interested, I didn't at all assume that women change their standards for this site! This is what I actually said in the other thread: (read thebthread to get the full picture) 100% of men are imperfect, yes. 100% of women are also imperfect but men get very little choice when it comes down to it. The only reason you think it's hard is because you're extremely picky, and the reason you're extremely picky is because you can be! My point is that majority of women on here are just the same as the men, 75% or so seem to be mad/weird in some way, but we are not in a position to be particularly picky. Standards, etc rely on supply and demand. For example, to illustrate it, imagine you have 50 cars to choose from. You have 40 odd normal cars, astras, etc, run of the mill cars, you also have an Aston Martin. All of a sudden, the 40 cars are no good anymore, they just don't look right, they just aren't as comfortable... Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand. but that is not true because if 100 men message me and they are not to my liking then i won't meet, i will do it myself, so if i never get another man to my liking then i will never meet again on here simples "Same here so cant quite see how this supply and demand is being proved conclusive | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? It seems that I'm the offending poster! I feel like I should defend myself, so for those who are interested, I didn't at all assume that women change their standards for this site! This is what I actually said in the other thread: (read thebthread to get the full picture) 100% of men are imperfect, yes. 100% of women are also imperfect but men get very little choice when it comes down to it. The only reason you think it's hard is because you're extremely picky, and the reason you're extremely picky is because you can be! My point is that majority of women on here are just the same as the men, 75% or so seem to be mad/weird in some way, but we are not in a position to be particularly picky. Standards, etc rely on supply and demand. For example, to illustrate it, imagine you have 50 cars to choose from. You have 40 odd normal cars, astras, etc, run of the mill cars, you also have an Aston Martin. All of a sudden, the 40 cars are no good anymore, they just don't look right, they just aren't as comfortable... Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand. but that is not true because if 100 men message me and they are not to my liking then i won't meet, i will do it myself, so if i never get another man to my liking then i will never meet again on here simples "but a lot of men would settle for second best i aint one that will accept it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? It seems that I'm the offending poster! I feel like I should defend myself, so for those who are interested, I didn't at all assume that women change their standards for this site! This is what I actually said in the other thread: (read thebthread to get the full picture) 100% of men are imperfect, yes. 100% of women are also imperfect but men get very little choice when it comes down to it. The only reason you think it's hard is because you're extremely picky, and the reason you're extremely picky is because you can be! My point is that majority of women on here are just the same as the men, 75% or so seem to be mad/weird in some way, but we are not in a position to be particularly picky. Standards, etc rely on supply and demand. For example, to illustrate it, imagine you have 50 cars to choose from. You have 40 odd normal cars, astras, etc, run of the mill cars, you also have an Aston Martin. All of a sudden, the 40 cars are no good anymore, they just don't look right, they just aren't as comfortable... Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand. but that is not true because if 100 men message me and they are not to my liking then i won't meet, i will do it myself, so if i never get another man to my liking then i will never meet again on here simples
Same here so cant quite see how this supply and demand is being proved conclusive"exactly the supply and demand theory is crap to put it plainly  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand." Rubbish. This isn't the only place we encounter men. We decide what we like based on a variety of sources including real life and the media. Who is on this site does not affect what I like and don't like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand. Rubbish. This isn't the only place we encounter men. We decide what we like based on a variety of sources including real life and the media. Who is on this site does not affect what I like and don't like." Doesn't affect me either i like who i like regardless where in the world, or site im on. I dont like astons | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand." Absolute shite! I haven't had sex from here since last July and haven't had sex at all since September. Do I want it? Damn right I do....has anyone on here tempted me? Hell No! Do I get asked constantly? Of course I do! So that pays shite to your supply and demand theory, I will not settle if someone who does not appeal to me and rather go without until I do! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand. Absolute shite! I haven't had sex from here since last July and haven't had sex at all since September. Do I want it? Damn right I do....has anyone on here tempted me? Hell No! Do I get asked constantly? Of course I do! So that pays shite to your supply and demand theory, I will not settle if someone who does not appeal to me and rather go without until I do! "Same, (except the timescale is different, obviously). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand. Absolute shite! I haven't had sex from here since last July and haven't had sex at all since September. Do I want it? Damn right I do....has anyone on here tempted me? Hell No! Do I get asked constantly? Of course I do! So that pays shite to your supply and demand theory, I will not settle if someone who does not appeal to me and rather go without until I do! "yes exactly right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Before you knew the Aston Martin was there, your standards were different. It's the same thing here. People's standards depends on supply and demand. Absolute shite! I haven't had sex from here since last July and haven't had sex at all since September. Do I want it? Damn right I do....has anyone on here tempted me? Hell No! Do I get asked constantly? Of course I do! So that pays shite to your supply and demand theory, I will not settle if someone who does not appeal to me and rather go without until I do! yes exactly right "Exactly right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok... How many of you frequently turn down men who match your preferences because there are "better" options available? i.e. you're not changing your preferences, but you're not able to meet everyone (who is interested) who matches your preferences so you choose what you think is the cream. This, I think, might be what the men are suggesting - that we turn down people we'd otherwise say yes to because we can't meet everyone who meets our criteria. I think, in general, they're overestimating (vastly) how many men who meet our criteria are available. They assume because there are loads of men, there must be more 'suitable' ones than we can meet, so we turn down men who we otherwise would meet. That's not true for me personally. Is it true for any of you?" Not true for me either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok... How many of you frequently turn down men who match your preferences because there are "better" options available? i.e. you're not changing your preferences, but you're not able to meet everyone (who is interested) who matches your preferences so you choose what you think is the cream. This, I think, might be what the men are suggesting - that we turn down people we'd otherwise say yes to because we can't meet everyone who meets our criteria. I think, in general, they're overestimating (vastly) how many men who meet our criteria are available. They assume because there are loads of men, there must be more 'suitable' ones than we can meet, so we turn down men who we otherwise would meet. That's not true for me personally. Is it true for any of you? Not true for me either" Nor Me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too!" The bit I disagree with is that I set my preferences based on who is available. I don't. If the only place I encounter men is on here, then the men here would be all I have to go on so it may be true at least to an extent. However, I knew what I like before I even knew about Fab and it's not changed. That destroys the theory my preferences are based on supply and demand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too!" I dont have and never will have higher stsndards just because of the number of men. It doesnt matter if theres one nan or 100,000,000 men, if i dont fancy i dont fuck simples No supply snd demand will change that And having god know how many men in existence has played no part in choosing the type of man i like | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? " Quite often those we meet on here aren't those we would come across/meet in real life. That's part of what we enjoy about sites like these.( As in, our backgrounds etc are completely different.) We meet those that tickle our interest (both in looks and personality/attitude) and couldn't give a monkies if some people think our standards need altering. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too!" what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! The bit I disagree with is that I set my preferences based on who is available. I don't. If the only place I encounter men is on here, then the men here would be all I have to go on so it may be true at least to an extent. However, I knew what I like before I even knew about Fab and it's not changed. That destroys the theory my preferences are based on supply and demand." And few meet my criteria because most are married/think that cock pics are the height of seductive prowess/live a zillion miles away/smoke. My baseline preferences aren't unreasonable but the 'standard' of a lot of the men on here is very low indeed. They join expecting easy sex and wanting free prostitutes. They are crass and entitled. As I keep saying, lots of men doesn't mean lots of, or even any, appealing men. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I (Mr) think that a lot of men (not all!) have the popular misconception that because women are on the site, they are all willing to shag anything that comes their way, and if not, how dare they choose to refuse. Equally though, I feel that some female site members can be extremely picky and very rude, although sometimes that's a result of them being in the minority on the site, therefore the ball is at their feet so to speak. Again, this isn't my blanket _iew of male and female fab members, just some of what I/we have experienced.
I agree, most men think women will shag anything, which is why in my opinion most men send cock pics not face pics.
Women are picky, i am, i wont ever settle for meeting someone I don't actually find picky.
i try not to be rude in messages, but sometimes when you have pages of messages its hard not to snap a rude reply back to someone that clearly hasnt read the profile prior to messaging
"Yep totally agree, some men do seem to assume we are all gagging for sex with them and because we are on fab we will automatically say yes!! I do get a bit arsey with guys when they clearly have no respect or keep sending the same message over and over despite you saying no thanks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am bowing out of this thread now as someone just wants everyone to agree to his way of thinking regardless of what I really look for on here! I know my mind, I know what I like and I won't settle for anything else. " Yep. Total inability to see the point of _iew of women, stating how it is even though he can't possibly know what the experiences of women on here are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. " If someone didn't meet my preferences I would just not have sex. I went for a year not having sex because I couldn't find any men that fitted my preferences. It really wasn't a problem. I didn't implode or anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along" He thinks we all want specific things, like tall, muscular men, because we have so much choice on here. That we won't meet more 'average' men because we base our criteria on the 'best' available and won't consider anyone else. Having too much choice makes us picky, he thinks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along" I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Using the 50:1 figures that were quoted. So, im on a website, i post a meet, 50 men respond, none are my type, i say no thanks to all 50 men. I go to the pub, 50 men are out, none are my type, i go home alone. I go yo work, 50 men work there, i do my work and go home as none are my type. I do not pick the best out of the 50. So pray tell, explain your supply and demand there" His theory is because you've seen a "better" man somewhere, you have based what you want on him, which is why none of those other men are good enough. If you'd not seen the "better" man, his theory is that some of the other men might meet your criteria because you wouldn't have set the bar so high. It's bollocks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again." If every man on here had nothing but 50 cock pics, I still wouldn't like cock pics and I wouldn't meet any of them. I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere. My 'standards' were not raised to exclude men with nothing but a stack of cock photos by some men who don't have nothing but cock photos. I simply don't find cock photos sexy or appealing. What is available does not influence what I do and don't find attractive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along He thinks we all want specific things, like tall, muscular men, because we have so much choice on here. That we won't meet more 'average' men because we base our criteria on the 'best' available and won't consider anyone else. Having too much choice makes us picky, he thinks." In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again." don't talk daft, no two people communicate in exactly the same way. but if your talking!kng about selection process that's part of life, now else do we chose things. If someone put three cakes in front of you and told you to chose one hour going to chose the one that appeals to you the most now on earth would you get anywhere in life without making choices. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again." If all the men on here were good at communicating there would be an awful lot more women on here to sleep with those men... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Using the 50:1 figures that were quoted. So, im on a website, i post a meet, 50 men respond, none are my type, i say no thanks to all 50 men. I go to the pub, 50 men are out, none are my type, i go home alone. I go yo work, 50 men work there, i do my work and go home as none are my type. I do not pick the best out of the 50. So pray tell, explain your supply and demand there His theory is because you've seen a "better" man somewhere, you have based what you want on him, which is why none of those other men are good enough. If you'd not seen the "better" man, his theory is that some of the other men might meet your criteria because you wouldn't have set the bar so high. It's bollocks." Correct! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Using the 50:1 figures that were quoted. So, im on a website, i post a meet, 50 men respond, none are my type, i say no thanks to all 50 men. I go to the pub, 50 men are out, none are my type, i go home alone. I go yo work, 50 men work there, i do my work and go home as none are my type. I do not pick the best out of the 50. So pray tell, explain your supply and demand there His theory is because you've seen a "better" man somewhere, you have based what you want on him, which is why none of those other men are good enough. If you'd not seen the "better" man, his theory is that some of the other men might meet your criteria because you wouldn't have set the bar so high. It's bollocks." But his theory also dictated that i would pick the best option available, if my "best" as he terms it wasnt available then in my eyes there is no best. My best however is not the aston type with perfect toned body, beefy muscles, etc And thats my point, not all women are self centered to pick the astons, dome stick with the astras, yet his original post stated everyone likes the astras then aston appears, all sudden astras forgotten. Says who, him, and i disagree with him | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell." I agree with you about the Supply & Demand effect. However, I think that maybe nsa sex doesn't fit the model so well. Th difference being that, regardless of Supply, the 'market' will refuse to 'buy' if personal standards/preferences are not met. We'll do without, unlike in the food market where you can't and you end up making choices based on S&D. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. If every man on here had nothing but 50 cock pics, I still wouldn't like cock pics and I wouldn't meet any of them. I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere. My 'standards' were not raised to exclude men with nothing but a stack of cock photos by some men who don't have nothing but cock photos. I simply don't find cock photos sexy or appealing. What is available does not influence what I do and don't find attractive." Yes!!!!! "I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere" Spot on! Because the people outside of the site would be better men. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'd take the cake that appeals to you the most. Doesn't stop you asking for double-chocolate. Just that double chocolate might not be available. I like lemon drizzle personally." and if it isn't available you either go without or have what's on offer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. don't talk daft, no two people communicate in exactly the same way. but if your talking!kng about selection process that's part of life, now else do we chose things. If someone put three cakes in front of you and told you to chose one hour going to chose the one that appeals to you the most now on earth would you get anywhere in life without making choices." Exactly! You'd choose the best one. If you got used to brilliant cakes, your standard would raise and you'd go off cheap cakes. This is because you can easily get better cakes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'd take the cake that appeals to you the most. Doesn't stop you asking for double-chocolate. Just that double chocolate might not be available. I like lemon drizzle personally." I wouldn't take any that appealed the most if option I wanted wasn't abailable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm a lot wider in my preferences here than I can imagine I would be if I was looking for a relationship." Same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'd take the cake that appeals to you the most. Doesn't stop you asking for double-chocolate. Just that double chocolate might not be available. I like lemon drizzle personally. I wouldn't take any that appealed the most if option I wanted wasn't abailable" er but if they appeal to you the most - that's because they appeal to you! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Using the 50:1 figures that were quoted. So, im on a website, i post a meet, 50 men respond, none are my type, i say no thanks to all 50 men. I go to the pub, 50 men are out, none are my type, i go home alone. I go yo work, 50 men work there, i do my work and go home as none are my type. I do not pick the best out of the 50. So pray tell, explain your supply and demand there His theory is because you've seen a "better" man somewhere, you have based what you want on him, which is why none of those other men are good enough. If you'd not seen the "better" man, his theory is that some of the other men might meet your criteria because you wouldn't have set the bar so high. It's bollocks. But his theory also dictated that i would pick the best option available, if my "best" as he terms it wasnt available then in my eyes there is no best. My best however is not the aston type with perfect toned body, beefy muscles, etc And thats my point, not all women are self centered to pick the astons, dome stick with the astras, yet his original post stated everyone likes the astras then aston appears, all sudden astras forgotten. Says who, him, and i disagree with him" Ok. But there's a major point in this which you may or may not be missing! The aston is the man who YOU think is the best man. It depends on YOUR personal preferences. I never linked an amazing body to an Aston, that's what you thought. The Aston represents a special man, a man who stands out. And a man who stands out depends on what else is available. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly! You'd choose the best one. If you got used to brilliant cakes, your standard would raise and you'd go off cheap cakes. This is because you can easily get better cakes." But does this translate to nsa sex? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. I agree with you about the Supply & Demand effect. However, I think that maybe nsa sex doesn't fit the model so well. Th difference being that, regardless of Supply, the 'market' will refuse to 'buy' if personal standards/preferences are not met. We'll do without, unlike in the food market where you can't and you end up making choices based on S&D." Yes! Ofcourse. I agree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. If all the men on here were good at communicating there would be an awful lot more women on here to sleep with those men..." Truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. I agree with you about the Supply & Demand effect. However, I think that maybe nsa sex doesn't fit the model so well. Th difference being that, regardless of Supply, the 'market' will refuse to 'buy' if personal standards/preferences are not met. We'll do without, unlike in the food market where you can't and you end up making choices based on S&D." Just last night, I went to a super market wanting something in particular. I needed up not buying it because I didn't feel it was food enough quality. Same happens here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'd take the cake that appeals to you the most. Doesn't stop you asking for double-chocolate. Just that double chocolate might not be available. I like lemon drizzle personally. I wouldn't take any that appealed the most if option I wanted wasn't abailable" I agree, it depends on how badly you want the cake. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Aston represents a special man, a man who stands out. And a man who stands out depends on what else is available." It's simply not true. If I go to a swinging club and I don't think anyone there matches my preferences, I simply won't fuck anyone. I don't need to have sex in order to stay alive. There's no requirement for me to have sex in my life. So I will only fuck men who meet my preferences - and my preferences are dictated by what I enjoy. If someone can not give me what I would enjoy, I just wouldn't have sex. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along He thinks we all want specific things, like tall, muscular men, because we have so much choice on here. That we won't meet more 'average' men because we base our criteria on the 'best' available and won't consider anyone else. Having too much choice makes us picky, he thinks. In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell." You're wrong. And that is you saying women would lower their 'standards' which is what you were trying to say you weren't saying. We (mostly) want what we want despite who is available. A lot of women will go without rather than be less "fussy". Me included. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'd take the cake that appeals to you the most. Doesn't stop you asking for double-chocolate. Just that double chocolate might not be available. I like lemon drizzle personally. I wouldn't take any that appealed the most if option I wanted wasn't abailable er but if they appeal to you the most - that's because they appeal to you!" Haha! Well spotted smart arse! Hahaha! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. don't talk daft, no two people communicate in exactly the same way. but if your talking!kng about selection process that's part of life, now else do we chose things. If someone put three cakes in front of you and told you to chose one hour going to chose the one that appeals to you the most now on earth would you get anywhere in life without making choices. Exactly! You'd choose the best one. If you got used to brilliant cakes, your standard would raise and you'd go off cheap cakes. This is because you can easily get better cakes." I don't even think I know what this discussion is about, it seems to be about what we all do everyday of our lives make decisions on appealability( I just made that word up) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly! You'd choose the best one. If you got used to brilliant cakes, your standard would raise and you'd go off cheap cakes. This is because you can easily get better cakes. But does this translate to nsa sex?" I believe it does... But I'll explain it in PM or this lot would go mental! Hahah! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. If all the men on here were good at communicating there would be an awful lot more women on here to sleep with those men... Truth." Yes! Because there would be a higher amount of 'better' men to be found on here! Women would be like, wow, there are some great men on this site. There would be more demand for men. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Aston represents a special man, a man who stands out. And a man who stands out depends on what else is available. It's simply not true. If I go to a swinging club and I don't think anyone there matches my preferences, I simply won't fuck anyone. I don't need to have sex in order to stay alive. There's no requirement for me to have sex in my life. So I will only fuck men who meet my preferences - and my preferences are dictated by what I enjoy. If someone can not give me what I would enjoy, I just wouldn't have sex." That is because there is no Aston in the club! There are no descent men there! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. If every man on here had nothing but 50 cock pics, I still wouldn't like cock pics and I wouldn't meet any of them. I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere. My 'standards' were not raised to exclude men with nothing but a stack of cock photos by some men who don't have nothing but cock photos. I simply don't find cock photos sexy or appealing. What is available does not influence what I do and don't find attractive. Yes!!!!! "I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere" Spot on! Because the people outside of the site would be better men." But a minute ago you said I'd become less fussy if what I want isn't available. Now you're agreeing with me when I state I won't? Make up your mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Aston represents a special man, a man who stands out. And a man who stands out depends on what else is available. It's simply not true. If I go to a swinging club and I don't think anyone there matches my preferences, I simply won't fuck anyone. I don't need to have sex in order to stay alive. There's no requirement for me to have sex in my life. So I will only fuck men who meet my preferences - and my preferences are dictated by what I enjoy. If someone can not give me what I would enjoy, I just wouldn't have sex. That is because there is no Aston in the club! There are no descent men there!" Exactly, so I wouldn't have sex. The "aston" has nothing to do with other men, and EVERYTHING to do with MY preferences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly! You'd choose the best one. If you got used to brilliant cakes, your standard would raise and you'd go off cheap cakes. This is because you can easily get better cakes. But does this translate to nsa sex?" Not even slightly, no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along He thinks we all want specific things, like tall, muscular men, because we have so much choice on here. That we won't meet more 'average' men because we base our criteria on the 'best' available and won't consider anyone else. Having too much choice makes us picky, he thinks. In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. You're wrong. And that is you saying women would lower their 'standards' which is what you were trying to say you weren't saying. We (mostly) want what we want despite who is available. A lot of women will go without rather than be less "fussy". Me included." But I did say it then, read it again! I said: "If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy!" IF IF IF! And maybe you do think I'm wrong. Maybe I think you're wrong! We have our own opinions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. I agree with you about the Supply & Demand effect. However, I think that maybe nsa sex doesn't fit the model so well. Th difference being that, regardless of Supply, the 'market' will refuse to 'buy' if personal standards/preferences are not met. We'll do without, unlike in the food market where you can't and you end up making choices based on S&D. Just last night, I went to a super market wanting something in particular. I needed up not buying it because I didn't feel it was food enough quality. Same happens here." Which shoots your theory that women will be less fussy if they have less choice right out of the water. You had choice, you decided not to buy. You didn't decide to be less fussy. I'm not sure you know what you are actually arguing now because you're contradicting yourself all over the place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. If every man on here had nothing but 50 cock pics, I still wouldn't like cock pics and I wouldn't meet any of them. I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere. My 'standards' were not raised to exclude men with nothing but a stack of cock photos by some men who don't have nothing but cock photos. I simply don't find cock photos sexy or appealing. What is available does not influence what I do and don't find attractive. Yes!!!!! "I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere" Spot on! Because the people outside of the site would be better men. But a minute ago you said I'd become less fussy if what I want isn't available. Now you're agreeing with me when I state I won't? Make up your mind." I've been very clear miss. Read what I have said again! You aren't reading it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd also say he picked the wrong analogy with Aston "Me too! Next time, I'll post with my solicitor by my side! Haha! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along He thinks we all want specific things, like tall, muscular men, because we have so much choice on here. That we won't meet more 'average' men because we base our criteria on the 'best' available and won't consider anyone else. Having too much choice makes us picky, he thinks. In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. You're wrong. And that is you saying women would lower their 'standards' which is what you were trying to say you weren't saying. We (mostly) want what we want despite who is available. A lot of women will go without rather than be less "fussy". Me included. But I did say it then, read it again! I said: "If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy!" IF IF IF! And maybe you do think I'm wrong. Maybe I think you're wrong! We have our own opinions." if someone nice isn't available I'm not going to settle for a twat. It seems that people don't understand that we would sooner go without I don't know if this is a man woman thing or just the fact where talking about sex. But I don't need sex to survive | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. I agree with you about the Supply & Demand effect. However, I think that maybe nsa sex doesn't fit the model so well. Th difference being that, regardless of Supply, the 'market' will refuse to 'buy' if personal standards/preferences are not met. We'll do without, unlike in the food market where you can't and you end up making choices based on S&D. Just last night, I went to a super market wanting something in particular. I needed up not buying it because I didn't feel it was food enough quality. Same happens here. Which shoots your theory that women will be less fussy if they have less choice right out of the water. You had choice, you decided not to buy. You didn't decide to be less fussy. I'm not sure you know what you are actually arguing now because you're contradicting yourself all over the place." No it doesn't!!! There are many many more supermarkets! It actually supports my theory. I'll simply go to another supermarket! Why? Because there is a great supply of the product I want! Just not in that shop. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You'd take the cake that appeals to you the most. Doesn't stop you asking for double-chocolate. Just that double chocolate might not be available. I like lemon drizzle personally. I wouldn't take any that appealed the most if option I wanted wasn't abailable er but if they appeal to you the most - that's because they appeal to you!" No it doesnt or i would take one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along He thinks we all want specific things, like tall, muscular men, because we have so much choice on here. That we won't meet more 'average' men because we base our criteria on the 'best' available and won't consider anyone else. Having too much choice makes us picky, he thinks. In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. You're wrong. And that is you saying women would lower their 'standards' which is what you were trying to say you weren't saying. We (mostly) want what we want despite who is available. A lot of women will go without rather than be less "fussy". Me included. But I did say it then, read it again! I said: "If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy!" IF IF IF! And maybe you do think I'm wrong. Maybe I think you're wrong! We have our own opinions.if someone nice isn't available I'm not going to settle for a twat. It seems that people don't understand that we would sooner go without I don't know if this is a man woman thing or just the fact where talking about sex. But I don't need sex to survive" I agree!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!" so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. I agree with you about the Supply & Demand effect. However, I think that maybe nsa sex doesn't fit the model so well. Th difference being that, regardless of Supply, the 'market' will refuse to 'buy' if personal standards/preferences are not met. We'll do without, unlike in the food market where you can't and you end up making choices based on S&D. Just last night, I went to a super market wanting something in particular. I needed up not buying it because I didn't feel it was food enough quality. Same happens here. Which shoots your theory that women will be less fussy if they have less choice right out of the water. You had choice, you decided not to buy. You didn't decide to be less fussy. I'm not sure you know what you are actually arguing now because you're contradicting yourself all over the place. No it doesn't!!! There are many many more supermarkets! It actually supports my theory. I'll simply go to another supermarket! Why? Because there is a great supply of the product I want! Just not in that shop." this is exactly why sir that you are from mars and us ladies from venus because you have not got a clue have you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, regardless of anyone's personal standards or preferences, the imbalance between men and women on here means that a woman has a potentially larger supply of men that could fit her standards/preferences. And men have a potentially smaller supply of women who meet their standards. However, neither sex is obliged to lower their standards if no one matches them. They can carry on until someone shows up who does match them. My thoughts "This does make some sense to me. I often bemoan the fact there seem to be very few men local to me who are what I'm looking for. But to be honest if I flip the search and look at women there's basically about 2 I'd consider and one of them is me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them." So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In a nutshell, yes! Where theres a great supply and a low demand, the demanders search out the premium goods. The best goods. When there's a great demand and a low supply, the demanders reduce their criteria in order to find it. The suppliers tighten up and find the best deal. It's exactly the same on here! Standards change depending on supply and demand!!! If for some crazy reason, the ratios on here became one to one... Men would be more fussy Nd women would be less fussy! That is my theory, in a nutshell. I agree with you about the Supply & Demand effect. However, I think that maybe nsa sex doesn't fit the model so well. Th difference being that, regardless of Supply, the 'market' will refuse to 'buy' if personal standards/preferences are not met. We'll do without, unlike in the food market where you can't and you end up making choices based on S&D. Just last night, I went to a super market wanting something in particular. I needed up not buying it because I didn't feel it was food enough quality. Same happens here. Which shoots your theory that women will be less fussy if they have less choice right out of the water. You had choice, you decided not to buy. You didn't decide to be less fussy. I'm not sure you know what you are actually arguing now because you're contradicting yourself all over the place. No it doesn't!!! There are many many more supermarkets! It actually supports my theory. I'll simply go to another supermarket! Why? Because there is a great supply of the product I want! Just not in that shop. this is exactly why sir that you are from mars and us ladies from venus because you have not got a clue have you? "Apparently not! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a follow on to the "this site is declining rapidly" thread in which one poster assumes women change there standards for this site. He however, in my opinion is wrong, the type of man I meet on this site is exactly the same as the type of man I meet away from this site, so to me my standards/preferences have not altered, and for many women on here I doubt there standards/preferences have altered either. Thoughts? " I hold the believe that ladies who swing may have higher standards than non swingers, simply because they have more opportunity to have sex so can be more discerning and choosy. I'm always hugely impressed by ladies and couples who swing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit." I'm sure he realises that now, that S&D doesn't apply to nsa sex. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can understand the supply and demand claim but it comes from male thinking and attitudes, and it isn't applicable to many, (most, even, perhaps), women. It can explain why some men are willing to overlook their preferences on here but it doesn't explain why women don't. I accept some 'more average' men would probably get more meets if there weren't 'better options'. Everyone has finite time and energy for meets, so assuming an excess of men who meet the criteria, a woman will choose the "best" and some men who meet the criteria will not get meets. However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case. Ok! That is almost what I'm saying. One thing you have just said though, backs me up! "However, this theory assumes a glut of men who meet the woman's preferences and in general, that's not the case." See how high you have your preferences set? You have them set very high, the reason you set them high is because of supply and demand!!! This here, although you may have said it unintentionally, supports my argument. Whatever amount of men there are, you will always have your criteria set to find the 'Astons'.even though there are thousands on here, you yourself admit that few meet your criteria... This is exactlt what I'm saying. Because there are so many men, you have higher standards. This just isn't for this site, it's real life too! what are you classing as preferences? Whether I meet a man or not depends on communication. Not whether something better is coming along I agree with you. So you have standards set. If a man is not willing to communicate, he would be rejected. He isn't a special guy, he wouldnt be considered. Now. What you'd find is that if every man was good at communication, your standards would raise even higher due to a lot of supply. If every man was amazing at chatting, you'd get fussier. You'd start looking for the special attribute again. If every man on here had nothing but 50 cock pics, I still wouldn't like cock pics and I wouldn't meet any of them. I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere. My 'standards' were not raised to exclude men with nothing but a stack of cock photos by some men who don't have nothing but cock photos. I simply don't find cock photos sexy or appealing. What is available does not influence what I do and don't find attractive. Yes!!!!! "I wouldn't lower my 'standards', I'd go elsewhere" Spot on! Because the people outside of the site would be better men. But a minute ago you said I'd become less fussy if what I want isn't available. Now you're agreeing with me when I state I won't? Make up your mind. I've been very clear miss. Read what I have said again! You aren't reading it." I'm reading it. You are now being inconsistent. Bottom line is who is available on here does not dictate what I want or affect my preferences. If the ratio on here changed, I would not become less "fussy". Supply and demand does not apply to the choices (many) women make when it comes to NSA sex. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit." Well yes, but that is what I said at that moment. But the first statement was as it is. That statement is with a very big IF.. which I clearly pointed out to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth?" I hate hypotheticals.... They are always an excuse for someone to put forward a nonsense argument. I wouldn't go with someone who didn't stink or didn't have green teeth. It's the wrong question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit. Well yes, but that is what I said at that moment. But the first statement was as it is. That statement is with a very big IF.. which I clearly pointed out to you." Which i still believe both statements!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit." God I hate that word, "fussy". It's almost like a word used to imply there is something inherently feminine about being indecisive. Men are selective, women are fussy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit. I'm sure he realises that now, that S&D doesn't apply to nsa sex." I don't think he accepts that at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth? I hate hypotheticals.... They are always an excuse for someone to put forward a nonsense argument. I wouldn't go with someone who didn't stink or didn't have green teeth. It's the wrong question." OK if a 57 year old smoker messaged you would you meet them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth? I hate hypotheticals.... They are always an excuse for someone to put forward a nonsense argument. I wouldn't go with someone who didn't stink or didn't have green teeth. It's the wrong question.OK if a 57 year old smoker messaged you would you meet them?" If an under 57 year old non smoker I might not meet them... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit. Well yes, but that is what I said at that moment. But the first statement was as it is. That statement is with a very big IF.. which I clearly pointed out to you." It's still you talking about women lowering 'standards', which is what you claimed you weren't saying. And even if the ratios changed, my preferences will not. My preferences are not dictated by who is available. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth? I hate hypotheticals.... They are always an excuse for someone to put forward a nonsense argument. I wouldn't go with someone who didn't stink or didn't have green teeth. It's the wrong question." So your standards stop you from meeting mingers with green teeth | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh... And I know some super hot 50+ alpha females, who hit the weights and I watch men my age chase like they are goddesses.... But no they don't smoke... Ash tray mouth is not good." there you go then so you have standards, noone doesn't have any standards | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth? I hate hypotheticals.... They are always an excuse for someone to put forward a nonsense argument. I wouldn't go with someone who didn't stink or didn't have green teeth. It's the wrong question. So your standards stop you from meeting mingers with green teeth "What's a minger? I look a 99.9% of women in couples or chatting to guys and think "that guy is a pointless bag of meat, why would she bother". Does that make 99.9% of guys mingers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh... And I know some super hot 50+ alpha females, who hit the weights and I watch men my age chase like they are goddesses.... But no they don't smoke... Ash tray mouth is not good.there you go then so you have standards, noone doesn't have any standards" Standards are codified rules, you do that and you lose your flexibility. I have things I like, but I never guard against things I don't like, it's not required.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth? I hate hypotheticals.... They are always an excuse for someone to put forward a nonsense argument. I wouldn't go with someone who didn't stink or didn't have green teeth. It's the wrong question. So your standards stop you from meeting mingers with green teeth
What's a minger?
I look a 99.9% of women in couples or chatting to guys and think "that guy is a pointless bag of meat, why would she bother".
Does that make 99.9% of guys mingers?"your not directly answering a question are you, its not about whether you approve of other people's choices its about your own | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit. I'm sure he realises that now, that S&D doesn't apply to nsa sex. I don't think he accepts that at all." I unfortunately believe S&D DOES apply to NSA! You ladies seem to think though that I'm saying that you would bang the best man out of the bunch, even if he isn't good enough. You do not have to 'buy' anything! Like in my example, I wanted a product, but that didn't mean that I was forced to buy it! Just because of supply and demand, it doesn't mean that I'm forced to buy an item. But I've not said anything to the contrary! Atleast not that I'm aware of!!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth? I hate hypotheticals.... They are always an excuse for someone to put forward a nonsense argument. I wouldn't go with someone who didn't stink or didn't have green teeth. It's the wrong question. So your standards stop you from meeting mingers with green teeth
What's a minger?
I look a 99.9% of women in couples or chatting to guys and think "that guy is a pointless bag of meat, why would she bother".
Does that make 99.9% of guys mingers?your not directly answering a question are you, its not about whether you approve of other people's choices its about your own"Like I said hypotheticals are pointless... I have no reason to meet any hypothetical. And I don't get contacted by your definition of a minger! So it's irrelevant... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh... And I know some super hot 50+ alpha females, who hit the weights and I watch men my age chase like they are goddesses.... But no they don't smoke... Ash tray mouth is not good.there you go then so you have standards, noone doesn't have any standards Standards are codified rules, you do that and you lose your flexibility. I have things I like, but I never guard against things I don't like, it's not required...." I disagree. I won't (knowingly) meet people cheating on partners and I go out of my way to avoid doing so. It's the same as a hard limit. Some limits are hard and some are soft. Preferences can be flexible but I think we all have at least a few fixed ones. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When it comes to something I do not need to survive, supply and demand does not enter into my choices. If I need food, I'll choose the best option. With sex, it's different. I detest smoking. If every man on the entire planet smoked, I wouldn't shag any of them. If there was one non-smoker but I didn't find him attractive, I wouldn't shag him. There would be a very low supply of non-smokers but he'd still have to be attractive to me, (i.e. meet my preferences), for me to be interested. I wouldn't lower the bar for him. If there were two non-smokers and I didn't fancy either, I wouldn't choose the 'best'." Well I totally agree. I've not disagreed with that! Regardless of supply and demand, nobody is forced to buy anything! That's ludicrous... But I've not said that that was the case!! One of my posts earlier blatantly agreed with that fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit. I'm sure he realises that now, that S&D doesn't apply to nsa sex. I don't think he accepts that at all. I unfortunately believe S&D DOES apply to NSA! You ladies seem to think though that I'm saying that you would bang the best man out of the bunch, even if he isn't good enough. You do not have to 'buy' anything! Like in my example, I wanted a product, but that didn't mean that I was forced to buy it! Just because of supply and demand, it doesn't mean that I'm forced to buy an item. But I've not said anything to the contrary! Atleast not that I'm aware of!!! "I think you're confused and don't have any inkling of the experience a lot of women have on here, or how we think and make decisions. Supply and demand may affect you in terms of nsa sex. It does not affect me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When it comes to something I do not need to survive, supply and demand does not enter into my choices. If I need food, I'll choose the best option. With sex, it's different. I detest smoking. If every man on the entire planet smoked, I wouldn't shag any of them. If there was one non-smoker but I didn't find him attractive, I wouldn't shag him. There would be a very low supply of non-smokers but he'd still have to be attractive to me, (i.e. meet my preferences), for me to be interested. I wouldn't lower the bar for him. If there were two non-smokers and I didn't fancy either, I wouldn't choose the 'best'. Well I totally agree. I've not disagreed with that! Regardless of supply and demand, nobody is forced to buy anything! That's ludicrous... But I've not said that that was the case!! One of my posts earlier blatantly agreed with that fact." You said if supply was lowered for me I'd lower my 'standards'. My example shows I wouldn't. I haven't, for example, decided I don't like smokers because I have the option of non-smokers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no "standards", on here or in real life. I seek difference, from myself, in ideas, culture, style and taste, although this goes agains all the rules of "dating"! Simply I'm totally capricious. My unpredictability is legendary!so would you go with someone that stank and had green teeth? I hate hypotheticals.... They are always an excuse for someone to put forward a nonsense argument. I wouldn't go with someone who didn't stink or didn't have green teeth. It's the wrong question. So your standards stop you from meeting mingers with green teeth
What's a minger?
I look a 99.9% of women in couples or chatting to guys and think "that guy is a pointless bag of meat, why would she bother".
Does that make 99.9% of guys mingers?your not directly answering a question are you, its not about whether you approve of other people's choices its about your own
Like I said hypotheticals are pointless...
I have no reason to meet any hypothetical.
And I don't get contacted by your definition of a minger!
So it's irrelevant... "I never said the word minger, so I didn't have a definition I merely pointed out that you do have standards as does everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All along the OP has been talking about raising standards not lowering them. So he claimed. Then he said if the ratios changed "men would become more fussy and women would become less fussy". That's saying we'd lower our "standards" if we can't get what we want. Which is bullshit. I'm sure he realises that now, that S&D doesn't apply to nsa sex. I don't think he accepts that at all. I unfortunately believe S&D DOES apply to NSA! You ladies seem to think though that I'm saying that you would bang the best man out of the bunch, even if he isn't good enough. You do not have to 'buy' anything! Like in my example, I wanted a product, but that didn't mean that I was forced to buy it! Just because of supply and demand, it doesn't mean that I'm forced to buy an item. But I've not said anything to the contrary! not that I'm aware of!!! "Wrong, in a pm to me did you or did you not say, if 10 men were lined up and had to pick only one, youd pick best out of the ten? To which my reply was if my type of man in that ten was not there i would pick none. Yet you said but if you had to pick the best So you have been telling us pick the best | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I don't think the "I only play with a specific whatever" plays out that much for most people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think most people that have been to clubs know there are people in person they'd play with but who would not be on their listed preferences on here. No different to seeing somebody who looks attractive... and then they open their mouth
I don't think the "I only play with a specific whatever" plays out that much for most people."Again, there are firm preferences and flexible preferences. I won't (knowingly) meet smokers or cheats. I prefer tall men but it's flexible for the right people. That's why I have a section on my profile about what I like and another on the "deal breakers". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no standards I will f**k anybody who is 6' or taller, fit, between 40 - 50, unattached, good-looking, intelligent and educated(with the exception for keen..he's a cutie)" aww thanks Josie xxxx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no standards I will f**k anybody who is 6' or taller, fit, between 40 - 50, unattached, good-looking, intelligent and educated" that must be frustrating | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no standards I will f**k anybody who is 6' or taller, fit, between 40 - 50, unattached, good-looking, intelligent and educated(with the exception for keen..he's a cutie) aww thanks Josie xxxx" No probs; xxx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh... And I know some super hot 50+ alpha females, who hit the weights and I watch men my age chase like they are goddesses.... But no they don't smoke... Ash tray mouth is not good.there you go then so you have standards, noone doesn't have any standards Standards are codified rules, you do that and you lose your flexibility. I have things I like, but I never guard against things I don't like, it's not required.... I disagree. I won't (knowingly) meet people cheating on partners and I go out of my way to avoid doing so. It's the same as a hard limit. Some limits are hard and some are soft. Preferences can be flexible but I think we all have at least a few fixed ones." Yes I believe very much In soft/hard limits... Soft ones are made to be broken... But I have never gone out of my way to NOT do anything... Not my style... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no standards I will f**k anybody who is 6' or taller, fit, between 40 - 50, unattached, good-looking, intelligent and educated" If this is satire it had gone entirely over my head. If this is for real then this is the kind of talk that puts many men off Fab! You have no idea how all our judgement light bulbs start lighting up the moment we come across a profile that comes up with a wishlist like that and we start thinking "hm, this woman/couple would be hard pressed to meet a guy even half this criteria when trying in real life... Because their expectations of others simply do not fit the way they look or carry themselves!" Like it or not, the ugly truth is some people's character or looks simply do not justify their criteria they set for others. And they're allowed to get away with it on Fab because of the gender imbalance and because this is the Internet so fuck you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh... And I know some super hot 50+ alpha females, who hit the weights and I watch men my age chase like they are goddesses.... But no they don't smoke... Ash tray mouth is not good.there you go then so you have standards, noone doesn't have any standards Standards are codified rules, you do that and you lose your flexibility. I have things I like, but I never guard against things I don't like, it's not required.... I disagree. I won't (knowingly) meet people cheating on partners and I go out of my way to avoid doing so. It's the same as a hard limit. Some limits are hard and some are soft. Preferences can be flexible but I think we all have at least a few fixed ones. Yes I believe very much In soft/hard limits... Soft ones are made to be broken... But I have never gone out of my way to NOT do anything... Not my style..." I'd like to be so flexible. I was contacted by a guy absolutely on my wavelength here last year. He seemed absolutely perfect and I was very excited about meeting him. Then after we'd been messaging a bit over a few days, he told me he felt he should tell me he's married and playing behind his wife's back. He deliberately kept this from me until mutual interest was established, (my profile says I don't meet people cheating on partners). I declined to meet him. I'd love to be able to say I can make exceptions to everything but I can't do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd like to be so flexible. I was contacted by a guy absolutely on my wavelength here last year. He seemed absolutely perfect and I was very excited about meeting him. Then after we'd been messaging a bit over a few days, he told me he felt he should tell me he's married and playing behind his wife's back. He deliberately kept this from me until mutual interest was established, (my profile says I don't meet people cheating on partners). I declined to meet him. I'd love to be able to say I can make exceptions to everything but I can't do it." Mine says that too and I've had the same today  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have no standards I will f**k anybody who is 6' or taller, fit, between 40 - 50, unattached, good-looking, intelligent and educated If this is satire it had gone entirely over my head. If this is for real then this is the kind of talk that puts many men off Fab! You have no idea how all our judgement light bulbs start lighting up the moment we come across a profile that comes up with a wishlist like that and we start thinking "hm, this woman/couple would be hard pressed to meet a guy even half this criteria when trying in real life... Because their expectations of others simply do not fit the way they look or carry themselves!" Like it or not, the ugly truth is some people's character or looks simply do not justify their criteria they set for others. And they're allowed to get away with it on Fab because of the gender imbalance and because this is the Internet so fuck you. "How do you know who other people can or cannot meet in real life? You do realise that the people on fab actually come from real life? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh... And I know some super hot 50+ alpha females, who hit the weights and I watch men my age chase like they are goddesses.... But no they don't smoke... Ash tray mouth is not good.there you go then so you have standards, noone doesn't have any standards Standards are codified rules, you do that and you lose your flexibility. I have things I like, but I never guard against things I don't like, it's not required.... I disagree. I won't (knowingly) meet people cheating on partners and I go out of my way to avoid doing so. It's the same as a hard limit. Some limits are hard and some are soft. Preferences can be flexible but I think we all have at least a few fixed ones. Yes I believe very much In soft/hard limits... Soft ones are made to be broken... But I have never gone out of my way to NOT do anything... Not my style... I'd like to be so flexible. I was contacted by a guy absolutely on my wavelength here last year. He seemed absolutely perfect and I was very excited about meeting him. Then after we'd been messaging a bit over a few days, he told me he felt he should tell me he's married and playing behind his wife's back. He deliberately kept this from me until mutual interest was established, (my profile says I don't meet people cheating on partners). I declined to meet him. I'd love to be able to say I can make exceptions to everything but I can't do it." Fair enough, I understand that... How could I not. I mean I am off most females criterior a 5'9" I'm way too short, yet a large portion of women I have met off the net are taller than me, in heels (them!! I haven't worn heels for a few years now!) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
