I can see why those who do not appear on a list of peoples prefered "partners" might feel they have been discriminated against. It does follow, IMO that if people are excluded, this is a form of discrimination.
I can also see why, despite this, those who could be said to discriminate wouldnt EVER want to admit that they actually do practice a form of discrimination... as its a label that people would never want to be seen to have.
If the cap fits, wear it....
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Preference vs Discrimination
Quote by thevillians
from what ive read in this discussion and yes i do have an opinion but im not goin to say it....cop out maybe... but your will never agree on this subject and it will just go on and on
Well i must agree with scrops on this one. This issue will never be sorted, just when you think you have got an agreement on this issuse, someone else throws another spanner into the mix, and up goes the fire again.
So why don't we all just have fun with who we want to
amd for god's sake leave the race issuse out of it, and look at the person underneath and not on the surface alone.
A good point.
We do not want to meet fat guys, or hairy guys. That is OUR right to say this. The only people that would take offence to that, would be fat or hairy guys.
We ALL have a right to meet who we want, but there lies the problem. The ones you do not want to meet with will throw the, racist, agist, fattist or whatever other ist at you. Make your decisions and be damned.
Orgasminator
Quote by Dave__Notts
After reading the first post, I thought what a good thread to start.
How disappointed I became when it turned out to be a carry on from another thread, where the author of that thread and the individual involved has sorted their differences and walked away.
Sad
Dave_Notts
to be fair, the other thread was not the medium to argue the rights or wrongs and criteria or justifications of preference vs discrimination - 'twas purely for the guestlist. Anyone wishing to DISCUSS and differences in opinions could do so here, hence this thread.
Orgasminator
Okay, here's a thought:
Some points (in general) have been made to highlight times when exceptions were made, and good things came out of it. The main thing in common is that these were all EXCEPTIONS.
Is it then to be assumed or agreed that an EXCEPTION is to make the determining factor to change preference or "status quo"? If so, would that not justify all those single guys wanting to meet couples who DON'T meet single guys and say "But I'm an exception, try me!"
In my opinion, that couple have every right to say "Yes, we KNOW you are an exception, but our preference is ours - please respect it!"
Some points (in general) have been made to highlight times when exceptions were made, and good things came out of it. The main thing in common is that these were all EXCEPTIONS.
Is it then to be assumed or agreed that an EXCEPTION is to make the determining factor to change preference or "status quo"? If so, would that not justify all those single guys wanting to meet couples who DON'T meet single guys and say "But I'm an exception, try me!"
In my opinion, that couple have every right to say "Yes, we KNOW you are an exception, but our preference is ours - please respect it!"
Quote by Ahabs
After reading the first post, I thought what a good thread to start.
How disappointed I became when it turned out to be a carry on from another thread, where the author of that thread and the individual involved has sorted their differences and walked away.
Sad
Dave_Notts
to be fair, the other thread was not the medium to argue the rights or wrongs and criteria or justifications of preference vs discrimination - 'twas purely for the guestlist. Anyone wishing to DISCUSS and differences in opinions could do so here, hence this thread.
Then why pretend this was something else?
The best place to have a debate is where it arose. It was and dealt with...........this is now just dragging it out.
If you really wanted to know the answer to this question then you would not have brought something different in that has nothing to do with the title. The differences of opinion on the other thread is about the use and understanding of language used on a forum and nothing to do with discrimination and choice
Dave_Notts
PS Writing in capitals does not make you right. It denotes shouting, and shouting is just plain rude
Sex God
Quote by Cherrytree
I'm lost - where did he pretend it was something else?
I for one have enjoyed this interesting, and thought-provoking discussion.
I think it is a spin off from the thread that ahabs mentioned earlier.....
for me it was never a conversation about race, for me it was a case of a genuine person being unfairly treated
Orgasminator
Quote by fabio
I'm lost - where did he pretend it was something else?
I for one have enjoyed this interesting, and thought-provoking discussion.
I think it is a spin off from the thread that ahabs mentioned earlier.....
for me it was never a conversation about race, for me it was a case of a genuine person being unfairly treated
If it was a case of a genuine person being treated unfairly and preference (or as some have chosen to word it, race) is to be ignored, then how come, genuine as I may be, and also attending several socials, I also cannot attend certain socials (see initial list on first post) ?
I've probably asked this 3 times now, and and no one (sadly) has shown enough imagination to come up with an answer. Basically:
So its okay to have a go at Lawr because he has advised against BOTH a single white male as well as a single fem with no interest (or preference) to black men with regards to an interracial guestlist, while at the same time not being able to come up with a reason why a likewise genuine single male gets advised against a couples and single fems guestlist.
As a previous poster stated "the only people that will complain and feel discriminated against by someone not looking for fat hairy men, would be the same fat hairy men".
With regards to why this discussion is being held here? Simple: The originating issue was intended to be for the purpose of the guestlist on the "Meets" section, not debating why or who may or may not be on the list - "The Cafe" on the other hand has always been about open discussion.
Pretence? No - that's a personal perception - its a discussion about whether or not its fair to not willingly include people who, in plain view, do not share a particular preference (in this case "race" as it has been so thrown about), but at the same time as I've asked, are refusing to address a similar "exclusion" with regards to status/gender (ie, single male excluded from couples and single fems socials).
If it makes sense one way, then surely it has to make sense across the board - or am I naively hoping too much?
Orgasminator
Quote by Dave__Notts
Then why pretend this was something else?
The best place to have a debate is where it arose. It was and dealt with...........this is now just dragging it out.
If you really wanted to know the answer to this question then you would not have brought something different in that has nothing to do with the title. The differences of opinion on the other thread is about the use and understanding of language used on a forum and nothing to do with discrimination and choice
Dave_Notts
PS Writing in capitals does not make you right. It denotes shouting, and shouting is just plain rude
You do realise ignoring the discussion point, attempting to deflect attention from the issue at hand, whilst focussing on my posting style (effectively trying to put me in the wrong) and not actually offering answers to ANY of the questions asked is just as rude right?
Sex God
Quote by Ahabs
I'm lost - where did he pretend it was something else?
I for one have enjoyed this interesting, and thought-provoking discussion.
I think it is a spin off from the thread that ahabs mentioned earlier.....
for me it was never a conversation about race, for me it was a case of a genuine person being unfairly treated
If it was a case of a genuine person being treated unfairly and preference (or as some have chosen to word it, race) is to be ignored, then how come, genuine as I may be, and also attending several socials, I also cannot attend certain socials (see initial list on first post) ?
I've probably asked this 3 times now, and and no one (sadly) has shown enough imagination to come up with an answer. Basically:
So its okay to have a go at Lawr because he has advised against BOTH a single white male as well as a single fem with no interest (or preference) to black men with regards to an interracial guestlist, while at the same time not being able to come up with a reason why a likewise genuine single male gets advised against a couples and single fems guestlist.
As a previous poster stated "the only people that will complain and feel discriminated against by someone not looking for fat hairy men, would be the same fat hairy men".
With regards to why this discussion is being held here? Simple: The originating issue was intended to be for the purpose of the guestlist on the "Meets" section, not debating why or who may or may not be on the list - "The Cafe" on the other hand has always been about open discussion.
Pretence? No - that's a personal perception - its a discussion about whether or not its fair to not willingly include people who, in plain view, do not share a particular preference (in this case "race" as it has been so thrown about), but at the same time as I've asked, are refusing to address a similar "exclusion" with regards to status/gender (ie, single male excluded from couples and single fems socials).
If it makes sense one way, then surely it has to make sense across the board - or am I naively hoping too much?
thanks for not listening to what I said before in bold... I'll say it again...
IF it had been a private house party OR a social when you had hired the club..... I would have agreed, put who you want on the list.....
BUT the problem for me is that you are piggy-backing the clubs busiest night, where they allow single guys, couples and fems, so outside of your little group there would have been people that would not had had a clue that the do was going on....
as a mute point, if the person who was denied going was a member of chams anyway, how you going to stop them from going? have big old bouncers on the door?
would we even be having this discussion if it had been a lady, who had only been on the site 1 day, said they had never been in the room, and had asked for an invite? funny cause I'm betting there would not have been an eyelid batted!
i just find it ironic that we are talking about an "exclusive" event on the night the club itself is all "inclusive"...
but then I see that some chatrooms on SH are more inclusive, or should I say seem more tolerant, than others......
the socials run by the BBW room, have loads of people regardless of size go to them because they are inclusive regardless... including you, in fact I am proud they took bbw out of the title of them! they are a damn good laugh... you know, you were there!!!
the socials run by the mids room, have loads of people regardless from outside the area go to them because they are inclusive regardless... including you
hears a shocker.... unless you plan to mingle just in your own little group at the social, how you going to know if one other person in that club are going to like you enough to play... the answer is you dont, it was more about trying to guarentee sex than anything else....
Orgasminator
Quote by fabio
thanks for not listening to what I said before in bold... I'll say it again...
IF it had been a private house party OR a social when you had hired the club..... I would have agreed, put who you want on the list.....
BUT the problem for me is that you are piggy-backing the clubs busiest night, where they allow single guys, couples and fems, so outside of your little group there would have been people that would not had had a clue that the do was going on....
as a mute point, if the person who was denied going was a member of chams anyway, how you going to stop them from going? have big old bouncers on the door?
would we even be having this discussion if it had been a lady, who had only been on the site 1 day, said they had never been in the room, and had asked for an invite? funny cause I'm betting there would not have been an eyelid batted!
i just find it ironic that we are talking about an "exclusive" event on the night the club itself is all "inclusive"...
but then I see that some chatrooms on SH are more inclusive, or should I say seem more tolerant, than others......
the socials run by the BBW room, have loads of people regardless of size go to them because they are inclusive regardless... including you, in fact I am proud they took bbw out of the title of them! they are a damn good laugh... you know, you were there!!!
the socials run by the mids room, have loads of people regardless from outside the area go to them because they are inclusive regardless... including you
hears a shocker.... unless you plan to mingle just in your own little group at the social, how you going to know if one other person in that club are going to like you enough to play... the answer is you dont, it was more about trying to guarentee sex than anything else....
Likewise you've ignored what I said earlier also:
No ne is stopping anyone from going to the club if they wish to do so, the question remains "Why on THIS guestlist?" - that question also has not been ignored without answer.
Its simple - there will be people at the club who will bump into other people they don't know and all happen to be there for whatever reason, be it an individual, couple, a few select friends or a whole social. Such if the nature - if they do bump into each other and say hi, so be it.
So again I ask - why not just go to the club and see what happen BUT Why is the argument that people not on the guestlist?
no one seems to be answering any of the questions I ask (I get the impression my questions are either invalid or not worth answers) but yet Lawr is being reprimanded with the "racist" brand.
This is really boring now, If Jiggle wants to attend chams and there is a social, he is well within his rights to do so as he is a member.
I think you will find chams wont turn him down just because it is a social, regardless of the theme!
Good luck Lawr in doing your social
by the sound of it your gonna need all the luck as this has gone far to far!!
I think you will find chams wont turn him down just because it is a social, regardless of the theme!
Good luck Lawr in doing your social
by the sound of it your gonna need all the luck as this has gone far to far!!
when you place an add....I think the more preferances you put down the better. Means only the ones thaat meet, your criteria should apply, and therefore you have less to sift through, and also less people wil be dissapointed to be not chosen. So 100% personal preferance should be shown.
If you are haveing a private party, as the organiser, it is up to you who you invite. One would hope you don't refuse an invitation because of colour or creed or sexuality or any of the other reasons listed. But in the end its your party and so you have the right to choose.
However when it comes to Socials ..then I think excluding certain people is not the way forward. I myself organise a camping social which is primarily for the Midlands room lot. But this does not and has never excluded anyone else from attending from other parts of the country that have never met us before. Indeed at the last camping trip 3 couples from other parts of the country came along...I would hope were felt that they were welcomed with open arms, and we all had a good night. In the end it is a fine line we always tread. I think the social in question, had it just said this is primarily for the users of the black guys for white ladies room, then there would not have been a problem. Yes you may of had 2/3 white guys apply..but hey so what..no big deal. By refuseing a long standing white guy, is what has blown this all up. I wonder what would have happened if I had advertised a social and called it White Guys for Woman only.....No black guys, No indians, No asians. I am sure there would have been more than a few comments...and quite rightly so.
If you are haveing a private party, as the organiser, it is up to you who you invite. One would hope you don't refuse an invitation because of colour or creed or sexuality or any of the other reasons listed. But in the end its your party and so you have the right to choose.
However when it comes to Socials ..then I think excluding certain people is not the way forward. I myself organise a camping social which is primarily for the Midlands room lot. But this does not and has never excluded anyone else from attending from other parts of the country that have never met us before. Indeed at the last camping trip 3 couples from other parts of the country came along...I would hope were felt that they were welcomed with open arms, and we all had a good night. In the end it is a fine line we always tread. I think the social in question, had it just said this is primarily for the users of the black guys for white ladies room, then there would not have been a problem. Yes you may of had 2/3 white guys apply..but hey so what..no big deal. By refuseing a long standing white guy, is what has blown this all up. I wonder what would have happened if I had advertised a social and called it White Guys for Woman only.....No black guys, No indians, No asians. I am sure there would have been more than a few comments...and quite rightly so.
Orgasminator
Quote by wittyclitty
This is really boring now, If Jiggle wants to attend chams and there is a social, he is well within his rights to do so as he is a member.
I think you will find chams wont turn him down just because it is a social, regardless of the theme!
Good luck Lawr in doing your social
by the sound of it your gonna need all the luck as this has gone far to far!!
Witty, I agree - he IS well within his rights to go to Chams whenever he wants, as is Foxy. The problem is people having a go at Lawr for not including him on the guestlist.
PS: No one has answered any of MY questions yet. I have to assume its a matter of when convenient to throw mud.
Quote by Ahabs
Then why pretend this was something else?
The best place to have a debate is where it arose. It was and dealt with...........this is now just dragging it out.
If you really wanted to know the answer to this question then you would not have brought something different in that has nothing to do with the title. The differences of opinion on the other thread is about the use and understanding of language used on a forum and nothing to do with discrimination and choice
Dave_Notts
PS Writing in capitals does not make you right. It denotes shouting, and shouting is just plain rude
You do realise ignoring the discussion point, attempting to deflect attention from the issue at hand, whilst focussing on my posting style (effectively trying to put me in the wrong) and not actually offering answers to ANY of the questions asked is just as rude right?
Not rude at all chap. I have looked at the topic raised and thought what a good question. I didn't want to answer straight away as my mind was trying to work it all out and how to answer it. After reading a few more posts it became clear that you have an alterior motive but I am unsure of what it is as the thread seems to be going around in circles.
You brought up a serious question and then brought in an argument from another thread that has been sorted. This argument revolved around the misunderstanding of the use of English on a forum and not race or discrimination or preference.
If you think it is discrimination, race or preference that is the real reason then I will gladly discuss that.
Lawr made a comment that was misunderstood by Jiggle. Jiggle responded to it and Lawr responded to that one. Jiggle then understood what was being said made an apology and left the discussion and wished everyone a happy social.
Nope......I didn't see any discrimination in that.
Dave_Notts
PS talking about discrimination. This has made me think that there can not be anybody in favour of discrimination on the thread as this is aginst the AUP. Surely the first person who says that discrimination is ok would be banned :dunno: . Kind of one sided discussion then
Quote by Ahabs
No one has answered any of MY questions yet. I have to assume its a matter of when convenient to throw mud.
Try numbering your questions in one post and I will have a go if you like.
The questions that were in the middle of the posts are confusing to me so thats why I have not answered them.
Dave_Notts
Orgasminator
Quote by Dave__Notts
Not rude at all chap. I have looked at the topic raised and thought what a good question. I didn't want to answer straight away as my mind was trying to work it all out and how to answer it. After reading a few more posts it became clear that you have an alterior motive but I am unsure of what it is as the thread seems to be going around in circles.
You brought up a serious question and then brought in an argument from another thread that has been sorted. This argument revolved around the misunderstanding of the use of English on a forum and not race or discrimination or preference.
If you think it is discrimination, race or preference that is the real reason then I will gladly discuss that.
Lawr made a comment that was misunderstood by Jiggle. Jiggle responded to it and Lawr responded to that one. Jiggle then understood what was being said made an apology and left the discussion and wished everyone a happy social.
Nope......I didn't see any discrimination in that.
Dave_Notts
PS talking about discrimination. This has made me think that there can not be anybody in favour of discrimination on the thread as this is aginst the AUP. Surely the first person who says that discrimination is ok would be banned
Hi Dave, thanks for the update - however there was never any ulterior motive at all. A thread that was intended to function as a guestlist was at risk of descending a debate about who could and could not go on that guestlist and what criteria qualifying/disqualifying - I merely (and publicly) drew attention that any discussion/debate/argument NOT be done there (and let that thread remain a guestlist) but be done here (where discussions are more suited.
Since the subject of "disqualification" touched on issues of race (jiggle being a single white male), personal choice (FoxyChick not interested in black males), accusation of favouritism (as Ian was invited, despite also being a white male), and even orientation (someone mentioned something about someone being bi..Ian or Jiggle?), the only thing that was not respected was the issue of preferece, all the while subtle calls of "discrimination" reverberating.
Hence I started this thread (for all to debate) starting the background on what, I fell, forms discrimination and how that takes perspective on preference in the swing scene, before highlighting that issue as the originating incident.
All publicly done and no hidden/ulterior motive - if you however still feel this way, then I apologise for you taking that opinion, but I do not apologise for starting this thread.
On a lighter note however, yes, I do agree and am pleased that Lawr and Jiggle have settled differences and reached an understanding, and should jiggle be at the venue onthe evening I (personally) feel there is no reason for him not to come over and sa hello (there will be no recrimination from me) just as I feel Lawr should be able to advertise a social themed on whatever preference without being branded a (reverse-)racist.
Orgasminator
Quote by Dave__Notts
No one has answered any of MY questions yet. I have to assume its a matter of when convenient to throw mud.
Try numbering your questions in one post and I will have a go if you like.
The questions that were in the middle of the posts are confusing to me so thats why I have not answered them.
Dave_Notts
Lol, okay Dave, in the spirit of debate:
1) Should the term "Social" imply "non-play get together" (I assumed that was Munch, a described by SH guidelines) .. example, BBW social in a pub is non-play, yet BBW social in Chams CAN expect play.
2) Depending on above, should a "social" be open to all, irrespective of the group organising it, or should the type/style not depend on the organiser?
(I'm tired of using Jiggle - poor chap will think there's a Vendetta against him which is unfortunate as that is not the case) ...
3) If FoxyChick can feel "dejected" for being advised against a guestlist for black men and women/couples who DO want them (as she doesn't - but hey, its a "social") then surely I have similar right to protest to being denied attending a couples and single fems social for exactly the same reason?
(Darn it, now I have to use Jiggle as an example anyway!)
4) Does "attending socials, having a high forum post count or living in the Birmingham area" become a qualifying factor to being included on a "BlackGuys4Fems" guestlist? Without ofcourse this suggesting likewise other "high-post-count, other-social-attending, birmingham residents also qualifying for the same.. whether or not they share/support the theme/preference of the group having the social anyway?
Those simple points, ofcourse more answers to these the merrier.
now if there was a chatroom saying scotland meet today i wouldn't go in there as theres no way i would be able to get to scotland that day, also if it said straight guys only in this room once again i wouldnt go into that room as i can't see the point of it(being bi) and IMO if more people had that attitude maybe their wouldn't be this much hassle?
Sex God
Quote by cockslut
now if there was a chatroom saying scotland meet today i wouldn't go in there as theres no way i would be able to get to scotland that day, also if it said straight guys only in this room once again i wouldnt go into that room as i can't see the point of it(being bi) and IMO if more people had that attitude maybe their wouldn't be this much hassle?
:thumbup: :mrgreen:
Quote by Ahabs
no one seems to be answering any of the questions I ask (I get the impression my questions are either invalid or not worth answers) but yet Lawr is being reprimanded with the "racist" brand.
I am going to answer this from my point of view.
I won't answer anything else on the subject because the initial problem is over with. No one has gone on about Lawr, other than yourself Ahabs.
You seem to be on a mission here and nothing anyone else can say will give you the answers you seem to be looking for
Quote by deancannock
If you are haveing a private party, as the organiser, it is up to you who you invite. One would hope you don't refuse an invitation because of colour or creed or sexuality or any of the other reasons listed. But in the end its your party and so you have the right to choose.
Yep :thumbup:
Quote by deancannock
However when it comes to Socials ..then I think excluding certain people is not the way forward. I myself organise a camping social which is primarily for the Midlands room lot. But this does not and has never excluded anyone else from attending from other parts of the country that have never met us before. Indeed at the last camping trip 3 couples from other parts of the country came along...I would hope were felt that they were welcomed with open arms, and we all had a good night.
Which my also my opinion, a social is exactly that and I am not keen on leaving anyone out for any reason.
I also stated how I understood that Lawr wanted to know the person to make sure they weren't just using a meet to get into chams easy. A chat with someone in a chatroom will solve that worry.
Ahabs, I won't come back to this thread because I am not arguing over colour. I'll argue over a person, but I really don't have an issue with colour and this argument seems to be looking for the racist angle when I personally don't think that was the case here. The same argument would have stood if this was a BBW meet.
Now can we please stop using other members names in posts where they are not taking part in the discussion now because it must be getting annoying for them now.
Warming the Bed
i think this has now been overtalked about why dont ppl just drop it you will never agree so agree to disagree
Now can we please stop using other members names in posts where they are not taking part in the discussion now because it must be getting annoying for them now.
just a tad!!!!!!!!
i've read through this thread in detail from the first word to the last. i have seen my name pop up or in reference to my name, over and over again....
in reference to the original thread, both Lawr and myself may of got things mixed up, on my side for maybe not reading the thread correctly and jumpinng straight, after seing a socail at chams and saying "i'd like to come along".. if i had got a simple "dont reconise your name, as you don't come in there room" or something like that i would of been cool, but when reading the reply i read it. and maybe I was wrong for posting the reply that i did. i have since apoligised to Lawr, and he has to me, for the mix up. so why is our names still being dragged through this?
i have been on the site for a very long time, and over which i have spent a lot of time, going to socails, and getting to know people, so that they know i am an honest, caring and thoughful person... fair enoug most that go into the the Black 4 white fems.. probably didn't know who i am... but now, those who do know my name will know it for someone who caused an "Racial" upset across the forums. and this is not the person i am. and the longer this thread is dragged out, the blacker my name seams to become.
as i posted in the original thread, i dont want my name to be the one that or could ruin a perfectly good socail.
excuss if my grammer or spelling is crap on this thread.
Jiggle
Sex God
I like everyone in any shape, form, colour & race. For me I have no particular preference however, I do like a change & try different things with different people.
So for me, its what I'm in the mood for
After that whoever replies, we make our decision on how we all get on. There has to be an attraction whoever it is.
So for me, its what I'm in the mood for
After that whoever replies, we make our decision on how we all get on. There has to be an attraction whoever it is. Orgasminator
Okay, okay.."I give in!",.. "I cry uncle". Happy?
As I never created the rule, I hence have to abide by the democratic opinion that "Socials are open to all, irrespective of differences or preferences".
.
.
.
... May I be allowed to put my name down for couples and single fems socials, I post frequently, attend socials, people know me in person as not looking to cause trouble, and am not a timewaster, plus I like the socials also. Any objections?
As I never created the rule, I hence have to abide by the democratic opinion that "Socials are open to all, irrespective of differences or preferences".
.
.
.
... May I be allowed to put my name down for couples and single fems socials, I post frequently, attend socials, people know me in person as not looking to cause trouble, and am not a timewaster, plus I like the socials also. Any objections?
No objections from me, who knows you may even get invited to some of them, if some of the other people going know and like you.
Jiggle I wouldn't worry, anyone who knows you realises that this wasn't your intention,and those that don't know you can read your posts and make their own minds up ~ I haven't seen anything remotely derogatory x
Jiggle I wouldn't worry, anyone who knows you realises that this wasn't your intention,and those that don't know you can read your posts and make their own minds up ~ I haven't seen anything remotely derogatory x
Orgasminator
Quote by welikesinglemen
No objections from me, who knows you may even get invited to some of them, if some of the other people going know and like you.
You know how it is, I keep getting told "Inasmuch as we DO know you, its strictly couples and single fems only".
