It looks as if we all agree that ghettoisation is a bad thing and failure to integrate causes friction.
I'm afraid I don't see holding up ex-pat Brits in Spain as a reason for accepting non-integration, though. Two wrongs don't make a right and that attitude is a big part of why Brits on holiday abroad are so unpopular. Whenever I go to another country I always make the effort to learn some of the language before I go. At least enough to be polite.
Our PC lobby does make it extremely hard to get past the race card in any kind of debate on these matters as anyone who holds an attitude which does not conform to theirs is a racist & therefore to be reviled and ignored.
True, there are racists in every society who do not make it easy for in-comers to be a part of their society, but to tar the whole society with that brush and withdraw into an enclave is no better. To live in a country for 40 years and not learn one word of the native language is not going to endear you to your new neighbours.
Multi-culturalism is meant to be just that; MULTI. Too often it's interpreted as you go play in your corner & we'll stay here in ours and never the twain shall meet. As long as that's the case there'll never be a mutual understanding.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
targaid
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 60
0 miles · Glasgow City
Forum
Bloody time-outs 
Just replied to Flower & lost it because I got signed out.
I just want to be quite clear that I do not think that anyone's opinion is less valid than mine, which was, after all the point behind my post.
I'm not talking about some mild-mannered philanthropist who 'voluntarily' and politely reminds us of rules. I'm talking about the ones who get a wee bit of power with a boot button and spend the rest of the night jumping on the mildest infraction of their interpretation of a rule and then blame the site for 'forcing' them to do it. The phrase I used is fairly common for that type of person.
Etymologically it would be more accurate to say "rules-fascist" but I didn't coin the phrase.
Snap!.
Again, I in no way ever implied that anyone's opinion is less valid than mine. I mentioned my family's history because I feel that the censoring of a word which was not being applied to any individual and was, in the context, in no way related to the Holocaust is wrong. I replied to an edit, fairly explained (although I still object to the 'rant' accusation) made by a moderator and tried to state my reasons for it.
Oddly, this backs up some of my original argument. If attention hadn't been drawn to the comment by someone enforcing a rule then I doubt we'd be having this discussion. If directors & whisperers were equally ignored unless complained about they'd soon get bored & stop. If someone's persistently doing it and it's calmly explained to them rather than having big warning messages flashed across the screen then things would doubtless go much more smoothly in getting them to stop. Especially if it's someone who doesn't know they're breaking a rule or some host's particularly rigid interpretation of it.
Just replied to Flower & lost it because I got signed out. I just want to be quite clear that I do not think that anyone's opinion is less valid than mine, which was, after all the point behind my post.
Blimey !!! I really think that likening people who voluntarily remind you of the rules ( that you agreed to abide by, when you came in here btw ) to nazi`s, is going just a bit too far icon_
I'm not talking about some mild-mannered philanthropist who 'voluntarily' and politely reminds us of rules. I'm talking about the ones who get a wee bit of power with a boot button and spend the rest of the night jumping on the mildest infraction of their interpretation of a rule and then blame the site for 'forcing' them to do it. The phrase I used is fairly common for that type of person.
Etymologically it would be more accurate to say "rules-fascist" but I didn't coin the phrase.
I have involved myself in discussions with both sides in the argument and I am beginning to think that I should keep my big mouth shut !!
Snap!.
And I`m speaking as someone who never had any family murdered by the nazi`s !!! I suppose in your eyes this makes my opinion less valid
Again, I in no way ever implied that anyone's opinion is less valid than mine. I mentioned my family's history because I feel that the censoring of a word which was not being applied to any individual and was, in the context, in no way related to the Holocaust is wrong. I replied to an edit, fairly explained (although I still object to the 'rant' accusation) made by a moderator and tried to state my reasons for it.
Oddly, this backs up some of my original argument. If attention hadn't been drawn to the comment by someone enforcing a rule then I doubt we'd be having this discussion. If directors & whisperers were equally ignored unless complained about they'd soon get bored & stop. If someone's persistently doing it and it's calmly explained to them rather than having big warning messages flashed across the screen then things would doubtless go much more smoothly in getting them to stop. Especially if it's someone who doesn't know they're breaking a rule or some host's particularly rigid interpretation of it.
Sorry 2'sC & Flower; I was trying to pick out who it was from quotes-within-quotes very late at night/early in the morning 
To the editor; No, I wasn't "on a rant" (I wasn't haranguing anyone and don't think I was being bombastic) & used the phrase because it's what the type of person I was describing has been, in turn, described as by several people in chat. If I were to call a particular person by that epithet I can see that being offensive. The word itself, though? You're getting into slippery & censorious territory there, my friend, and I speak as one who had family murdered by the Nazis. BUt that's a whole other topic.
To the editor; No, I wasn't "on a rant" (I wasn't haranguing anyone and don't think I was being bombastic) & used the phrase because it's what the type of person I was describing has been, in turn, described as by several people in chat. If I were to call a particular person by that epithet I can see that being offensive. The word itself, though? You're getting into slippery & censorious territory there, my friend, and I speak as one who had family murdered by the Nazis. BUt that's a whole other topic.
I agree with almost all of what's being said on both sides of the argument. Almost.
Yeah, it's confusing, I know.
Thing is, that there are ignorant prats on both sides of this argument. Yes, there are people who can't take 'no' for an answer. Then there are those who go around sticking their noses in where they've not been asked at the slightest provocation.
I get as pissed as anyone at the kind of bloke (yes, it almost always is one)who just comes into a room and starts telling he cammers to 'show us yer tits!' etc. I get equally as pissed at the kind rules xxxxxxxxx who take two long-time friends making flippant comments at each other and start making threats on behalf of one of them. Or who boot newbies without any kind of warning or explanation or who are constantly flipping up warning notices. I got threatened with the boot earlier in a room for asking someone very politely if they'd be showing tonight. And, yes, it was someone I knew well. She had to defend me to the room host who jumped down my throat and started 'yelling' at me. After my friend told him he was out of order we were both told to go elsewhere if we didn't like SH's rules (you already know my opinion of those who blame the site for their choice of rules in a room).
It seems like I just want to defend those who direct, and this is most empahtically not the case. This site, however, is about bringing together people who follow alternative philosophies. There is room for both these choices in chat, but I still think that it's so easy to just ignore the line of text from someone you don't want to 'hear'. If it was voice chat & you actually had to listen to them it would be so different.
I'm sorry, I've forgotten your name (was it Flower?), but the comment about walking into a bar & yelling 'get your tits out' getting you a slap... The other side of that coin is that if you sat in bar in your sexiest lingerie playing with yourself & using a dildo I doubt you'd expect to be left alone to do it. The result would also be jail time, never mind a slap.
It just seems to me that you have to choose to get annoyed by someone whispering to you or making an occasional comment (and, yes, I'm aware that's oft-times not what being complained about). After all; how many times have you missed something that you actually wanted to read because things can go past so quickly?
MOD EDIT: normally the use of that word in the forum would bring about the thread being locked. As you are obviously unaware and just on a rant it has been deleted. It's very much overused and never appropriate in the context of a website!
Yeah, it's confusing, I know.
Thing is, that there are ignorant prats on both sides of this argument. Yes, there are people who can't take 'no' for an answer. Then there are those who go around sticking their noses in where they've not been asked at the slightest provocation.
I get as pissed as anyone at the kind of bloke (yes, it almost always is one)who just comes into a room and starts telling he cammers to 'show us yer tits!' etc. I get equally as pissed at the kind rules xxxxxxxxx who take two long-time friends making flippant comments at each other and start making threats on behalf of one of them. Or who boot newbies without any kind of warning or explanation or who are constantly flipping up warning notices. I got threatened with the boot earlier in a room for asking someone very politely if they'd be showing tonight. And, yes, it was someone I knew well. She had to defend me to the room host who jumped down my throat and started 'yelling' at me.
After my friend told him he was out of order we were both told to go elsewhere if we didn't like SH's rules (you already know my opinion of those who blame the site for their choice of rules in a room).It seems like I just want to defend those who direct, and this is most empahtically not the case. This site, however, is about bringing together people who follow alternative philosophies. There is room for both these choices in chat, but I still think that it's so easy to just ignore the line of text from someone you don't want to 'hear'. If it was voice chat & you actually had to listen to them it would be so different.
I'm sorry, I've forgotten your name (was it Flower?), but the comment about walking into a bar & yelling 'get your tits out' getting you a slap... The other side of that coin is that if you sat in bar in your sexiest lingerie playing with yourself & using a dildo I doubt you'd expect to be left alone to do it. The result would also be jail time, never mind a slap.
It just seems to me that you have to choose to get annoyed by someone whispering to you or making an occasional comment (and, yes, I'm aware that's oft-times not what being complained about). After all; how many times have you missed something that you actually wanted to read because things can go past so quickly?
MOD EDIT: normally the use of that word in the forum would bring about the thread being locked. As you are obviously unaware and just on a rant it has been deleted. It's very much overused and never appropriate in the context of a website!
As part of my act I have to come up with loads of ways to put down hecklers/other members of the team. Some of them I shamelessly stole and others are original. I've kept the best ones back :twisted:
He has the body of a god: Buddha.
If you are what you eat she must eat fat people.
Is it true that when you die you're leaving your body to science fiction?
Are you Brad Pitt's big brother? Cess.
Look-living proof care in the community doesn't work
You're a real action man: crew cut, realistic scar, no genitals.
When they made you they broke the mould. Some of it grew back.
Did the aliens forget to remove your anal probe?
How many times DO I have to flush before you go away?
I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
I like you. You remind me of when I was young & stupid.
See, you should never drink on an empty head.
Not so much a has-been as a won't-be.
You have delusions of adequacy.
Is that your face or are you trying it out for an ugly sister?
PS DirtyGirlie, He was an idiot for sure and proof of number 5
He has the body of a god: Buddha.
If you are what you eat she must eat fat people.
Is it true that when you die you're leaving your body to science fiction?
Are you Brad Pitt's big brother? Cess.
Look-living proof care in the community doesn't work
You're a real action man: crew cut, realistic scar, no genitals.
When they made you they broke the mould. Some of it grew back.
Did the aliens forget to remove your anal probe?
How many times DO I have to flush before you go away?
I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
I like you. You remind me of when I was young & stupid.
See, you should never drink on an empty head.
Not so much a has-been as a won't-be.
You have delusions of adequacy.
Is that your face or are you trying it out for an ugly sister?
PS DirtyGirlie, He was an idiot for sure and proof of number 5
You know what the difference is between light & hard?
Well, I can sleep with a light on.
Bilko; of course you're weird, it's why we love you.
Callista; I like the way you think. I also like your gallery, but that's a whole other topic... Although it might send me back to what I said in the 1st place, so maybe not.
Dammit, now I can't sleep, either.
Well, I can sleep with a light on.
Bilko; of course you're weird, it's why we love you.
Callista; I like the way you think. I also like your gallery, but that's a whole other topic... Although it might send me back to what I said in the 1st place, so maybe not.
Dammit, now I can't sleep, either.
My pet hate is those who set up a room, constantly flash the warnings for the slightest infraction, get uppity if someone - even newbies - question it and then blame SH for making up the rule. If you choose to make it a non-directing room it is not because SH made you do it.
I even had one such person realise that I and someone I knew well were having a whispered conversation and threatened to throw us both out of the room, saying that SH didn't 'allow' people to have private conversations.
Whispering doesn't bother me. The only diff between a whispered and a non-whispered comment is that it's in italics. Sure, if it's offensive or being used to hide direction then, yes, cut&paste it and have it stopped, but really, why some folk find it so offensive I'll never know.
As far as directing goes, yes, it can be boring, but given how good most people are at ignoring any kind of comment and blanking people trying to engage them in any level of conversation why does directing then become such a problem?
I guess I'm just trying to say that there are those on both sides of this divide who need to learn some consideration or tolerance. No doubt there are those who will assume that I'm a perpetrator of both these heinous crimes, so I look forward to the abuse this post is likely to engender :twisted:
I even had one such person realise that I and someone I knew well were having a whispered conversation and threatened to throw us both out of the room, saying that SH didn't 'allow' people to have private conversations.
Whispering doesn't bother me. The only diff between a whispered and a non-whispered comment is that it's in italics. Sure, if it's offensive or being used to hide direction then, yes, cut&paste it and have it stopped, but really, why some folk find it so offensive I'll never know.
As far as directing goes, yes, it can be boring, but given how good most people are at ignoring any kind of comment and blanking people trying to engage them in any level of conversation why does directing then become such a problem?
I guess I'm just trying to say that there are those on both sides of this divide who need to learn some consideration or tolerance.
No doubt there are those who will assume that I'm a perpetrator of both these heinous crimes, so I look forward to the abuse this post is likely to engender :twisted: I'd be more impressed if it was all spelt properly.
It should be 'You're looking at...' not 'your'. First thing I looked at, so not a great start for it. The gallery's loading a lot slower, too. Making control over the number of pic's shown at a time a premium feature's a bit mean.
Looks okay, though.
It should be 'You're looking at...' not 'your'. First thing I looked at, so not a great start for it. The gallery's loading a lot slower, too. Making control over the number of pic's shown at a time a premium feature's a bit mean.
Looks okay, though.
It's very interesting to see that practically no one in this thread thinks Jade was a racist. A viewpoint I happen to share, but was feeling in a very small minority about holding.
For me, to define someone as a racist requires them to dislike and abuse someone solely on the grounds of their race. Jade was threatened by Shilpa's class, beauty and intelligence. She also chose to stick up for her mother - who was far worse than any of the 3 housemates now being pilloried for racism - and much of the hostility came from that.
At school we had a teacher who was vicious bastard and who had a very distinctive voice and accent. Any time he was mentioned someone would copy it and we had some very choice nicknames for him. Indeed, he was so hated I was in the old shit's class for three months before I found out what his real name was! The point is; that's what we do when we don't like someone. We pick on distinctive features, especially those that make us different to the object of our hostility. He was Scottish and so were we, so imitating his accent was not about race and neither was it when done here. It was about isolating a 'foe'.
If you are primed to seek a certain type of offense you'll find it. Our society is so tightly laced on the subject of race it is almost impossible to avoid giving offence to someone over it. There are those who would find the play on words used in a joke earlier in this thread offensive. The most likely to be offended are those who are using it as a means of forwarding a political agenda.
If you want to see some real and truly worrying racism look at many of the comments coming out of the debate over devolution. Tory ministers claiming it to be 'constitutionally unacceptable for a Scot to be prime minister of Britain.' for example, and not a word said about it. To see how racist that is just replace 'Scot' with 'Asian' or 'black'
I'm just glad that tolerance and seeing past the tabloid headlines is another trait so many of us share here!
PS I also only watched this abysmal piece of crap as long as this was going on because I wanted to make up my own mind about what was said/done.
For me, to define someone as a racist requires them to dislike and abuse someone solely on the grounds of their race. Jade was threatened by Shilpa's class, beauty and intelligence. She also chose to stick up for her mother - who was far worse than any of the 3 housemates now being pilloried for racism - and much of the hostility came from that.
At school we had a teacher who was vicious bastard and who had a very distinctive voice and accent. Any time he was mentioned someone would copy it and we had some very choice nicknames for him. Indeed, he was so hated I was in the old shit's class for three months before I found out what his real name was! The point is; that's what we do when we don't like someone. We pick on distinctive features, especially those that make us different to the object of our hostility. He was Scottish and so were we, so imitating his accent was not about race and neither was it when done here. It was about isolating a 'foe'.
If you are primed to seek a certain type of offense you'll find it. Our society is so tightly laced on the subject of race it is almost impossible to avoid giving offence to someone over it. There are those who would find the play on words used in a joke earlier in this thread offensive. The most likely to be offended are those who are using it as a means of forwarding a political agenda.
If you want to see some real and truly worrying racism look at many of the comments coming out of the debate over devolution. Tory ministers claiming it to be 'constitutionally unacceptable for a Scot to be prime minister of Britain.' for example, and not a word said about it. To see how racist that is just replace 'Scot' with 'Asian' or 'black'
I'm just glad that tolerance and seeing past the tabloid headlines is another trait so many of us share here!
PS I also only watched this abysmal piece of crap as long as this was going on because I wanted to make up my own mind about what was said/done.
Quote by de_sade
The current trend? Sorry but the trend has always been erotic. Nothing sexier apparently than being in your negligee at midnight as the full moon goes behind the clouds and the casement windows are pushed open by a tall, dark powerful man who then climbs on top of you and bites you so hard on your neck that he draws blood...According to Lucy Westenra anyway
By current I mean cinematic.
The original folktales are not at all erotic, they're about being scared for your very soul in the dark of the night and not being able to trust anyone - even your own family. It was only Westerners (not Westenras lol) who added the eroticism. Bram Stoker has a lot to answer for...
I used to be scared witless by Funhouse but when I saw it on video I realised it was my girlfriend at the time digging her nails into my arm when the dog jumps out of nowhere that left me trembling and jittery. (I'm not too fond of dogs, either) The film was shit.
Quote by earthchild
i am not a real horror lover unless its vampires etc but they arent real horror,
Earthy xx
Vampires not real horror?
You don't think that being infected with a plague that will turn you into an undead beast that preys on those it once loved isn't horrific? I know the current trend with them is for an erotic bias, but these stories were originally about monsters, not pretty-boys with super-powers who start rock bands.
True horror should disturb and terrify. Sudden starts aren't horror, but are merely cinematic trickery to scare you. Cinematic horror is more like a roller coaster ride, thrilling, scary and ultimately exhilerating. Literary horror usually does the real thing much better. One of the most horrific things I ever read was a sequence describing how someone had been called to see the results of an incursion into his castle near the kitchens. As he approached the smells of cooking made his stomach grumble and his mouth water. Attaining his destination he discovered that the savoury aroma of roast meat came from the guardsman who had been immolated by a demon. Betrayed by your own senses and a very sneaky way to paint a sensory picture used by an author who filled his books with lavish descriptions of banquets.
That said, I do enjoy the thrill-ride variety of film, too. The best I've seen recently was Descent. Maybe because it does have some truly horrific scenes amongst the jumps & starts.
Seems to me that the main reason this became popular is the vanity one. i.e. it makes things look bigger. The initial 'excuse' in America was that it was "more hygienic", though only as much more hygenic as their habit of showering three times a day or after the slightest bit of physical exercise. A behaviour which was encouraged by marketing men to sell more soap & shower gel.
Someone mentioned that since we trim or shave the hair on our heads and/or faces that we should do the same with our balls. The main difference there is that the hair in the first two regions does not reach a certain length and then stop.
Just like pussy-shaving this is a fad. Five years hardly anyone had ever heard of it and it wasn't a problem with anyone. Now it's being used as a reason to filter out potential playmates. It used to be a thrill to put your hand down a lady's knickers to find her shaved or trimmed because it was unusual, now - for me- it's the opposite way around.
But then, I always was a contrary bastard. :twisted:
Oh, and I draw your attention to the recently completed 20+ year study which showed that hairy men are more intellectual. If you believe the scientists.
Someone mentioned that since we trim or shave the hair on our heads and/or faces that we should do the same with our balls. The main difference there is that the hair in the first two regions does not reach a certain length and then stop.
Just like pussy-shaving this is a fad. Five years hardly anyone had ever heard of it and it wasn't a problem with anyone. Now it's being used as a reason to filter out potential playmates. It used to be a thrill to put your hand down a lady's knickers to find her shaved or trimmed because it was unusual, now - for me- it's the opposite way around.
But then, I always was a contrary bastard. :twisted:
Oh, and I draw your attention to the recently completed 20+ year study which showed that hairy men are more intellectual. If you believe the scientists.
I'm just glad that a few have pointed out it's not only married men.
I get so tired of sad old sexual stereotypes, only married men pretend not to be, only women are prostitutes, only men are paedophiles and so on ad nauseum.
I'm married; I make no secret of it. My wife knows I play, but doesn't want to any more herself. It's our choice and other than stating the fact I don't see why I should be interrogated about it any further, and I have been on several occasions. One such ended with accusations flying and abuse being hurled because I wouldn't let them phone her to get her permission to sleep with me and I therefore must have been a lying, cheating scumbag. Which is a direct quote.
Sometimes we all need to take it easy. It's not your relationship. If you end up becoming emotionally involved with someone you swing with that's a different matter, but as long as it's playmates it's not really any of your business why.
I get so tired of sad old sexual stereotypes, only married men pretend not to be, only women are prostitutes, only men are paedophiles and so on ad nauseum.
I'm married; I make no secret of it. My wife knows I play, but doesn't want to any more herself. It's our choice and other than stating the fact I don't see why I should be interrogated about it any further, and I have been on several occasions. One such ended with accusations flying and abuse being hurled because I wouldn't let them phone her to get her permission to sleep with me and I therefore must have been a lying, cheating scumbag. Which is a direct quote.
Sometimes we all need to take it easy. It's not your relationship. If you end up becoming emotionally involved with someone you swing with that's a different matter, but as long as it's playmates it's not really any of your business why.
Having made the switch away from Microshaft's browser I've been having problems with the site tonight. Mainly:
Chatter lists in chatrooms full of holes and missing names.
Profile photo's only downloading 1st few lines then claiming to be done.
Is the site a) not configured to work it other browsers (shame if so since we're all about promoting alternative lifestyles!) and B) if not, will it be in the future?
Chatter lists in chatrooms full of holes and missing names.
Profile photo's only downloading 1st few lines then claiming to be done.
Is the site a) not configured to work it other browsers (shame if so since we're all about promoting alternative lifestyles!) and B) if not, will it be in the future?
Gotta agree with G-P. Torchwood is pants.
It suffers from what most tv Sci-Fi has inflicted on it which is writers who know next to nothing about the genre. They therefore write hackneyed cliches and think that they're being innovative and daring. Worse, they think it doesn't matter if the stories have little logic or sense. The same is true of the present series of Doctor Who.
As for who gayed up Torchwood, it was clearly the same man who Welshed up both it and DW - Russell T. Davis. If any actor consistently portrayed a character in a way the writers and especially producers disliked they wouldn't be working for long. Look at Mr Davis' past credentials if you want to know why few people were surprised at his gay storylines. Torchwood, though, is a poor -and rather obvious - attempt at combining Buffy and The X-Files. And if it didn't exist then the BBC might have the budget to take the Doctor off Earth occasionally.
But, hell, if it gets more people to watch the genre maybe it's a good thing.
Sadly, Firefly (which was innovative, imaginative and well-written) is extremely unlikely to ever return, especially as Nathan Fillion now has a burgeoning career in truly shit movies. American acotrs rarely return to telly from film.
It suffers from what most tv Sci-Fi has inflicted on it which is writers who know next to nothing about the genre. They therefore write hackneyed cliches and think that they're being innovative and daring. Worse, they think it doesn't matter if the stories have little logic or sense. The same is true of the present series of Doctor Who.
As for who gayed up Torchwood, it was clearly the same man who Welshed up both it and DW - Russell T. Davis. If any actor consistently portrayed a character in a way the writers and especially producers disliked they wouldn't be working for long. Look at Mr Davis' past credentials if you want to know why few people were surprised at his gay storylines. Torchwood, though, is a poor -and rather obvious - attempt at combining Buffy and The X-Files. And if it didn't exist then the BBC might have the budget to take the Doctor off Earth occasionally.
But, hell, if it gets more people to watch the genre maybe it's a good thing.
Sadly, Firefly (which was innovative, imaginative and well-written) is extremely unlikely to ever return, especially as Nathan Fillion now has a burgeoning career in truly shit movies. American acotrs rarely return to telly from film.
Sunni already knows, but I thought I'd tell the rest of you that the evil work fairy has done his worst again and is sending me to Aberdeen on the 9th
So whilst you're all having fun & playing away you can think of me stuck in the Granite city in an all-expenses paid hotel room with noone to play with - 'cos you're all going to the meet. HoHum...
So whilst you're all having fun & playing away you can think of me stuck in the Granite city in an all-expenses paid hotel room with noone to play with - 'cos you're all going to the meet. HoHum...
Quote by SunniBiFem
Many thanks for the idea but not sure how it can be done on this thread........... Also a number of people have applied by email and don't want their names shown,
As the writer of a post you can edit it at will, so you just click on the edit button on one of your posts on page 1. Most of the other munches I've gone to have done this, the idea being that regulars can also easily see if their friends are going and so be encouraged to sign up. (yeah like any of us need encouragment :cheers: ) I suppose it might also allow some to decide not to go if there's someone attending they've had problems with in the past etc. All that usually gets listed is the member's site name which is public domain in the members list, anyway, so no personal information is given out. (Unless you've been daft enough to use an edress or actual name for your handle, that is.) Since we should all be regulars in either forums or chat rooms most of us will at least be familiar with the aliases that'd be listed.
God, I'm reading this back & it sounds a bit... :jagsatwork: It's not meant to be, honest!
Hmmmm. This may have been caused by a login glitch. I was logged in when I went to the gallery the other day & it appeared to be asking me to become a payng member. Tonight, when I went to check the wording to quote in the reply I was composing it's not. So it seems like confusion on my part.
Oh, all listed pics can be put in private galleries, so those of you who don't want your pics to be viewable by any T,D&H can have control over who can access them and even for how long.
Oh, all listed pics can be put in private galleries, so those of you who don't want your pics to be viewable by any T,D&H can have control over who can access them and even for how long.
Quote by DeeCee
there should be no harm.
only to the poor wife.......
personally i dont agree with it.......i just dont get how some men can do it without having a guilty conscience...
In some cases, as in mine, my wife is not interested in swinging, but understands that I enjoy it. She has tried it and it's not for her. She is, tho', bisexual and occasionally meets other women. She likens my desire for certain sexual practices which she does not share to that. I know there are other couples who play seperately because one or other gets jealous when they do so together. So there are many reasons for it and married guy playing alone does not mean he's lying to anyone.
