We have an ad which we put up when we first joined the site, we also have ads elsewhere at other sites, We met with one cpl from here from chat and found the ad useful when we used chat for people to be able to see us and what we were looking for etc. It certainly saved having to type out the same info each time we "met" someone onlne.
We have had a pretty low response rate to our ad, although we are relatively picky and not looking for a single guy, so that cuts potential responses down a lot ;) Our expectations have shifted somewhat recently however and we now tend to use SH to browse the forums. We still think it is useful having an ad though for other browsers to link to and being eternal optimists we never know when we might get lucky :P
We reckon a minimum of 14 times a week Mrs Bucks complains if it is only that much tho
The protection of children is a laudable objective but are we to ban knives "to protect kids from injury"?
Are we to ban cars because some kids get run over?
Are we to ban libraries because they contain some raunchy literature?
If kids need physical prevention to stop them doing really stupid things I would consider this to be because their parents had failed to set a responsible example and raise their kids properly. It's all too easy to worry about how poor little Johnny might be accessing allsorts of filth, whilst you are lying on the sofa watching Eastenders, fag in one hand beer in the other. Sometimes its hard to take responsibility and spend time with kids and actually teach them responsible values and be willing to talk to them about a range of subjects.
It's a bit provocative but my guess is that more kids are "damaged" from parental indifference, neglect or abdication of responsibility, than from all the porn on the web and "menace perverts" combined.
It seems like the majority of contributors to this thread feel it is wrong to have personal rules and limits. Surely this is unreasonable? So everyone has to be all or nothing? That isn't very realistic is it? If we are going to say you can't be a proper swinger unless you adopt an almost total free for all, this seems to be about as nonsensical as sayinig that no-one can be really bi, they have to be either totally straght or gay. Isn't actually insisting on using condoms, or excluding say Anal or WS a "rule"?
We have certain rules etc. for what we are prepared to do with others. I would like to think we wouldn't apply them in as rigid a way as has been described in some of the "horror stories" reported in this thread. Iit seems to me that if minor transgressions of personal rules result in such an extreme reaction from the respective partners then there is probably more to the reaction than the rule breach itself. It may well be that one of the partners is only dong the whole thingto please the other and the reaction is thus about their dislike of the whole experience. It could also be that such reactions arise from situational jealousy by one or other partner.
Perhaps we are being naive in still being relatively new to this, and not having too much experience, but I would like to think that if in playing with others either of us broke the "rules" we have agreed (or someone we were with broke them inadvertantly), we would politely ask the other party not to do that again and if the thrid party did not do that then to extricate ourselves from the situation and then to sensibly and quietly discuss what happened amongst ourselves later. There seems to be a big difference between having such a discussion in private after the event (as the OP descibed they "Overheard"), and having a stand up row in public in the heat of the moment.
What do you do if you have a 2 seat sports car though? I thought I would end up in hospital after the last time we did it. I kinda worry about the bonnet being scratched doing it there and with Jen bent over the angle isn't quite right, her fault for being short I guess :P
Trouble is our favourite psot has no picnic tables, maybe its time for a new car :P
I am looking for a golden unicorn Chaz which sprinkles fairydust as it walks. I wonder which one of us will be lucky first ;)
I have actually read the consultation paper and would pick out 2 relevant areas, related to my original post.
"As previously stated, we believe that
the material under consideration in this
document has no place in our society and
people should be prohibited from
possessing it. We believe from the
observations of the police and others who
investigate it, that the material may often
cause serious physical and other harm to
those involved in making it; in some cases
the participants are clearly the victims of
criminal offences. We consider that it is
possible that such material may encourage
or reinforce interest in violent and
aberrant sexual activity to the detriment
of society as a whole."
This is plainly a "moral" agenda of the politicos in question and to some extent a knee jerk reaction to the recent case which is actually discussed in the consultation paper.
"28. There is a substantial body of
research which explores the effects of
pornography on attitudes, beliefs and
behaviour. There are many studies
examining the impact of both mainstream
and sexually violent pornography on
individuals and society, which have been
conducted since the 1970s and 1980s
when the threshold of tolerance of
pornographic material rose in many
countries. These studies take different
forms. Some of this research comprises
empirical studies conducted to measure
emotional, attitudinal and behavioural
effects with different samples of males
from the general population. There is also
research with sex offenders which has
attempted to learn how they may have
been influenced by pornographic material.
In addition, there are studies which involve
victims and battered women to
determine the part pornography may have
played in the offences committed against
them. Studies of volunteers’ reactions to
pornography have been conducted in
laboratory conditions. There have also
been a few large studies which have
attempted to investigate whether there is a
correlation of availability of pornography
with rates of sexual offending.
29. The interpretation of the findings of
this research has been the subject of
reviews commissioned by governments in
the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere over
several decades, and the subject of public
debate often coloured by a moral or
political outlook. This has made it difficult
to get a clear picture and understanding of
the possible harmful effects of pornography."
Thus whilst "the police" and "others" are convinced this material is harmful, there is no substantive supporting evidence to confirm this.
If I am misinterpreting the content of the consultation document Chairman Miaow please let me know how. I have no particular axe to grind with regard to the content in question, as I have said previously I find it offensive. however if consenting adults are accessing material produced by other consenting adults why should the government interfere. Even if some of the acts in question would be illegal in the UK they may not have been illegal in the jurisdictions in which they were filmed/photographed, so their relative illegality as acts in the UK is not really relevant. It is illegal within the UK to supply what most people would consider to be "normal" pornography. The government comparatively recently legislated to make illegal electronics which allow UK residents to view foreign satellite TV (popular for "normal" pornography in Continental Europe and Scandinavia).
Why should we have any confidence that the government will really stop at the current proposals?
As for replying to the consultation document, I have some professional experience of dealing with similar "consultations" in the past. It is unlikely that there is any intention of genuinely consulting on the change. The Home Office in Effect is looking to determine how difficult new regulations would be to implement and to flush out any inherent contradictions or obviously silly elements.
It is however impossible to carry out meaningful consultation without a definition of many of the new "offences". The definition of "serious sexual violence" and "serious violence in a sexual context" in particular remains unclear.
We are all for doing something new but why the hell would anyone want to shag in the middle of a roundabout. Although we might be tempted if anyone can think up a catchy name "roundabouting" is a bit of a mouthful :P
Alpsals
I have stopped quoting because I tend to find too many nested quotes irritating and hard to read. The CDA in the US is not that different from existing obscene publications legislation in the UK. It s essentially a prohibition on the publication of material. This is easy to circumvent in practice by moving the hosting "offshore".
The UK proposals are unique as piercedJon remarked, that they essentially criminalise the viewing of material. The offence becomes one of "looking" at something that is deemed unacceptable (since in practice images are stored on harddrives involuntarily due to the way in which browser software and windows operating systems work). Only in more repressive regimes such as China has there been similar attempts to criminalise the viewing of material other than child pornography.
Once essential freedom is eroded in this way, where does it end? Those willing to give up the freedom they enjoy for a greater good might consider the amount of freedom they might ultimately be surrendering.
I have always parked in Chorlton Steet Multi Story, when travelling to Piccadilly and not really knowing my way around. It is relatively easy to find from the main road and the car park is above the bus station around the corner from The Britannia Hotel (I think). Daily parking rates were reasonable last time I used it and unlike many car parks I have come across in Manchester, the one in Chorlton Street is not Pay & Display, this can be useful if you don't happen to have a pocket full of change.
I don't know how well you know Manchester, but I always find it fairly confusing entering the city. If you do not enter the city in exactly the right direction (no siniggering please :P) it can be really confusing to navigate the various one way streets punctuated by tram tracks. SatNav is very useful in Manchester, but failing this, if you don't know your way around the city, why not use the AA Routeplanner and use the directions to navigate to your destination.
Don't want to meet but your nick is a bit similar to ours, just would like clarify that the OP is not Mr BFC in single guise :P Come to think about it by clearing that up we may actually increase your chances of success ;)
I use Nildram which gives a staitc IP mainly for business purposes. There is a high monthly download limit (which seems to be unenforced) and it only costs £25 a month. I would be tempted by BT but the lowish download limit puts me off.
. Our average is about an hour a shag. Mr BFC complains sometimes tho that we shag too much but hey I am only 20!!!!!! 
, where have you been all day?! 
