Preference vs Discrimination

10 Jan 2009

Swinging should be fun (not difficult) between people who share or agree similar tastes and preferences ... you could say they are "like-minded".
However, every now and then you get someone who isn't a match question your "preference" and throw the "Discrimination!" word at you.
Lets be clear - the 6 most common areas in life (in general) that people are discriminated on are:
Gender
Religion
Age
Disability
Ethic Origin
Sexuality
This forms the helpful acronym 'GRADES'.
I have lost count the number of times I've been approached (especially on email) by a gay/bi male wanting to play with me and I've turned down the offer, imagine if he then challenged me that I'm "discriminating" based on his sexuality - what then? I forfeit my personal choice and preference and play with him against will to avoid being discriminatory??
To be specific, some socials that I cannot attend:
* Couples and single fems
* Couples and couples
* Lesbians only
* Swingers age 35 - 45
* Indians for indians
One the one hand, I like to think in person (despite how bolshy I may be online) am a reasonable fellow that gets on and has a laugh with everyone (yes, even bi-males!) and so SHOULD have no problem attending such socials, ...
... on the other hand, I don't support any of those preferences and so should not be surprised if told "Err, sorry mate - you're sweet, but not that sweet".
Personally, I would defend to the death ANY swinger's personal choice - even WHEN it works AGAINST me. Its the basis of being "like-minded"
(Other wise in 5 years time, I'd FINALLY get to attend the 35-45's social, only to find it over run with 18-21 year olds .... grrrr!)
Ok, at the risk of being EXTREMELY offensive: I've just got off the phone to a female friend, and she could not seem to understand why I CANNOT Play with a 90 year old gay male. Suffice to say she hung up the phone on me as we could not seem to agree the post title.

10 Jan 2009

dude i'm with you 100% before anyone says i haven't got a massive post count.
Why :- I only post when i something to say which wil help a thread or ask for an invite to which the answer maybe NO,the person arranging may not know me or the people who know or just not think i'll in with there're plans. I'm i dissapointed Yes but not upset every one has the right to say NO thank you and not be questioned to their reasons. As a single man you should expect more No's than Yes's..
People shouldn't this be about fun!!!
That's my 10 cents

10 Jan 2009

In a case like this Ahabs, you're not denying anyone thier 'rights' in a basic Human Rights sence, nor in Employment Law or somesuch.
You are indeed expressing your personal choice on a social/sexual scale, as are they.
I don't think anyone can "demand" anything of you that you don't want to do, nor can you enforce demands on them.
lp

10 Jan 2009

I would hasten to add that most (or all) of these areas of discrimination are not exhaustive - I know people that don't want to know with:
* Married
* Smokers
* Drinkers
* Non-car owners (yes, I got turned down by one!)
* Pet owners
* People with kids living with them
AGAIN, its their preference which I feel should be respected. A friend of mine was telling me of an experience at a club in the middle of playing with two (black) guys - one asian fellow (complete stranger to her) decided to join in: didn't ask, just "grabbed" her. She told him "sorry - black guys only". He stormed off complinging "discrimination!
What was she supposed to do? Abandon her preference to keep HIM happy?

10 Jan 2009

...as for your lady-friend Ahabs... i'm not aware of the detials of what was 'allowed' for the gathering/activities of the evening, but I'd have thought it wrong for anyone to simply join in uninvited. No matter their race, unless stipulated beforehand.
lp

10 Jan 2009

Well, that was assumed a given - you don't join in uninvited (even IF he had been a black guy at the time), either way, she wasn't rude, simply told him no and clarifying her preference...
Did he have a right to cry "discrimination!" ?
Would I have a right to yell "Sexual discrimination! Is it cause I is not gay?" If turned away from the Lesbians for lesbians social?

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs
Well, that was assumed a given - you don't join in uninvited (even IF he had been a black guy at the time), either way, she wasn't rude, simply told him no and clarifying her preference...
Did he have a right to cry "discrimination!" ?
Would I have a right to yell "Sexual discrimination! Is it cause I is not gay?" If turned away from the Lesbians for lesbians social?

no, no rights to claim discrimination in these instances I'd have thought.
the groups/activities were decided through personal choice based on social/sexual preferances.
lp

10 Jan 2009

There's a fine line between preference and discrimination but it's how it's perceived by some that could cause a few ripples. It's unfair to call the discrimination card against anyone just based on their own personal preferences.
Using just 3 as an axample, I don't meet married/attached guys, anyone under 30 years old or ( flame me for this if you like ) black guys. It doesn't make me ageist, racist or whatever the word is for marriedist - it's just my own personal views. The age thing is because I don't feel comfortable shagging guys younger than my own son. The marrieds is because I don't want to do anything without his partner knowing and black ( as in Caribbean, Asian et al ) just don't turn me on in general. Sounds harsh but it's MY preference.
That's not to say I don't have young, black or married friends who I get on extremely well with, meet socially and count them among some of my closest friends. That said, I do take each person on their own merits and may on the odd occasion move the goalposts slightly ( except for the marrieds bit, that's written in stone )
If a guy turns me down for being 48 can I call him ageist? No. That's his choice not to play with someone my age.
If a guy tuns me down for being white is that being racist? Again, that's his personal preference.
If I'm turned away for being too curvy are they fatist? Nope.
As long as a refusal is not given for derogatory reasons then stick to your principles and choices. I know what turns me on and what I want and I'm here for MY reasons and no one else's biggrin

Good thread btw :thumbup:

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Sassy-Seren
Using just 3 as an axample, I don't meet married/attached guys, anyone under 30 years old or ( flame me for this if you like ) black guys. It doesn't make me ageist, racist or whatever the word is for marriedist - it's just my own personal views. The age thing is because I don't feel comfortable shagging guys younger than my own son. The marrieds is because I don't want to do anything without his partner knowing and black ( as in Caribbean, Asian et al ) just don't turn me on in general. Sounds harsh but it's MY preference.

And as a black guy fully aware of your preference, GOOD ON YOU.. no one should badger you into having to change your mind for fear of recrimination.
Sadly, it would seem this organiser was:
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/290136.html
The sad thing is, like yourself, one of the women that wanted to get on the guestlist DOESN'T have an interest in black guys either. In the past a "few" exceptions were made for people who don't hold to the preference, only for them to later say they felt out of place. Surprise surprise!

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs

Using just 3 as an axample, I don't meet married/attached guys, anyone under 30 years old or ( flame me for this if you like ) black guys. It doesn't make me ageist, racist or whatever the word is for marriedist - it's just my own personal views. The age thing is because I don't feel comfortable shagging guys younger than my own son. The marrieds is because I don't want to do anything without his partner knowing and black ( as in Caribbean, Asian et al ) just don't turn me on in general. Sounds harsh but it's MY preference.

And as a black guy fully aware of your preference, GOOD ON YOU.. no one should badger you into having to change your mind for fear of recrimination.
Sadly, it would seem this organiser was:
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/290136.html
The sad thing is, like yourself, one of the women that wanted to get on the guestlist DOESN'T have an interest in black guys either. In the past a "few" exceptions were made for people who don't hold to the preference, only for them to later say they felt out of place. Surprise surprise!
right.... if you are going to bring up that social as a case in point then this is where we are going to have to start to agree to disagree (as in the pm I sent you on that subject)
the reason why I was annoyed was this...
if you are going to going to organise that type of social and you hire the club for the night, I would have fully agreed, as I said "fill ya boots, invite and deny who you like"
but in this case you are piggy backing the clubs busiest night, therefore there would have been people there (a lot) outside your little exclusive group... a lot of people who would have no idea or clue about your little group... and would not have had the same preference, (as an aside... if the people had membership of the club, there is nothing you could do to stop them going anyway..... they out of wanting to know people to go asked for an invite)
you are also going to the club the night before..... and if the people from the mids room had said to you "I am sorry ahabs... you can't go because you are from london" then I would have been equally annoyed
I thought the word "social" was socialising... and I think that people have forgotten that in a sense with regards to all of these club meets... because if it had been outside of that context I bet the whole this would not have blown up as it this...
it does bring up another point thought... the word "social" is being liberally used around the site... but for me there is a huge difference betweeen the type of "socials" that are going on in clubs, which for me personally feels more and more like cheap advertising for them.... and this
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/288129.html
or this
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/287935.html
maybe it is about time, we got this looked at...

10 Jan 2009

Quote by fabio
right.... if you are going to bring up that social as a case in point then this is where we are going to have to start to agree to disagree (as in the pm I sent you on that subject)
the reason why I was annoyed was this...
if you are going to going to organise that type of social and you hire the club for the night, I would have fully agreed, as I said "fill ya boots, invite and deny who you like"
but in this case you are piggy backing the clubs busiest night, therefore there would have been people there (a lot) outside your little exclusive group... a lot of people who would have no idea or clue about your little group... and would not have had the same preference, (as an aside... if the people had membership of the club, there is nothing you could do to stop them going anyway..... they out of wanting to know people to go asked for an invite)
you are also going to the club the night before..... and if the people from the mids room had said to you "I am sorry ahabs... you can't go because you are from london" then I would have been equally annoyed
I thought the word "social" was socialising... and I think that people have forgotten that in a sense with regards to all of these club meets... because if it had been outside of that context I bet the whole this would not have blown up as it this...
it does bring up another point thought... the word "social" is being liberally used around the site... but for me there is a huge difference betweeen the type of "socials" that are going on in clubs, which for me personally feels more and more like cheap advertising for them.... and this
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/288129.html
or this
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/287935.html
maybe it is about time, we got this looked at...

Hi Fabio, to address points raised:
1) Like I said in email to you - the nights are checked with the club BEFORE the date is decided/publicised. IF it was to busy for the venue, a different date would be picked.
2) The choice of Friday night as opposed to Monday night is to avoid confusion with the bi night
3) Friday night as opposed to Saturday nights is that the single (in this case, black) guys can get in (you wouldn't invite single guys on a night when single guys can't come would you?)
Unless you want to suggest a different night?
4) As for "piggy-backing", remember, ANYONE can attend Chams on their own merit (as long as Chams management are fine with the person/people involved - they do not need to be on THIS guestlist. That's the point. No one is trying to stop anyone going to Chams (even though when I've organised the SAME social in late 2007 AND early 2008 I cheekily added "If your name's not on the list, you're not getting in!" and even THEN no one complained!)
5) If suddenly the mids room said to me "Sorry Ahabs, you're from London, not the midlands" yes I'd be gutted as I particularly enjoy my trips out there, be it Chams, a different venue, or visiting friends (the travelodge must know my face by now!) as long as they had clarified it was for Residents of the midlands only - even then, gutted I may be, I would have to accept rather than protest.
6) If the problem is what the definition of the word "Social" implies, then yes, I DO agree that it will have to be clarified. Whilst the examples you have highlighted DO say "social" in the title, they have ALSO been clear it is in a public (non-swinging) environment, hence "no hanky panky" is expected. but as the Midlands SOCIALS tend to get held in Chams a few times, there is ALSO a fair bit of hanky panky, likewise the bbw SOCIALS when they visit Chams, ie Dec 4th (I can't find the link) so "Social" does not STRICTLY suggest "hanky panky" or "no hanky panky" - it depends on the nature of the group/organisers.
7) MUCNCHES are defined by SH as "no hanky panky" and as far as am concerned have ALWAYS been the recommended way for people new to any group (especially new swingers) to get meeting people, as SH is clear on guidelines that THESE are No Hanky Panky (though I suspect one or two will push boundaries).
If however there is STILL confusion, then am sure in future the organisers of such (and other) socials will substitute with "Get Together", "Meet Up", "Party"

10 Jan 2009

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

10 Jan 2009

Ahabs,
I have read all the meet link you put up, I do believe people’s preference should be adhered to.
This is just a suggestion as it stated that only people that are known or can be verified by another member will be able to come, would it not have been better to set up an invite only group, or a group people can apply too to be accepted?
Then you could have put it up in the forums there.
I think some people will always question other’s preference, and some would do it just to cause a stir.

10 Jan 2009

Quote by scorpiolady1
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.

10 Jan 2009

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.
:thumbup:
No one has the right to question another person's preferences unless it's done in a derogatory fashion. Live and let live, shag and let shag!

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Sassy-Seren
...... and black ( as in Caribbean, Asian et al ) just don't turn me on in general. Sounds harsh but it's MY preference......

Well you have had to deal with RPM for ages, he's enough to put you off anything from Men to Londoners to the entire human race.......ooops, i forgot, he's not really human is he? :mrgreen:

10 Jan 2009

Good thread Ahabs :thumbup:
As regards the visit to Chams-
The be all and end all to my mind, is that Socials are not run by S.H, they are the responsibility of the organiser, and you are within your rights to say "sorry you can't come to xxxxx with our group" to anyone, without giving a reason at all.
But if the organiser tries to give a reason for turning someone down, saying that the person wouldn't fit in because they don't fit in with the ethos of the night, then I think is where issues arise.
Because then a person might say, "well it doesn't matter that I am not black/gay/cd/Midlands room whatever, because I'm a lovely social person and I would enjoy the night anyway.
I'm not sure either side is wrong.

10 Jan 2009

from what i can see this has all started from a single male who is not a regular in the room putting down for the black for white meet at chams or was it the white for black meet sorry i want to get it right dont want anybody jumping down my throat.
many years ago when i 1st started swinging with my ex husband the first ever thing we did before meeting people was go to a social to get to know people and decide if we actually wanted to go down this road. what would of happened if they said sorry your not regulars you cant come and nobody can verify you? as for the meet i did actually look at this. myself and my partner are both white and ive never actually been with a black man so i suppose to me a social would have been a good way to decide if i did wish to do this but after the flack in the forum and as we are both not regular room members i dont think i will bother

10 Jan 2009

Quote by west-brom-babe
from what i can see this has all started from a single male who is not a regular in the room putting down for the black for white meet at chams or was it the white for black meet sorry i want to get it right dont want anybody jumping down my throat.
many years ago when i 1st started swinging with my ex husband the first ever thing we did before meeting people was go to a social to get to know people and decide if we actually wanted to go down this road. what would of happened if they said sorry your not regulars you cant come and nobody can verify you? as for the meet i did actually look at this. myself and my partner are both white and ive never actually been with a black man so i suppose to me a social would have been a good way to decide if i did wish to do this but after the flack in the forum and as we are both not regular room members i dont think i will bother

Hi West-Brom-Babe,
Thanks for your post - however I don't agree with your analysis of "we are a closed group and don't welcome new faces, especially people wandering if meeting black guys forms part of their preference".
I appreciate you prefer to meet people socially first before deciding, but as a chat room, new faces are ALWAYS coming in to say hello, have a look around, chat, interact, get to know people by handle names, (without obligation to having met anyone)... and when the time comes around to a Social, OFCOURSE you'll be welcomed on the guestlist.
Whatever you THEN decide (to do) is completely upto you. The people who currently visit the room (members or otherwise) were all new once you know. Its not all doom and gloom or lost cause, unless you're suggesting your ONLY way of doing things is to go to the social FIRST before deciding to go to the chatroom,.. which would be a round about way of doing things (personal opinion, sorry if it offends).
It should also be noted that on that same thread is a single female who has NO interest in black guys wanting to go on that list. I don't see why as she has never expressed a curiousity or change of heart, but rather the opposite. She can get into Chams on her own anytime anyway.

10 Jan 2009

im saying the way i prefer to do things is to go to a social 1st im not saying its a right or wrong way im just saying its my way, ive been a regular in the mids room for a few years now and have chatted to people in great length then when ive actually met some ive found them not to be the same as in chat eg. rude, quite forcefull and a few complete knobs lol i just think for me actually meeting a person face to face is better than the chat room and before im hung drawn and quatered that goes for anybody of any race or colour.

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Cherrytree
Good thread Ahabs :thumbup:
As regards the visit to Chams-
The be all and end all to my mind, is that Socials are not run by S.H, they are the responsibility of the organiser, and you are within your rights to say "sorry you can't come to xxxxx with our group" to anyone, without giving a reason at all.
But if the organiser tries to give a reason for turning someone down, saying that the person wouldn't fit in because they don't fit in with the ethos of the night, then I think is where issues arise.
Because then a person might say, "well it doesn't matter that I am not black/gay/cd/Midlands room whatever, because I'm a lovely social person and I would enjoy the night anyway.
I'm not sure either side is wrong.

Lol - Hi CherryTree, thanks for your post.
Whislt I fully agree the reasons for someone not being invited to a social don't have to be stated, I feel this would be difficult to enforce as people are bound to think "But why?".
As I was trying to communicate also, assuming I was turned away from a "Couples and Single Fems" social (for example there is one for the BBW room I understand is/was being organised), I could ALSO argue "But I'm a lovely person, never cause trouble, love to socialise, not a timewaster, always turn up and HAPPY to pay my way of hotel costs if lucky to share", and in this case "ESPECIALLY as the social is BY the bbw room - who DO know me!", but guess what the response to me by one person was?
"If you're coming as a couple - then fine, otherwise sorry". Fact of the matter is I had to and DID accept this as justifiable - its THEIR social to organise and invite as they see fit. I have no right to question, at most, I can only suggest.
I however do agree with the suggestion (as SH can now do this) to send invites out to people, the only challenge her would then be how to reach those less regular members if memory (like mine) fails.

10 Jan 2009

Quote by west-brom-babe
im saying the way i prefer to do things is to go to a social 1st im not saying its a right or wrong way im just saying its my way, ive been a regular in the mids room for a few years now and have chatted to people in great length then when ive actually met some ive found them not to be the same as in chat eg. rude, quite forcefull and a few complete knobs lol i just think for me actually meeting a person face to face is better than the chat room and before im hung drawn and quatered that goes for anybody of any race or colour.

Yes, I agree - but you still interacted in the chatroom BEFORE meeting at the social to decide if they were legit. What I'm proposing is you do the same with this one - give it a chance, come say hi, if anyone there strikes you as curious to say hello to, THEN put your name down on the list - if they turn out to not meet your expectation in person, then that's no fault of yours.
Its just that having a new face/female/couple (who don't know anyone from the group) at a social that even they are unsure if its for them is a massive gamble - it has been done in the past and guess what? It failed, unfortunately.
I'm not saying doing it your way will fail also, but it will increase the chance of people you'd have chatted to and "put name to faces".

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs
im saying the way i prefer to do things is to go to a social 1st im not saying its a right or wrong way im just saying its my way, ive been a regular in the mids room for a few years now and have chatted to people in great length then when ive actually met some ive found them not to be the same as in chat eg. rude, quite forcefull and a few complete knobs lol i just think for me actually meeting a person face to face is better than the chat room and before im hung drawn and quatered that goes for anybody of any race or colour.

Yes, I agree - but you still interacted in the chatroom BEFORE meeting at the social to decide if they were legit. What I'm proposing is you do the same with this one - give it a chance, come say hi, if anyone there strikes you as curious to say hello to, THEN put your name down on the list - if they turn out to not meet your expectation in person, then that's no fault of yours.
Its just that having a new face/female/couple (who don't know anyone from the group) at a social that even they are unsure if its for them is a massive gamble - it has been done in the past and guess what? It failed, unfortunately.
I'm not saying doing it your way will fail also, but it will increase the chance of people you'd have chatted to and "put name to faces".
The first two socials and Munches I went to on here I only knew one other person.
My attendance was not, I consider, a failure for me or the rest of the attendees. I spoke to people, I mingled, I made friends.
Why would new/unknown people be deemed a failure?
I like meeting new folk. When it's always 'same old faces' I find things get a bit stale - and that's not just swinging, but life in general.

10 Jan 2009

Quote by noladreams30
The first two socials and Munches I went to on here I only knew one other person.
My attendance was not, I consider, a failure for me or the rest of the attendees. I spoke to people, I mingled, I made friends.

Why would new/unknown people be deemed a failure?
I like meeting new folk. When it's always 'same old faces' I find things get a bit stale - and that's not just swinging, but life in general.

The couple in question gave the feedback "We didn't know anyone".

10 Jan 2009

I'm not sure what I have to add to this but I feel the urge to add something. :mrgreen:
Firstly, from the newbie angle, I remember my first munch well. I was shitting bricks! redface

I hadn't met anyone. I was welcomed into someone's home the night before, made to feel at ease and met a dozen people I'd bounced round the forums with. We went to the munch the following night and I printed off the list and I met absolutely everyone on it. I wandered round with my piece of paper and a pen and ticked them off as I went along because I didn't want to miss anyone. A social is what you make it. I had a brilliant time and it remains (and probably always will) the best munch I ever attended. I wasn't made to feel unwelcome because I hadn't been in a chatroom, at that point I had no preferences because I was so new and didn't know where to start. My preferences came after I met people.
I have an under 30's rule. It's not set in stone, it's set on paper. If I meet someone in person at a munch or a social and I click with them they could be 25, black, white, purple with pink spots, thin, fat, tall, short, man or woman. They could have different religious beliefs, different politcal beliefs and different moral beliefs but the only one I would question would be the moral one. The only rule I do not bend is the married one. I do not wish to fuck someone who has a partner who is unaware of their activities. I may have inadvertantly done this, as has been said in the verification thread, who knows anyone that well in this scene to say for sure that the single blokie they play with doesn't have a wife at home who is oblivious to their extra marital naughtiness? However, if I found out that someone I played with was married I wouldn't be best pleased.
As for skin colour... I've never fucked anyone who isn't white. That is for no other reason than I've never met someone with a different skin tone to me who I've wanted to fuck. It makes no odds to me what colour you are, it's whether there's an attraction that counts.
With regards to the social... I've read the thread and the only thing that made me curious is what happens if you have a black couple who want to fuck a white bloke? Do you organise a separate social with those preferences? Or do you not just get on with it and work with the numbers rather than the names? Surely it's all about having a night out with new people and having some fun? The minute you put a thread up you are effectively opening the social to everyone. If you want to pick and choose who attends then perhaps doing that privately by invitation is the way forward. If you're regulars in a room and you know who frequents it, then surely that's what the PM button is for.
As has been said, it is entirely at the organiser's discretion who attends and who doesn't and having only organised one social I'm not sure I'm in a grand position to judge the methods used but it was posted on open forum and open to everyone who wanted to come along. We allowed unverified newbies, a few of whom didn't turn up, but the gems who did turn up made that a very worthwhile venture and shows that you shouldn't judge everyone in the same way. wink

What would have happened if I hadn't been allowed to go to that first munch because I was new and no-one could verify me? Or is there no chance that would have happened purely because I'm a single, bisexual female? Or is that a whole new thread?! :wink:
EDIT: Having just had a horrible thought about political correctness, especially in this thread I've made an amendment.

10 Jan 2009

i actually do know 2 people going lol

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Dirtygirlie
As for skin colour... I've never fucked anyone who isn't white. That is for no other reason than I've never met someone with a different skin tone to me who I've wanted to fuck. It makes no odds to me what colour you are, it's whether there's an attraction that counts.

This is what I was trying to say......in my own inimitable and roundabout way redface

10 Jan 2009

Right, so I take it preferences should be encouraged to be ignored for a preference-based social?
Where do I sign-up for all those couples and single fems socials I keep missing?

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs
Right, so I take it preferences should be encouraged to be ignored for a preference-based social?
Where do I sign-up for all those couples and single fems socials I keep missing?

The only problem with preference based socials is the can of worms they could open for the few people who take exception for the sake of it instead of letting people do what they want and have their own views.
Some members could say the Pussy Posse could be classed as sexist which excludes men, yes it is( for those of you who don't know, it's a girls only social which I hold in my home from time to time ) but it's no worse than guys having their own mens night out

10 Jan 2009

Quote by Ahabs
Right, so I take it preferences should be encouraged to be ignored for a preference-based social?
Where do I sign-up for all those couples and single fems socials I keep missing?

Erm... I'm not sure if that question is aimed at me or not but I'm going to answer anyway. :mrgreen:
I don't think anyone's preferences should be ignored. I think we're all entitled to have preferences. It's the way of the world.
I'm not sure what the problem is to be honest. If you want to run a social for single females and couples only then that is entirely your choice. If you post that on the open forum and open it to everyone then you have every right to tell the single bloke who posts that he cannot attend because he's not within the criteria you asked for. You have no control over whether he's pissed off with that response or not.
As it happens... I wouldn't attend a couples and single females only social, I think a social is just that, a sociable time and really shouldn't have any restrictions on who can and cannot attend regardless of any other factor. wink

If you want to have a social within a specific chatroom then the smart thing to do would be to insist that only the people who frequent the chatroom can attend. Then you don't have to make it (or have it descend) into a racial issue. You can say quite simply: "No you don't hang out in the chatroom so we'd rather you didn't attend. Feel free to frequent the chatroom and maybe you could come along to the next one".
It would appear that the skin tone is not the issue since Ian is attending as he's a regular in your chatroom. I'm not sure anyone has made this into a race issue at all. It is indeed a preference issue, but more so with who is known and who is not. :mrgreen:
Back to verification anyone?! innocent