- This topic has 32 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@natasha I disagree about the check mark. It’s actually very misleading. It implies that the person has been vetted, when in reality they have not. It would be more accurate if it were something that indicated the person was a donor. So, anyone can pay the money for the check mark, and it doesn’t indicate any level of safety or understanding. It’s like Twitter, where you can now pay to be verified. On other sites I’m on, verification requires the person to prove who they are, not just pay money.
@tikikali Perhaps the men should pay for membership and the women can still join for free. That would resolve the issues you raise.I personally wouldn’t use any kind of pay site or app. Won’t go anywhere near any dating app as their algorithms are designed to extort money from men. No way, I’m not desperate.
And the verified mark here, means nothing more than the member has made a contribution monetarily. Zero reflection on their character.
It should be remembered that the world of human sexuality, and even our specific ABF niche has such a wide spectrum of kink level. So, what wildly turns some people on, may be a gut wrenching turn off for others and there’s no way of knowing where someone falls on the spectrum without talking to them.
As ever, you are interacting on the internet and nothing there should ever be taken at completely face value until you’ve verified who you are talking to. I do think that a video chat feature within the DM functionality, would help there.
How about this idea for verifying members in a more reliable manner:-
Every new member should not have any dm functionality until they’ve interacted a certain number of times in both text chat and voice chat rooms. That at least would increase traffic into the chat rooms and I’ve found the chat rooms are quite a good indicator of a person’s character, even if I’m not interacting directly with them.
“Every new member should not have any dm functionality until they’ve interacted a certain number of times in both text chat and voice chat rooms”.
This is a brilliant idea. You’d soon get the measure of someone this way. Also id love if you could apply a blanket block say against sex or country of living i.e. if i apply a block that no men can message unless i message them first.
@juicyboobies I don’t think limiting first dms to women making the first move would necessarily be a good thing. All it’ll do is lead to an increase in simping by men. There’s way too much simping going on anyway. I’m more in favour of levelling the playing field. This business of giving women the sole choice and power in the dynamic, is unnatural and not really healthy for relationships either. Already the experience is very different for men and women on this site, if only due to the ratio of men to women. Giving women the power to cancel any man they don’t get along with, is taking no account of the possibility that that man may be ideally matched for another woman. As said before, the spectrum is wide and there is someone for everyone, but not everyone will get along, and that’s ok.
Certain other sites have verification scores, this could work in some form here. I dont mean to score a boy or girl if they are fantastic sucklers, or to score a meet, but just a basic verification to show if that person is genuine.This should be explained to newbies when joining. This may put more folk at ease?
Greg i think you have misunderstood. I dont mean that if i block a man that he is blocked from all women. What i mean is like other sites fabswingers comes to mind i have the option of blocking men from messaging me or couples or women. If i dont want messages from men and have it plastered all over my profile surely i should have the facility to block all men.
@juicyboobies I do hear you on that point and surely it would be possible to add such functionality on the site so that those women can choose to initiate messaging or not?
What I meant was that I’ve seen a number of cases where female members have been upset with a man, and if they complain to Michael enough, he’ll get thrown off without even being allowed to speak his account. That’s wrong in my view. We’ve all heard the saying ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ and it’s a brutal truth that many women either aren’t used to, or very accepting of rejection. It’s a common occurrence for men to be rejected and mostly we just have to suck it up and move on. There are a number of double standards too – most women expect to be able to chat and interact with more than one man at a time, and yet woe betide any man who is chatting to a woman and she discovers that he’s chatting to other women. That’s usually grounds for instant retribution from the woman. See women have copious numbers of dms, and men mostly have the exact opposite. It’s a well known statistic in online dating platforms that women are mostly chasing the top 4% of men, and to them the other 96% are invisible.
Do you see the issues there with how the double standard doesn’t work well with the ratios of men to women?
After reading some of the recent comments, I’m starting to wonder if this “problem” is starting to get overblown. The site already has built-in ways to delete, block, and report offensive behavior. Ladies, take any action you feel is necessary and move on.
We all should be grateful to Michael for providing us with this highly functional and user-friendly site FOR FREE. I for one don’t want to make his job any harder than it already is.
@nips4fun @juicyboobies I’m definitely not in favor of making members “jump through hoops” to qualify for active DM status. Let people interact with the site in whatever ways they feel comfortable doing so, rather than forcing them to perform Behaviors A, B, and C before granting them messaging privileges.
@effervescent1 Regarding the “men must pay, women free” suggestion: That could be viewed as a gender discrimination policy…most organizations deliberately avoid policies like that, for fear of litigation.Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath-water.
It’s impossible to participate in any on-line discussion forum or dating site with complete safety, or with complete freedom from being pestered, or complete freedom from having your feelings occasionally hurt, etc. To the contrary, it inevitably requires being adult enough to be careful on your own, and having a bit of a thick skin helps, too.
This is quite a niche interest, and any added “friction,” such as demanding payment, suppressing avenues for participation, etc., will inevitably discourage membership. The site would eventually become like the rest of them: a walking-dead wasteland in which few other than trolls and scammers remain.
Don’t let it go that way!
I was approached by a woman tonight via private message. It was a pleasant introduction. But I read her profile and she made it clear she would not be interested in (or tolerate) someone of a certain political persuasion. So, I informed her I was of that persuasion and “good luck” and I get a snide comment back?! Is that necessary? The hostility on this site is through the roof.
Oh, please, one person’s “snide” remark does not tar the whole site as filled with “hostility.”
Just move on with a shrug, or else go find a site where no one rejects you, ever. 😉
@ Jake
The best way to look at what happened is to appreciate the fact you learned you were incompatible. Now you can move forward, not wasting your time and energy.
This is something I embraced here early on and it has served me well.
It seems to me when someone uses terms like “Almost all of them” or “Most women” it indicates a serious amount of BS in their diatribe. How in the world can this dude or dudette possibly know that? 😜
This idiom also applies elsewhere in the world of life.😉Good point you make, I hope you’re doing well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.