funcouple1976tt ; rude SOB! - a Blog Post by Heels_N_Squeals

6/21/2018 11:01 pm

My comments to Heathen disappeared too notell. This site operates in a 1982 domain. Well I'm not going to rewrite it all again. I echo everyone else here that Heathen is clueless and wrong. Maybe one person disagreeing can be expected here and there on a blog but when you now have like a half dozen people all sending the same exact signal to you, then it's worth considering who is mistaken here. It's not coincidence we're all disagreeing with you and you are the only soul agreeing with the nitwit guy in the IM. Take the hint.

Heathen_G 65M

7974 posts
6/22/2018 1:44 am

Response to: Heels_N_Squeals replies on 6/21/2018 2:01 pm:

I went over this before. This site isn't solely a hookup site. Understand, asshole??? The site is used for many reasons. ... Yes, but primarily when you respond to an I.M. with a guy holding his junk and asking you how much do you like giving head... he's probably looking for sex. .....And don't be rude to me, too.

At the time I took on his IM he merely told me he had a question. That's all!! ... We see that. A guy holding his junk said that... you said as long as it's not off the wall... he asked about blowjobs and you laughed.

He asked his "Specific" question... You added "Theoretical" to the description...not him.

You answered , Yes.... he told you is a realtor standing in a condo... [2:19] ...Where did you think this was going?

Stop twisting the scenario. ... Heels, it's copied right there.. .all can read it. There is no twisting. At 2:19 you should have disconnected , instead of blaming him and calling him rude.

I didn't lead him on or bait him by answering the question ... Like it or not, that is exactly what you did. You didn't say, "Stop" . You didn't say, "That question is off the wall".

and I even told him right up front that his question was purely theoretical ... He told you the question was "Specific".... and he told you at 2:19 he's the realtor. Come-on.

He wrote to me first and wanted to chat and so I did.... Yes.. and when it got to the point [2:17] telling you about his blowjob luck, and then at 2:19 saying he is the realtor...was this not "Off the wall" enough for you?

It was very childish. ... No it wasn't. It was a civil suggestion.

If he doesn't know of all of the different reasons that one can reside on this site, then he needs to brush up on knowledge of knowing the site isn't all about purely sex. ... No way of knowing what he knows or doesn't know.... his chat with was very sexual and explicit...and you should have disconnected at 2:19 , or 2:17 .

Most people ( women ) aren't here to meet for sex anymore. .... Doesn't matter. He's looking for the woman on a sex site willing to have sex with him.... Very appropriate. And his photo should have clued you in.

Friendfinder? You do realize that Passion is all part of the Friendfinder network, correct? .... Absolutely... but the profiles on AdultFF are not seen on Friendfinder .... doesn't matter if it's the same person.. the profiles [wording etc] is very different. Pictures too, are not showing junk shots on F.F..

And no, I know what I seek here and there is nothing out of the ordinary or inappropriate for what I seek here. ... Didn't say there was... but you , you have to accept what men seek, here , is perfectly appropriate.

It's well within the parameters of what this site is here to offer. ... Males , like him, are also well within the parameters.

"You're not here for hookups,, you're here to make friends. That's fine... but men are here for sex. ....Even seeking a "Fwb", anyone first needs to establish mutual sexual chemistry. Not, "Lets be friends and see what happens"."

Incorrect! .... No. You want a Fwb... you need to first establish that you would have sex with the guy. Because if you cannot see yourself having sex with him, and don't reject him..... then he will be wondering when the benefits come .

My profile says I seek a friend first,.... Yes... great for nice guys... waste of time for other guys who joined a hookup site. But still some men, as him, may still take a chance .

and hopefully potential fun to follow if a friendship develops first. ... That's unrealistic without first acknowledging you could have sex with him.

This means FWB. So I'm here for both friendship and for sex....in that order. /color].... Yes, but it isn't really in that order because first you have to be able to see/imagine yourself actually having sex with the man. IF the attraction is just not there, then don't waste his time. Sexual attraction is visceral and immediate. It doesn't show up later after you know each other favorite colors and birthdays.

Chemistry would need to be established for sure,... That's what I just said... First you need to establish if you could ever have sex with him. Not, "Lets be friends and see what happens".

but you are taking this way out of the scope of what this blog entails. ... Not really.. just sees like it with all this typing.... You insist he is rude.. .I'm pointing out you were rude first, and you could have ejected at 2:19.... when you learned the details.

I didn't reply to him for "chemistry" or to "make a friendship with him" or to eventually "have sex with him". .... Okay... but he very obviously contacted you for sexual reasons, you could see that quite soon .

I replied to him to take on his question. That's all! Again, you take this way out of the scope of what the discussion pertains to... You took a question from a man holding his junk , in a car. A "Specific" question about how much you like giving oral .

"And you can't demand respect, nor can you expect respect [from anyone], and he certainly did not need to thank you after your picking him apart. That's just ridiculous."

Nope, sorry. Disagree! ... Okay, you can demand it... but you're not going to get it.... especially when you demand respect.... you have to earn respect... and even then, some won't give you respect. So you can't expect that they will give you respect.

I was raised with the morals of 'give respect, get respect'. ... Fine, but apparently your parents didn't tell you what the real world is like, outside of your walls.

I give it to others, so I expect it in return. ... Of course.. but that may not happen.

How many females here actually respond to men at all? ... I don't know about women responding to other men.

but what I do expect is for the other person to acknowledge that I have taken my time and effort to reply to you, so I expect respect and courtesy within my conversation with the other party. .... You should have then followed your own guidelines . Which you did not, from 2:27 on. However.. you can expect all you want... whether it's going to happen , is another tune.

Quit making more out of this than what it is and defending the asshole here. ... I'm defending the allegation that he was rude, as you said.... and he was not, until you began the rudeness, to him.

Banana_Canyon 46F

6/22/2018 10:12 am

Heathen_G, don't be a clown. You quote every single person here and twist everyone's words around to create the illusion that Funcouple is the victim and that Heels is the perpetrator. I'm seeing the opposite. Funcouple had a strategic plan of baiting Heels when he IM'd her. She didn't know that. It seems that all she was doing was chatting on IM. Nothing wrong with that. From the beginning she made it very clear that she was honest and that she would answer his question if it wasn't bizarre. She did just that. If he received his answer and wasn't satisfied to chat any longer, then it should have been his duty to disengage on a positive note, not hers. After all, it seems she was here for the intent to chat and to answer a question, not to meet a stranger for a blowjob. I concur with the masses on this one: It's you, Heathen and Funcouple, who have the story backwards. Reading through this mass of information you've written on this blog, what I get out of it is that you pick everyone's words apart and bend them and turn the tables on the situation to fit the crooked agenda of the guilty. I get the impression you are in it to troll...or are just without a clue or sense of judgement for who is in the wrong here in the blog.

Heathen_G 65M

7974 posts
6/22/2018 1:53 pm

Banana_Canyon

You quote every single person here...I do not..

and twist everyone's words around to create the illusion that Funcouple is the victim ...He is wrongly accused of being rude. She was rude to him first. Everything they said is right there, printed. I can't twist that around. Clearly the woman "Heels" became rude with him first.

and that Heels is the perpetrator. ... Go read it... It's right there. For her to say he's a rude sob is unfair of her.

I'm seeing the opposite. Funcouple had a strategic plan of baiting Heels ... Clearly , yes, to me, to you, to the others.... so why didn't Heels see that by 2:19? Baiting her into accepting a suggestion of blowing him, doesn't make him a "Rude sob".

She didn't know that. ... By 2:19 into the conversation his motivation was very clear. Go read it. At 2:19.. is when Heels should have terminated a conversation not to her standards.

It seems that all she was doing was chatting on IM. ...Yes, she was chatting.

Nothing wrong with that. ... Nothing wrong with chatting. Also nothing wrong with what him just chatting , too.

From the beginning she made it very clear that she was honest and that she would answer his question if it wasn't bizarre. .... That's true... and he was honest too... at 2:19 he said he the realtor, ... basically between 2:16 to 2:19 , she could see he was chatting about her , giving him, a blowjob. To a woman just looking for a friend, at 2:19 is when she should have pulled the plug on the conversation.

If he received his answer .... There is no "IF". She continued to chat with him after 2:19.

and wasn't satisfied to chat any longer, then it should have been his duty to disengage on a positive note, not hers. ... No. We don't know what his standards are, but we know hers . Heels did not read his profile either [2:26] .... She is the one with particular standards of friendship first on a hookup site, and once she noticed, which she should have by 2:19 that those standards were not being met, she should have terminated.

After all, it seems she was here for the intent to chat ... As was he. Not like anything else could happen.

and to answer a question, not to meet a stranger for a blowjob. ... But she did answer.. and kept chatting with him.

what I get out of it is that you pick everyone's words apart and bend them and turn the tables on the situation .... No words did I "Bend". You have the transcript of what was said. Noted by a time line.... That is what we are looking at.

to fit the crooked agenda of the guilty. ... Also this isn't about him being guilty of anything. This is about Heels declaring him a "Rude sob".... when in fact, as shown, she is the first to be rude to him. Had she terminated? Then funcouple would have just been another guy on a hookup site trying to get some action.....Nothing wrong with that.

I get the impression you are in it to troll.. ...You are wrong. I see the man wrongly accused of being "Rude" , when clearly she became hostile towards him.

Heels_N_Squeals 50F

68 posts
6/22/2018 10:23 pm

Ok Heathen, last time to go through these essays. It's obvious you are set with your views and no matter how many times I lay out the details, you refuse to listen and comprehend what I'm saying. Nevertheless, I'll go on and answer your quotes for one last time. {Deep breath} So here it goes...

"I went over this before. This site isn't solely a hookup site. Understand, asshole??? The site is used for many reasons. ... Yes, but primarily when you respond to an I.M. with a guy holding his junk and asking you how much do you like giving head... he's probably looking for sex. .....And don't be rude to me, too."

I have repeatedly heard you recently saying he was "holding his junk". I'd assume 90% of the men here are doing that at any given time, however, this is a complete assumption on your part. Now, you want to nitpick on the minuscule details of everything I say on a forensic level, but how do you actually know his junk was in his hand at the time he sent an IM to me? You don't.
True, the question he asked was on a scale of 1 - 10, how much do I enjoy giving head. He was asking my opinion. The question was not in him asking me if I would give him head. Understand? The question was in how much I personally enjoyed it. Understand? I didn't at all say that I wanted to give him a bj or that I was interested in him at all. Understand? He had a question. That question was "on a scale of 1 - 10, how much do I enjoy giving head". Take the question at face value for what it simply says. I answered it honestly and was sure to insert the fact that the realtor part was purely theoretical and that I had no comment on that actual part of the questioning, as it wasn't relevant at all to the basis of the actual question. Understand yet?
If someone asks you if you like watermelon, the question is simple. Do you enjoy the taste of watermelon? Yes or no? It is not to say that the person is offering you a watermelon. And although this might be true after you reply with a yes or no answer, if it stems off in that direction once you've given your yes/no answer then you cross that bridge when you get to it and might say something like "I appreciate you offering me a fresh watermelon from your farm" or "although I love watermelon, I cannot eat them because I get an allergic reaction". Understand? The main and basic question is simply put: Do you like watermelon? That's all. Do you see the analogy in the IM? When I said that "yes, I personally love bj's and consider it a 9-10", I was simply answering his base question of "on a scale of 1 - 10, how much do I enjoy giving head". That's all! What don't you understand here so far?? Do you see the watermelon analogy when the topic branches off and he goes on to say "it doesn't have to be fictional and that he's at the condo and he's a realtor"....I immediately say to him that it may not be fictional to some women here, but most women don't care of guys sexual needs here. This was me telling him that I answered his base question honestly, but now I'm realigning him and declining his bj offer ( the allergic reaction to watermelon analogy applies when I decline offer ). I'm doing this in a gentle manner as to not come off as rude or to make anyone feel bad, yet still get the point across.

"At the time I took on his IM he merely told me he had a question. That's all!! ... We see that. A guy holding his junk said that... you said as long as it's not off the wall... he asked about blowjobs and you laughed.
He asked his "Specific" question... You added "Theoretical" to the description...not him."

You answered , Yes.... he told you is a realtor standing in a condo... [2:19] ...Where did you think this was going?"

Again, you make this up. You have no clue if he was holding his junk...pure assumption. Yes, I said as long as the question wasn't off the wall. What does he do, sends a laughable question. Although I didn't consider it completely off the wall, it was silly enough when reading it that it made me giggle. The giggling smiley should have been enough hint to cue him in to realizing that at that point I already thought he was either a jokester type or simply an idiot. Nevertheless, my purpose for being on IM was to chat, and so I did since the question was taken with a grain of salt. I answered his "specific question" ( as described above ) and also added that his questioning was in a "theoretical" manner....meaning that if he was taking this question to the level of hinting for me to give him oral, then the question applies only to certain few people here [ NOT me ].... hence, the very reason that a profile should be read and understood [ and respected by the contents given IF it was read ] prior to writing someone. I feel like I'm communicating to snails to anyone who cannot understand basic protocol here.

"Stop twisting the scenario. ... Heels, it's copied right there.. .all can read it. There is no twisting. At 2:19 you should have disconnected , instead of blaming him and calling him rude."

Correct, it is all there to read. Do so! Why should I disconnect with someone if I'm:
*Acknowledging a human being when they write to me ( basic human courtesy, which seems to be a long lost art already ).
* Answering his question.
* Chatting on a general level with someone.

There is no blaming taking place or rudeness until the point where he retorts and tells me to go to Match. What I did was display firmness and honesty. It didn't appear that he read my profile, so until men understand that, sure, then there will be firmness if you are writing to me and seem to be clueless of the basics of what my profile says. Firmness and rudeness aren't the same things.

"I didn't lead him on or bait him by answering the question ... Like it or not, that is exactly what you did. You didn't say, "Stop" . You didn't say, "That question is off the wall"."

No, I didn't bait him or lead him on ( refer above to where I described myself answering his base question ). He baited me!!! Other people commenting here say the same and even you admit this, too. Why would I say "Stop" to someone asking me a simple question? Again, I answered the question honestly and was firm to include that I had no interest in his proposition". I didn't tell him that his question was off the wall, because I thought it was more comical than anything. Sure, the question was a bit odd, but I have seen some REALLY bizarre questions being asked here before....this really wasn't one of them.

"and I even told him right up front that his question was purely theoretical ... He told you the question was "Specific".... and he told you at 2:19 he's the realtor. Come-on."

At 2:14 he said it was "specific"....he asked it at 2:16. In chronological order....at 2:19 I answered his base question ( bj 1-10 scale ) and was sure to make a special note to his "Specific" part ( pertaining to the realtor/condo part ). Later on within the same minute of 2:19, he announces that HE is a realtor and is at the condo. I then went on to politely decline his hint by telling him it was fictional to most women here. If I were interested in a random bj, I'd have no reason to say the part of fictional....that was his cue from me that I wasn't interested in it. You'd have to be completely stupid not to get the vibe that a woman isn't interested in a proposition like that if she felt the need to include it being a fictional scenario. So you, come on!

"He wrote to me first and wanted to chat and so I did.... Yes.. and when it got to the point [2:17] telling you about his blowjob luck, and then at 2:19 saying he is the realtor...was this not "Off the wall" enough for you?"

Again, my intent of being on IM was for the pure purpose to chat. I mean, sure, if someone came along in IM who met the criteria I sought, then I'd take the lead and see where it went. But he didn't meet criteria at all. Let's review:

* My intent of being on IM that day was to chat....so I did.
* My profile says I seek a FWB.
* He seeks NSA.
* Did he read profile? It's obvious he didn't if he asked me what I was here looking for.

So there was nothing completely off the wall of his question. I made it very clear on the realtor/condo parts, made it clear to tell him his idea was fictional ( declining his offer ), was firm and yet polite in doing so. At 2:17 he described his six year dry spell ( later admitted to lying to me about it )....and I firmly told him that most women here really could care less about a man's sexual needs or been deprived of a bj in six years. This isn't rude, this is being honest ( in what he asked me from the start to do ) and firm ( in what I believe to be truth and a disinterest in his inclusion of the question ). This doesn't mean that I'm the one who should be running from this conversation with my tail between my legs. I'm here to chat...that's what I did. He initiated chat....I took it on. I cannot make this any more clear to you. If he didn't like the honest answers given, then it was his part to disengage, not mine!!!

"It was very childish. ... No it wasn't. It was a civil suggestion."

No, it really wasn't. It was a childish form of retaliation against me because his butt was hurt. He knew he didn't read my profile, he realized we weren't a match for what we both sought and he didn't want to leave the conversation knowing that I had the upper hand and was in control of things once he realized he wasn't getting a bj from me. That's exactly what the Match comment was all about! It wasn't any civil suggestion. He's clueless like you!

Facts:
* He's a gold member ( with ability to read profiles ).
* He didn't read my profile. My profile doesn't say that I'm a single that's looking to date someone or to get involved in a serious relationship as a couple with anyone ( the point of what Match is for ).
* He knew exactly that his intent was to be sarcastic and was intended to childishly retort against me. His idiotic mentality: "Oh, I'm not getting a bj from her?....well I'll show her that she's not getting away with it without me getting the upper hand of control of the situation or leaving on a pleasant note because I'm an alpha male with a larger-than-life and over-the-top ego". This is precisely his logic! Unarguably!

"If he doesn't know of all of the different reasons that one can reside on this site, then he needs to brush up on knowledge of knowing the site isn't all about purely sex. ... No way of knowing what he knows or doesn't know.... his chat with was very sexual and explicit...and you should have disconnected at 2:19 , or 2:17 ."

Yes there is definitely a way of knowing. It's called utilizing your gold membership to first read a profile before contacting someone if you're intent to contact them is more than purely for the sake of general chit chatting. Again, I'm on IM to chat....sexually-based chat or not....my role was intended to chat. That's all, nothing more. Stop saying that I should have disengaged. HE should have disengaged. Again, what do you not understand about me being on IM to chat? So by that logic, anyone who is signed on to IM and takes on a reply is automatically supposed to turn chat into real encounters for sex? Get a clue!! Majority of women who chat probably never meet up. Most are here to just chit chat, regardless of the content and topics of chat. I have never once given the impression that I was interested in him as a person, interested in him for real sexual encounters or otherwise. I made each comment of mine honest and very specific, as to not mislead, but yet to converse. This is so simple that it's laughable! I answered a question honestly, held my ground firmly and gave detailed answers as to keep conversation aligned to merely chat and not to mislead about real-life encounters. Simple as that! Now I'm being torn apart for being a kind person for merely replying to a guy, answering a question and for the will to just chat on a general level with someone? Unreal!

"Most people ( women ) aren't here to meet for sex anymore. .... Doesn't matter. He's looking for the woman on a sex site willing to have sex with him.... Very appropriate. And his photo should have clued you in."

Well yeah, it does matter, because the less and less real women that reside here ( due to goofball guys like this that push them away and turn them off ), the harder and harder it is for those women who are left to find decency and honesty. Lies, manipulation and games take over and due to lack of variety, we're being bombarded with dozens of men daily. Similarly, for the male population, it's just as cut-throat, and the less females there are here, the higher the competition and the more aggressive men get in the process. The site is a complete wreck when it comes to the grossly imbalanced male to female ratio here. So yes, to answer that part, it does matter a LOT!
We went over this before and you still don't seem to get it. True, he's on the right site to find sex, if that's what he seeks....however, it's in his own laziness, ignorance and idiocy that he is deciding to write to me for sex. So I'll say it again. The right site for sex? YES!!! Is he contacting the right person for that sex? NO!!! You cannot seem to see the difference there and it's a HUGE flaw by him and you!
What does anyone's photo have to do with anything? A photo of a cock is a photo of a cock. Big whoop! My profile is a pair of heels and panties around my ankles, again, big whoop. It's not to say that a pic is speaking to you....this is exactly why a profile has a description section, which explains why a person is here and what they seek, not a pic, nor a screen name. That [ a pic ] just shows the physical person of whom you are speaking to. Take it at face value. You look into everything way too much deeper that it is at face value and take things out of the scope of what things are intended to be. So if I'm not to chat to anyone who has a cock pic on profile [ on the basis that a cock pic = I should be having sexual relations with that person ], then that would eliminate about 97% of men on this site. Laughable!

"Friendfinder? You do realize that Passion is all part of the Friendfinder network, correct? .... Absolutely... but the profiles on AdultFF are not seen on Friendfinder .... doesn't matter if it's the same person.. the profiles [wording etc] is very different. Pictures too, are not showing junk shots on F.F.."

Then my apologies. I'm not familiar with sites other than signing on the Passion, but I do know that FF network is all comprised of sister sites. I never personally looked in to it deeper. Nevertheless, if I'm on this site seeking a FWB, then that means the the "F" part of it seeks friendship and the "WB" part of it is seeking sex/intimacy, also. That then means that I'm perfectly within my parameters for being on this site for what I am seeking and for what this site is designed to find. Nothing more needs to be said about pics or otherwise. I seek FWB, I'm on the right site for either ( "F" ) OR both options ( "FWB" ).

"And no, I know what I seek here and there is nothing out of the ordinary or inappropriate for what I seek here. ... Didn't say there was... but you , you have to accept what men seek, here , is perfectly appropriate."

You're right, it's the appropriate place for what they seek. I didn't say that I did NOT accept that fact. I DO accept and respect that fact. What I do not accept is the fact that when I'm seeking apples, someone expects oranges when they write to me. If my profile says one thing and it's as clear as day and I took the time to specifically make a note of certain things on my profile, then why on earth are gold members contacting me blindly and pursuing nothing even remotely close to what I seek. You constantly sit here and tell me "they are taking a chance". NO!!! What they are really doing is being lazy [ in not reading], being ignorant [ in not reading ], aren't comprehending basic info [ if they did read it ] or actually trying to override my profile criteria [ if they actually did read ]. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!!!!! Understand?

"It's well within the parameters of what this site is here to offer. ... Males , like him, are also well within the parameters."

He is within parameters to seek whatever sexual, non-sexual, fetish or otherwise here. I have no problem with that. It becomes my business when these fools don't read/don't comprehend/override my profile ( as just described above ). Chatting is one thing. Pursuing to meet/sex is yet another. If you cannot understand this, then you are being dense!

"Incorrect! .... No. You want a Fwb... you need to first establish that you would have sex with the guy. Because if you cannot see yourself having sex with him, and don't reject him..... then he will be wondering when the benefits come ."

I want a FWB. Perhaps you're right. Ideally there would be some sort of chemistry in some way, shape or form. This is the Law of Attraction. I'd have to see some sort of potential in that person in either a sexual or non-sexual manner that would spark my interest. Very true. But again, you are taking this way out of the scope of what this blog is about.

Here's the key facts:

* I'm not here pursuing this guy. He is pursuing me!!!
* I'm not interested in this guy for an intimate encounter, although he is!!
* I'm here chatting for the pure sake of chat. He's chatting for the sake of hookup.

What are you NOT understanding here regarding the scope of this blog? I'm not looking for chemistry in this man. He lives in excess of an hour from me and my profile clearly describes that I seek a local NOT EXCEEDING the range of 30-40 minutes MAXIMUM. By that fact alone, I have no need or desire to even care if potential chemistry exists, because there is no realistic basis for what I seek/require when it comes to distance factors between him and I. There is no "chance to take" because none even exists from the start. He's out of range, therefore, he doesn't fit criteria of what I seek/require. End of discussion. The chat between him and I was just that, purely chat!! He would have know that had he read profile. He didn't! Therefore, he's an idiot for thinking a potential for an imaginary scenario would magically occur. SMH!

"My profile says I seek a friend first,.... Yes... great for nice guys... waste of time for other guys who joined a hookup site. But still some men, as him, may still take a chance . "

It's not a hookup site. I have described several times that this site can be used for a wide variety of reasons. In fact, plenty of people are on this site and have no intent to meet at all. How many profiles say "just here to chat, not meeting" or "taking a break"? That's perfectly fine, since the site can and is used for an adult social media outlet.
Yes, definitely great for nice guys seeking a local FWB. Therefore, if someone is NOT local to me and is seeking and PURSUING an NSA, then there is absolutely no reason for that member to contact someone with intent of their search if it's contrary to the other person's profile criteria. End of discussion!

"and hopefully potential fun to follow if a friendship develops first. ... That's unrealistic without first acknowledging you could have sex with him."

Like I said above, yes, chemistry would need to be there if I was considering someone as a potential to have intimacy with. This was never the case with the guy in the IM, since he didn't even live locally within the parameters of what my profile described, thus, no reason for either of us to think of chemistry on any level at all. We were on a chat level.

"This means FWB. So I'm here for both friendship and for sex....in that order. /color].... Yes, but it isn't really in that order because first you have to be able to see/imagine yourself actually having sex with the man. IF the attraction is just not there, then don't waste his time. Sexual attraction is visceral and immediate. It doesn't show up later after you know each other favorite colors and birthdays."

Again, read above. I had no interest in this man on a chemistry level. He didn't even live locally, so was excluded immediately from anything realistic and in-person. I described all of this above.

"Chemistry would need to be established for sure,... That's what I just said... First you need to establish if you could ever have sex with him. Not, "Lets be friends and see what happens". "

Same thing, see above. We're talking about apples and oranges when it comes to chemistry vs. chat.

"I didn't reply to him for "chemistry" or to "make a friendship with him" or to eventually "have sex with him". .... Okay... but he very obviously contacted you for sexual reasons, you could see that quite soon ."

Correct, that was his flaw if he contacted me for sexual reasons, not mine. He's a gold member, he can read profiles. He either didn't read it, didn't comprehend it or felt the need to override it. No matter what the option was, he failed to comply. How does this tie in to someone who just sits here, minding her own business and is casually chatting to others? It doesn't. If he had a misunderstanding or some imaginary ideas that didn't exist then that's his fault for not reading before contact or to simply ask me his questions/concerns so they are ironed out and we're on the same page with one another.

"I replied to him to take on his question. That's all! Again, you take this way out of the scope of what the discussion pertains to... You took a question from a man holding his junk , in a car. A "Specific" question about how much you like giving oral ."

Third time, you make a complete assumption he was holding his junk. Also, completely assuming he was in a car. All he described is that he was at a condo and is a realtor.
As for his "specific" question...I made a clear effort to tell him that the realtor/condo part of the question was irrelevant to the base question at hand. You're going in circles over this information.

"Nope, sorry. Disagree! ... Okay, you can demand it... but you're not going to get it.... especially when you demand respect.... you have to earn respect... and even then, some won't give you respect. So you can't expect that they will give you respect. "

The equation is simple: Give respect, get respect. This is the general rule of thumb. I gave respect, yet didn't receive it back....which is exactly the reason why him and I no longer chat, because he ignored everything about me [ including my profile criteria, my kindness to reply to his IM, my honesty to answer his questions and my willingness to open the door to chat to him on a general level ], then retorted, then actually went to the length of insanity to block me, as if anything about me was at fault. So you're right, not everyone will give respect back. In fact, society is at such a deplorable level these days that almost nobody gives respect back. This is the new norm, sadly. And so as you might then imagine, no respect given back will obviously equal arguments, retaliation, bickering, hard feelings, blocking/ignoring, etc..., as which is the case here with him.

"I was raised with the morals of 'give respect, get respect'. ... Fine, but apparently your parents didn't tell you what the real world is like, outside of your walls."

Not true, taking a journey to the mid 70's forward, things were much different in society [ and we were much better off without this sort of technology which is a big part of what divided social structure ]. At that time I was indeed informed that there are jerks out there. That's part of life. I was also informed that two negatives don't equal a positive. In other words, by your logic, I should have ignored him and disengaged. Since when has ignorance ever been a solution to any human problem. Never! If someone commits a crime, we toss them in jail and ignore them and their problems. This isn't a solution. A solution is to give that person rehabilitation, to help that person with whatever underlying issues he/she has and to re-align them to better deal with society so they don't commit crimes again and so they can live in harmony with the rest of us and on the same level. Same here on the site...if someone writes to me, I know that another human being as equal to the same flesh, blood and feelings is on the other end. Why ignore an individual?...that's rude! Solution: Talk to that person. If he/she is misled and misguided, then re-align that person back on track to where they should be so that they are on the same page. If that cannot be established and two people cannot see eye to eye, then human decency is to part ways on a good note with respectful closure. No excuse! There is no reason for others [ grown adults ] to get all bent out of shape and retort like a 5 year-old. That's the problem these days. We've lost all respect for one another as human beings....politeness, kindness, respect is all out the window and we're left with a shell of a dumbed-down and rude society. Is it then any wonder why it's so terribly hard for most of us here seeking something rather simplistic and on the casual side to find anyone else even remotely taking each other's offers up to meet or form friendship? I see no mystery. It's so black and white.

"I give it to others, so I expect it in return. ... Of course.. but that may not happen."

Correct, and it didn't happen, sadly.

"How many females here actually respond to men at all? ... I don't know about women responding to other men."

I haven't taken a poll or done any research in the matter, but judging from what I hear from those men I have talked to, I'm hearing all of the same story. One man wrote me and said that out of about 50 women he IM'd to, I was the first to respond to him. Other men tell me the same tale, that they write to plenty of women and either:

* They don't respond [ the most common thing ].
* They respond, but only to quickly address that person [ i.e.: Saying "thank you" to someone for a compliment they made to her and then she quickly shuffles and exits IM to get the guy out of her hair ].
* They respond, but cannot hold a balanced two-way conversation for the life of them [ i.e.: Responding a "yes" or "no" to questions without asking any back, without elaborating in conversation or without showing any level of willing enthusiasm of interest at all to chat with the male party ].

Therefore, I conclude that very, VERY few women actually reply to men at all and when they actually do, there's only a slim chance that anything worthwhile stems from it worth any genuine meaning.

"but what I do expect is for the other person to acknowledge that I have taken my time and effort to reply to you, so I expect respect and courtesy within my conversation with the other party. .... You should have then followed your own guidelines . Which you did not, from 2:27 on. However.. you can expect all you want... whether it's going to happen , is another tune."

Guess you missed his Match comment of sarcasm ( as described above ). I followed my guidelines perfectly. At 2:27 that was childish and unnecessary to say to me. Bluntly, he struck a nerve and when someone talks down to me for no reason, at that point he deserved the third degree. If someone cannot chat on a general level without spouting off childish remarks because he knows he's not getting a bj from me, then he needs to learn basics of human interaction, listen to where he went wrong, and from there either re-align his attitude or to form respectful closure. And no, a "k bye" is about as vague and meaningless as would be a "f**k you" closure. Again, society has lost it's system of values. That's what this really boils down to.

"Quit making more out of this than what it is and defending the asshole here. ... I'm defending the allegation that he was rude, as you said.... and he was not, until you began the rudeness, to him."

Incorrect! At no point was I rude to him prior to his rude Match remark at 2:27. Once again, you're confusing truthful firmness with rudeness. Not the same thing. Being firm is having a goal set and being adamant to stick to that goal. Re-aligning him during parts of his irrelevant chat is not being rude, it's being firm and honest. Therefore, honesty is showing respect. Funny, I always thought that most men respected women who had a goal and were strong-willed and didn't budge from a goal or be persuaded otherwise? I always also thought that most men knew how to treat women [ in a general kind sense ]? Beats me. You wouldn't do this nonsense in person if you met someone at your local bar/club and told them to go to Match when he approaches a complete stranger [ female ] and asks for a bj that she declines on...so where's the justification to do it online? Only because he can hide behind the screen of his pc/cell phone and run away with his tail between his legs, rather than show his real embarrassment had it been in a public in-person setting. Unreal how childish men and society has become.

So there you have it. I won't be responding to any more of these essays. It's simply because they are time consuming to compose and on top of it all, you flip everything I [ and others ] say into something that only you can seem to make this loser look like the innocent one who wasn't rude. So where does this debating get each of us? At this rate, this can go on infinitely and in the end, we still see different things yet. Gets us nowhere. So all due respect, I will respectfully disengage this huge and endless debate. It was interesting to hear your point of views. Although I agree with almost none of it, I have dignity to respect your views, to thank you for chiming in and to leave on a positive note. See, it's not hard to get along with even people I disagree with....and I say that completely genuine.
Thanks again and take care.

Banana_Canyon 46F

6/23/2018 6:57 am

I am not going to write a book over it, Heathen_G. Almost everything I read in your response was picking my words apart and bending them.

"But she did answer.. and kept chatting with him."
Right, because she was here to chat. It wasn't like the idea of it was to go for chemistry or hookup. It's made clear that he's too far away anyway. The idea behind taking his message altogether was only and specifically to chat and to answer some mysterious question he had for her. Don't be a frikkin' clown!

"He is wrongly accused of being rude. She was rude to him first. Everything they said is right there, printed. I can't twist that around. Clearly the woman "Heels" became rude with him first."
"You are wrong. I see the man wrongly accused of being "Rude" , when clearly she became hostile towards him."
Are you reading the same thing as the rest of us are? There was nothing rude that Heels did. She was chatting and being honest in the answers. He became a smart ass on her and he started the rudeness part first, not her.

"After all, it seems she was here for the intent to chat ... As was he. Not like anything else could happen."
If he was here for intent to chat, then why was he pushing the envelope to meet up for a hookup? Why? Because he didn't read a profile first. He thought he was game for something that never existed. When he realized he was in the negative for that, he gets bent and acts like a child with a sarcastic comment, rather than just fessing up to the mistake of ignorance and exiting conversation on a happy wave.

What aren't you seeing that the rest of us are seeing here? It's perplexing how you ignore facts that are right under your nose and paint the picture of something different about the debate of these two members than the rest of us are all unanimously seeing.

Heathen_G 65M

7974 posts
6/23/2018 7:38 pm

Banana_Canyon

am not going to write a book over it, Heathen_G. .... Is that bending your words? No.

Almost everything I read in your response was picking my words apart .... Is that picking your words apart? No. It's taking a sentence you said, and responding to your thought.

Are you reading the same thing as the rest of us are? ... Yes.

He became a smart ass on her and he started the rudeness part first, not her. .... Then you show me where he became rude first, in this "Chat". You can do that by noting the time.

"After all, it seems she was here for the intent to chat ... As was he chatting.

If he was here for intent to chat, then why was he pushing the envelope to meet up for a hookup? ....Why not? Anyone can chat and seek a hookup through chatting.

Why? Because he didn't read a profile first. ... So what? She didn't read his either.

He thought he was game for something that never existed. ... You don't know what he thought.

When he realized he was in the negative for that, .... Show me a time line.

he gets bent and acts like a child with a sarcastic comment, .... Show me a time line.

What aren't you seeing that the rest of us are seeing here? .... Because the rest of you are wrong. She calls him a "Rude son of a bitch". .....Show me the time line where she thinks he is a rude son of a bitch.

It's perplexing how you ignore facts .... Then show me your facts backing what you think.

Banana_Canyon 46F

6/25/2018 9:37 am

Heathen_G,

"am not going to write a book over it, Heathen_G. .... Is that bending your words? No."
You're too blind to see that this response by you is bending my words. "I am not going to write a book over it" doesn't mean anything more than what the comment simply implies. There's no reason to quote this or say "Is that bending your words? No." because you're trying to bend this into meaning something more than what it says and take it to another level. Troll.

"He became a smart ass on her and he started the rudeness part first, not her. .... Then you show me where he became rude first, in this "Chat". You can do that by noting the time."
He became rude to her first at the point of bringing up his Match comment.

"Are you reading the same thing as the rest of us are? ... Yes."
Then why can't you see that he began rudeness at this point of his Match comment like the rest of us are all seeing and commenting on?

"Why? Because he didn't read a profile first. ... So what? She didn't read his either."
The big difference here is that he was pursuing her ( blindly ) for something other than just chatting, while she, on the other hand, could care less of what he was looking for because again, she could already tell ( without clicking in his profile ) that he exceeded her range of required distance by his location. Therefore, there is no need for us women to look at a profile if we already know that someone is excluded from picture in a real-life meet or physical sense by the fact that someone lives too far away to consider it a realistic situation. We don't need to know anymore about a person or try to know someone better if immediately we already know we've reached a dead end from the start ( by his distance ). There's a really big difference between this argument and it's obvious that you're too bullheaded to see the two differences. Again, this is why you cannot agree and see the obvious things that the rest of us here are all disagreeing on you for!

"If he was here for intent to chat, then why was he pushing the envelope to meet up for a hookup? ....Why not? Anyone can chat and seek a hookup through chatting."
Please, just stop being either a troll or a bullheaded fool already. Why not, you say? Because he didn't read her fucking profile. If he did so, he'd immediately see that he wasn't local and was looking for something opposite than she was. It's extremely self-explanatory and is exactly the point that we have profiles! There's nothing more to say about this!

"Why? Because he didn't read a profile first. ... So what? She didn't read his either."
Same comment as above. She has no reason to read his profile if she's automatically seeing a distance issue with him. On the other hand, he is the one who is going after her, not the other way around. It's his responsibility to then read and understand a profile before getting in contact with someone. And again, this is why nobody agrees with you here on anything because you overlook critical facts.

"He thought he was game for something that never existed. ... You don't know what he thought."
Judging by his comments it seems apparent he was after only the physical aspects. Now before you bend my words and thoughts around I will go on to say that there is nothing wrong with what he is looking for in that sense. The problem in the equation is why he is pursuing her for what he is looking for. That's the big difference since they are after opposite things and there is no mystery in that between what her profile says and his lack of reading it before contacting her.

"When he realized he was in the negative for that, .... Show me a time line."
"he gets bent and acts like a child with a sarcastic comment, .... Show me a time line."
I think the time line of it all was right from the start when it began. What you see is him pressing buttons on first hinting, then wanting to meet. During that time line I see her shifting the focus back on track but he continually doesn't follow her lead. I believe his frustration in not getting what he was after pushed him to sarcastically mention the Match comment.

"What aren't you seeing that the rest of us are seeing here? .... Because the rest of you are wrong. She calls him a "Rude son of a bitch". .....Show me the time line where she thinks he is a rude son of a bitch."
His comment at 2:27 kicked it off.
His two comments at 2:32.
His ( first ) 2:33 comment.
His 2:34 comment.
His 2:36 comment.
And his 2:55 comment.
What more information in a time line do you need to prove that this idiot was a rude son of a bitch to her? So yet again, what aren't you seeing that the rest of us are that considers all of us "wrong" but only you being correct in the matter? He kicked off his rudeness at 2:27. Nothing more needs to be said for where conversation went from that point on. He wanted to be an ass from that point. It wasn't her that was being an ass to him prior to 2:27. So yeah, this is the part you don't seem to be seeing that the rest of us all are.

"It's perplexing how you ignore facts .... Then show me your facts backing what you think."
I just did in every comment prior to this one seen above, as have the other people commenting have also done. You are just too bullheaded to comprehend the facts since your mind is preset in a fixed position on who is right and wrong in the blog and you aren't willing to look at the story from a neutral perspective or comprehend what everyone is telling you. All I gather is that you're either a troll or someone who lacks comprehension.

Heathen_G 65M

7974 posts
6/25/2018 8:54 pm

Banana_Canyon

" He became rude to her first at the point of bringing up his Match comment. ... No he wasn't rude when he said, "You should probably checkout Match..." [@2"27]....

But then she actually became rude first saying , here comes the childish retorts.

At this point Heels should have terminated the conversation, since she was upset by virtually nothing. In fact he even said, "bye" [@2"29].. but she kept on typing.......Heels can not refer to him as being a rude sob without first saying she was very rude first and started an argument

Amoculi 67M

19 posts
6/25/2018 11:26 pm

I wonder why a smart woman like you wastes any time on a dick like this fellow. It isn't so much that all of the men here are dickheads (I notice that is the only thing in his photo - no woman or hint of one, no physical features other than a dickhead). It is just that the dickheads spend all of their time contacting women and being, well, dickheads.

Next time someone asks if they can ask a question and if you will answer it honestly, tell them "no". That will end their game. It reminds me of a woman I knew in college, who was flashed by a guy one evening on her way back from the library. They guy walked up to her and opened his coat to reveal his tallywhacker having out of his pants. He said "Do you know what this is?" "Yes", she said. "It looks like a penis, only smaller." That's the ticket to getting rid of the jerks without wasting a lot of time. Not that you need my advice, of course.

Teddyredrock 56M

11 posts
6/26/2018 8:38 am

@ Amoculi "I wonder why a smart woman like you wastes any time on a dick like this fellow.".....
pretty sure that the im pics show that she is a sweet lady by nature by even answering him and wantin to chat. this might sound crazy to say but her kind nature is her flaw in this time of history. this can be seen all over the web site and not too often do ladies reply or chat at all.

"It is just that the dickheads spend all of their time contacting women and being, well, dickheads".....
because of this we are left with a world of people on this web site that all go around just ignoring and blocking each other and nobody male and female talk to each other or even want to. but wait a sec. isnt the whole idea of this web site to talk to each other or to meet? very ironic. but the dickheads like funcouple1976tt and heathen_g that made it to become this way.

Banana_Canyon 46F

6/26/2018 10:43 am

Heathen_G, you're apparently an idiot!

"He became rude to her first at the point of bringing up his Match comment. ... No he wasn't rude when he said, "You should probably checkout Match..." [@2"27]....
But then she actually became rude first saying , here comes the childish retorts."
Not sure how many times we need to go through this. How is intentional sarcasm ( by his Match comment ) NOT considered to be a rude gesture? This was him kicking off rudeness, not her. This was his retort because he realized he wasn't getting the bj he was after. This is due to his own ignorance of not reading. Has nothing at all to do with her being here to chat, opening up his IM and replying to some question he had. You are an idiot if you cannot see how obvious this debate is.

"At this point Heels should have terminated the conversation, since she was upset by virtually nothing. In fact he even said, "bye" [@2"29].. but she kept on typing.......Heels can not refer to him as being a rude sob without first saying she was very rude first and started an argument"
Not true. It's been established that Heels was here for socializing. She did that. So what's the fucking issue here??? He IM'd her asking a question. She opened the IM and agreed to answer with honesty. She did that. They were socializing. Why should she initiate to terminate an IM if the whole idea was because he wanted to desperately chat to her, which she agreed upon and did? You're a fucking goon! What do you mean "virtually nothing"? He went out of his way to make a Match comment out of rudeness and sarcasm because his ego was shattered when he realized a bj wasn't going to happen. I think Heels was perfect for showing this ass his behavior for everyone to see. It's not "virtually nothing"...it's a big deal because this shit has destroyed this site to the core!

"In fact he even said, "bye" [@2"29].. but she kept on typing...."
Ever come to think that immature and unnecessary rudeness triggers someone to get pissed off? So yes, she was giving him a piece of her mind. He didn't have the balls to stick around, apologize or try to reason with her , so therefore, like a coward he shot off a "K bye". We have to ask ourselves, how genuinely did he want to enthusiastically chat to her in the first place ( for just chat ) if he was so easily driven to run off in a hurry without doing his best to make up, reason with her or keep the conversation going and shift it in to a positive direction? He didn't care about her at all for a person, nor friendship. All he wanted was physical. He realized she didn't want that and is why he acted immature.

"Heels can not refer to him as being a rude sob without first saying she was very rude first and started an argument"
And to reiterate: He began the entire ordeal with his Match comment. Had he not said that, they likely would have continued talking peacefully and yet "firmly", as Heels puts it. And she's right about that, rudeness and firmness aren't the same thing.
The young man bagging groceries puts a can of soup on a loaf of bread, I could say "could you please rebag those groceries and put heavy items on bottom because it's going to squish the bread." - This is being firm.
On the other hand, if I said "What the fuck are you thinking by putting the soup on top of the bread, you ass!" - This is being rude.
Sarcasm = rudeness, so the intent to bring up Match was rude, which he started. I say again WHICH HE STARTED! I say once more so you hear me loud and clear, WHICH HE STARTED!!!!!!!!!! From there it is obvious that she took offense to that comment, got mad and I cannot blame her for giving him an earful. But that's the problem with you goons. You cannot ever understand very simple stuff here. The idea cannot be any more clear and simple as to read a profile first. Understand if you are on the same page and level as someone. And then if so, contact the other person and see where it goes. You don't just randomly contact strangers and have no clue about things. This is where it's backwards from the start. You goons don't see how simple this can be if you just read first...but you don't....and you are premium members. What that boils down to each and every time is just laziness and ignorance. Men want to come here, put zero effort in to anything, but expect a miracle to instantly happen. That's not generally how things work and is not realistic.

As others said about you....clueless! That's exactly right.

doctorfit002 51M

53 posts
6/26/2018 11:42 pm

He is a loser.

Heathen_G 65M

7974 posts
6/27/2018 2:27 am

NoTellLover

Quoting NoTellLover:
Heathen_G don't be a dope. its clear he didnt read a profile. i mean whatever if he just wanted to chat and she was just chatting and made a reply back to his queston. how many women take the time to reply back? she was being nice to him by doing so. it became personal when he was hinting for a blow. this ain't about taking a chance. this is about him being a major dick for not reading and thinking he could get some action that isnt there in the first place. she wants a fwb.

--------------------------------------

what is all this stupid talk of chemistry? ... You said she wants a Fwb. I replied , in order to have that, there has to be chemistry.

But that's not the point. The point is, she was rude, and that started this. She cannot call him a rude sob when she , herself started rudeness first.

you are a dope! ..... See, that is an example of "Being rude first", and you've been first to be rude a number of times.

rh1972 51M

609 posts
6/27/2018 8:09 am

Anyone with a cock pic as their main profile pic is already broadcasting their inferiority...

To be fair though, there are some women who want cock pics - the past two weeks alone I have come across 4 who actually asked for a penis pic! Every single one of them went into the "delete/block" category, because even if they were women, you can just tell by how crude and crass that is that they'd be lousy lays.

His kind of high-pressure sales tactic may work in real estate, but I can't see it working too often in non-sales environments.

Banana_Canyon 46F

6/29/2018 1:11 pm

rh1972, it's highly unlikely that the four "women" you've encountered within the past two weeks were actually women at all if they ALL had to ultimately be deleted/blocked by you because of crude/crass they were. What I highly suspect here is that you were dealing with catfish. Women know what male anatomy looks like and it's very unlikely that many women actually care to ask to see a cock pic, much less four women in a two week period. Bottom line - we really could care less about a cock ( or to see one ) in most circumstances. I think you have the story wrong...probably not "lousy lays", but rather they are't women to begin with ( catfish ).

"Anyone with a cock pic as their main profile pic is already broadcasting their inferiority." - Well, I think there could be many reasons for it. Simply put, men feel the need to post pics of their cocks in the attempt to attract a woman sexually by what he's packin' below the belt ( again, almost none of us women really care about your anatomy pics ). Some men are married or discreet because of careers, family, etc... so I can understand a body pic of some sort as an alternative to face...whether cock, chest or otherwise.

I do think you are right that his sales tactic may work in business and money with haggling and taking risks, but not when much it comes to people looking for compatibility, especially if that person is very specific and went to a great length to describe specifics on a profile.....that means to take the hint, because it's an important factor to her. Otherwise, she'd have no need to describe it at all.

JME6886 55M

10 posts
7/1/2018 12:03 am

some are just rude

myelin36 53F

3612 posts
7/2/2018 6:31 am

I never understand why men have a need for game playing. This is a sex site and if that was his goal, he should have been more transparent. Personally, if he was fishing for a blowjob, he should have just stated it, not played the "Would you.." game.

Alternatively, when it became apparent where this was going, you should have cut the conversation off rather than kept fueling the flame. Flaming him and posting it on your blog lowers you to his standards even if you felt he was being a dick. JMO.

Visit my blog:myelin36. Come read my Dirty Little Secrets

Heathen_G 65M

7974 posts
7/4/2018 2:11 pm

Banana_Canyon

especially if that person is very specific and went to a great length to describe specifics on a profile.....that means to take the hint, .... That doesn't mean he should not take a chance. People write their profiles some time ago.... moods change, desires change... updates are not always made.

Heels_N_Squeals 50F

68 posts
7/5/2018 9:11 am

myelin36 -
"This is a sex site..."

NO IT ISN'T! How many times must we keep saying this here. Passion is NOT ONLY JUST a sex site. It can be, sure, but we need to stop addressing it as a "sex site". It isn't JUST that. Similarly, we can just as equally describe it as a social media site. Not everybody comes here and looks for sex meets. In fact, most don't and just chat, cam, blog and things like that.

"Personally, if he was fishing for a blowjob, he should have just stated it, not played the "Would you.." game."

I agree with you to some degree but here's the bottom line that I'm trying to get across: There was no need for him to write me at all if he wanted a random nsa bj. So although you are right about his game tactics, to take it a step further, he didn't need to get in touch with me in the first place because if he read my profile then he would have already known the answer.

"Alternatively, when it became apparent where this was going, you should have cut the conversation off rather than kept fueling the flame. Flaming him and posting it on your blog lowers you to his standards even if you felt he was being a dick."

Why should I disengage conversation? After all:
* I was here to chat....and did so.
*He initiated conversation with me.

What you may not realize is that what you are doing when you cut conversation and begin this entire mentality of ignore/block is that you are shaping society. It may not seem it on such a small scale but this is what's now become obvious on the site and in social structure. Go ahead, ask any men here.....how many women reply back to them in email or IM? One guy openly admitted to me that out of him IM'ing about 60 women that I was the first person to open his IM and respond to him. Others claim similar. Why is this? Because we have shaped our society to be ignorant to one another by default. This is no solution. I've gone over this in this blog already. I'm not sure why such confusion and intense drama over something that is completely simple to understand.

1 .) Read a damn profile FIRST!
2 .) Understand what it says at face value and respect it!
3. ) a. ) If you fit the match of what you are looking for by the description of what's on my profile, then write me and we'll chat to see where it goes.
b .) If what you read does NOT correspond to what you are looking for, no need to write to me at all for any reason....unless of course, you honestly just want to chat purely to socialize.

Seriously how hard is this 3-step process to understand??? So come on, this doesn't lower my standards, it ups my standards for being a genuinely honest and nice person for even deciding to open his IM and answer his questions. Those who ignore/block are the idiots who lower the standards here. Get a clue!

Banana_Canyon 46F

7/5/2018 11:29 am

Heathen_G,

"especially if that person is very specific and went to a great length to describe specifics on a profile.....that means to take the hint, .... That doesn't mean he should not take a chance. People write their profiles some time ago.... moods change, desires change... updates are not always made."

As many times as I explain this, you still will never get it. You're dense as a rock!
Let me break this down to you like a kindergartner. If someone goes to a specific length in describing something very specific on their profile, then what do you think that means? Answer: It means that whatever that specific is, it's an important enough for that user to make a note of it. Otherwise, if it wan't a make-or-break factor, then there would not be a need to describe it at all. Why is it that you cannot comprehend such a simple thing?
Example: A female's profile...she makes a specific mention on her profile that she's only seeking black men. Now, if you are a white man, why is there a reason to write to this woman at all? There's not! The profile already lays down the fact that she specifically ONLY seeks black men. If she was open to seeking men of various races, then there would not be any need to describe herself only seeking black men. The same fucking thing applies here with the story in this blog! If someone like Heels specifically says she seeks someone local ( which he is not ) for a fwb ( which he isn't seeking, but rather a nsa bj ), then they aren't on the same page at all......there's no reason for this clown to be contacting her at all for physical action. I love how you just dismiss something so obvious and continually defend this clown.

Read Heels' comment dated on 6 / 23. What aren't you understanding in what she wrote about "taking a chance".
She wrote "There is no "chance to take" because none even exists from the start. He's out of range, therefore, he doesn't fit criteria of what I seek/require. End of discussion."

Still you thrive on describing some mysterious "chance" that was never there at all to begin with. Stop going in circles with the same senseless drama. The guy didn't read. That's the bottom line is this: If he did read profile before contacting her, automatically he would have known that they sought different things, weren't on the same page in what they each sought and overall wouldn't have had to contact her at all. That's it! No more to be said on the issue...no "chances", no "maybe her profile was outdated" ( even though her profile specifically says it's kept up to date ) or "her mood varied"......stop making up imaginary fucking excuses and stick to the facts and topic. He wrote seeking a bj. Nowhere on her profile does anything like that even remotely exist and she went to a specific point to make it very clear about what she is specifically seeking. This means it's of great importance to her and make-or-break factors exist ( specific distance points and specific search for a fwb ), if I actually need to spell this out like a child to you like this.

Teddyredrock 56M

11 posts
7/5/2018 11:08 pm

banana and heels you both got your shit together. agree with all your coments. problem with things today is that people are rude, inconsiderate and dumbed down. now there is 1 smart person for like every 20 or 30 dumb 'average' person. talking to these dipshits and trying to reason with logic, common sense and really basic human things that we shouldn't have to be told or explained to is like trying to communicate with an orangutan or parakeet and expecting positive results of understanding, change and civil behavior to come from it. people are just so stupid and dumbed down that from what I'm reading, a certain few people have to be told like babies about whats wrong. pretty sad that its gotten this bad that those cannot see what is so obviously wrong with funcouples entire im. it is like having an argument with a picket fence with those who keep at the bickering and who make invalid attempts to prove you ladies wrong. i'm not agreeing because you are ladies. i'm agreeing because what you both say always makes perfect sense and you stick to the facts, the story and to basic procedures of protocol we should all be following as members here. then you got this heathen guy who is always acting a fool. anytime you are going off and taking chances or think you can prowl on someones mood and override someones profile info then what you are only doing is going to piss off the woman and turn her off and push her off the site. this isn't a night club where you can do that and you don't know anything about someone. this is a personals site and we have filled out profiles for a reason. if you just ignore reading or overriding profile info then you are only inviting your own self into drama, argument, anger and nothing positive. keep the good fight ladies.

Heathen_G 65M

7974 posts
7/6/2018 5:23 pm

Banana_Canyon

As many times as I explain this, you still will never get it. ... You're trying to tell me , if a man reads a womans profile, and sees she's not into what he wants , he should go away. ........And I'm telling you he is not obligated to go away. If he chooses, he may take a chance.

You're dense as a rock! ... And you're another rude unpleasant woman.

If someone goes to a specific length in describing something very specific on their profile, then what do you think that means? Answer: It means that whatever that specific is, it's an important enough for that user to make a note of it. Otherwise, if it wan't a make-or-break factor, then there would not be a need to describe it at all. Why is it that you cannot comprehend such a simple thing? .....Anyone, man or woman, straight or gay, finds a profile, finds something attractive about someones profile, they may take a chance. .....Now you try to comprehend what "Take a chance" means.

she's only seeking black men. Now, if you are a white man, why is there a reason to write to this woman at all? .... To take a chance she's changed her mind or may feel differently. Do you understand?

The same fucking thing applies here with the story in this blog! .... Yes, and the guy took a chance. He can do that.

there's no reason for this clown ... There's no reason for you to be rude about him either.

to be contacting her at all for physical action. .... He took a chance.

She wrote "There is no "chance to take" because none even exists from the start. He's out of range, therefore, he doesn't fit criteria of what I seek/require. End of discussion." ..... There's always a chance of getting together, and some people don't let distance stop them.

Still you thrive on describing some mysterious "chance" ....That's right. And he took it. He can do that.

The guy didn't read. .... Maybe he did, maybe he did not... but certainly she said she did not read his profile.

If he did read profile before contacting her, automatically he would have known that they sought different things, weren't on the same page in what they each sought and overall wouldn't have had to contact her at all. ...... Unless he felt , contacting her, was worth taking a chance

..no "chances", .... You or anyone else, cannot tell someone they have no chance. If they want to try, then they should try.

..stop making up imaginary fucking excuses and stick to the facts and topic. .... The fact of the topic is he took a chance and she was first to be rude, not him. Then she plasters his name on her blog as being a rude person......when in fact she is the rude person.

He wrote seeking a bj. ... Or he wrote seeking a fantasy about her giving him a blowjob.

Nowhere on her profile does anything like that even remotely exist and she went to a specific point to make it very clear about what she is specifically seeking. .... She sure does... but he took a chance.

Banana_Canyon 46F

7/9/2018 9:28 am

Heathen_G,

Same old song and dance again with you. I feel that you just pick apart my comments, but don't actually sit there, read them through and try to comprehend what I'm saying ( along with the other half dozen of so people who all disagreed with you over the course of this blog ). I suppose every one of us is wrong, but you are right. Comical!

First and foremost, get this whole "chance" nonsense out of your mind. Every comment posted here from you is "chance" mumbo jumbo. If someone has a vague and blank profile then sure, the field seems game to go for chances. Not for someone who specifically says she seeks a specific something. There's nothing more to be said about that. Honestly, there's not.

"As many times as I explain this, you still will never get it. ... You're trying to tell me , if a man reads a womans profile, and sees she's not into what he wants , he should go away. ........And I'm telling you he is not obligated to go away. If he chooses, he may take a chance."

Yes, I'm saying EXACTLY that! That's EXACTLY the idea behind what a profile is designed for. Otherwise, there is no reason for profiles if the idea is to try to override the critical and important details of what a person seeks. We have profiles so that others can read them PRIOR to writing to us and so that they can make a basic determination on whether or not they meet the important key things with each other. If they don't, go away, no need to write to anyone at all if again, say a white woman seeks ONLY a black man....and you are a white man, for example. There is just no reason for that white man to contact her. None at all. That means move on. That means that there is no chance because that woman is describing to you a specif of her importance. Writing to that woman means you are a fucking ignorant loser and in turn all that you are doing is going to agitate that woman and drive her off of the site, as men constantly do to all of the women here by this "take a chance" mentality in others who seek totally different things.
Taking a chance means that if you are in a local bar and see a woman sitting alone at the bar, you approach her, have a seat next to her, ask maybe to buy her a drink and if she'd like to chat...( and in your mind see where that may go ). That's taking a chance! However, if that woman sitting at the bar were to have a paper sign hung from the back of her shirt saying "men, leave me alone, I'm not interested in any of you and I'm gay" then the message is perfectly clear and primed that she doesn't want male company, would only ever be interested in other women and that there is no "chance" that exists for you as a man to even approach her at all in terms of trying to hook up. Socializing may be a different thing. The analogy is precisely the same here on the site. If someone has a vague or blank profile, sure, take the "chance", but if someone specifically seeks apples and you seek oranges, then no chance even exists. This is so easy to understand, so why can't you understand it? Because you are steadfast to the idea that some magical "chances" exist when they don't. You think that by people contacting women in whom they meet no criteria is a good idea...it isn't. It pisses women off, turns us off and drives us away. That's ALL it does! You aren't listening to us women speaking here. That's the problem with you and many of the ignorant men here on the site. I'm TELLING you this stuff as fact, this is not just my opinion. Look around you. Hardly no women are here or want to be on this site. We have to ask ourselves why. I'm telling you the reasons why, yet you ignore me and keep steadfast to the idea that being persistent in pursuing others in some fictional "chances" when people meet no criteria is the way to go. It isn't! It pisses woman off. It turns us off! It drives us off this site! Looking at all the female comments left on this blog alone, the message being sent to you is unanimous. Get a clue, will you!!
And you're absolutely right, this guy isn't "obligated to go away". Looking at his membership status, he's a paying gold member and has that right to contact pothers. So sure, just because he can contact someone doesn't mean that he should or that it's a good idea. Again, what he's really doing is shaping society by doing this. He's pushing women away. He's turning women off, making them leave the site and making them not want to return ever again. Women will talk and spread the word of how shitty this site is or a specific user(s) is/are, just as what this very blog is proving to do. More and more women leave the site. Less and less women join. More and more desperate men join. More and more competition exists. The more and more competition, the more stress, frustration and anger will exist.
You don't see it this way, but this is precisely what is going on! And why? Just because goofy men come here and annoy women with irrelevant nonsense instead of simply reading a profile, understanding that there is no realistic chance and moving on without contact. That's it! Had this guy actually fucking read, he would have known that she sought someone who lived local. That fact in itself with distance is automatically a dealbreaker. No need to initiate contact with her. It's not that it's a "into what she wants" thing, she's literally saying and telling the audience "hey, if you aren't local, then bye-bye". This has nothing at all to do with "chance". It has everything to do with being an ignorant good who is playing a part in destroying this site! So YES, if you don't meet profile criteria, he should move on. It's just that simple.

"You're dense as a rock! ... And you're another rude unpleasant woman."

No, I'm not at all rude and unpleasant. I'm being honest about that. If I personally spent almost a month here discussing the same facts to you over and over again and you continually repeat the same "take a chance" nonsense in return, you are dense. You aren't listening at all to what I end every other person on this blog has been telling you over the course of this last month. It's only you that continues to debate and defend this funcouple asswipe! It's so obviously clear to everyone else that he's the one in the wrong, not Heels.

"If someone goes to a specific length in describing something very specific on their profile, then what do you think that means? Answer: It means that whatever that specific is, it's an important enough for that user to make a note of it. Otherwise, if it wan't a make-or-break factor, then there would not be a need to describe it at all. Why is it that you cannot comprehend such a simple thing? .....Anyone, man or woman, straight or gay, finds a profile, finds something attractive about someones profile, they may take a chance. .....Now you try to comprehend what "Take a chance" means."

Again, you're dense. This isn't rude, it's me being honest. You're talking about attraction here. This blog has nothing to do with attraction. Heels' profile says this, and I quote "please live local within no more that 30-40 minutes from me". Now, looking at her location of Bailey, CO and then looking at funcouple's profile location of Denver, CO I was able to easily understand where they both live. From there I simply punched in the locations on an online map. The result yielded a 47 mile distance between the two which is roughly 1 hour 22 minutes that separate the two. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a distance of 1 hour 22 minutes is not within here required 30-40 minute frame of distance of what she seeks. All else aside, this is an automatic dealbreaker. Period! There is no reason to discuss attraction, taking chances, etc... as it is not of any relevancy at all. You go on this massive ranting debate over all sorts of deep issues that don't pertain to the story here, but overlook the most basic and simple details. Not within range of requirement...move on. Like seriously, this is kindergarten stuff. There's no need to read an entire cookbook or go to culinary school if all that someone wants to do is fry an egg. You get so deeply involved in nonsense talk, and all the while you overlook something as simple as distance in what's the dealbreaker here. And this is exactly why I call you dense. It's not being rude, it's because you can't see your hand in front of your face. Seriously, is this genius level stuff here? Do I have to honestly sit here and tell you that if someone requires a 30-40 minute range of required distance, that someone who lives 2-3 times that distance is NOT going to meet that requirement? Give me a flippin' break! Geesh...!

"she's only seeking black men. Now, if you are a white man, why is there a reason to write to this woman at all? .... To take a chance she's changed her mind or may feel differently. Do you understand?"

Absolutely wrong! And no, I do NOT understand what the hell you are talking about. And here's why...Heels' profile specifically says, and I again quote "Hi, thank you for taking a few minutes to read my profile I am going to keep this short, direct, up to date at all times and to the point."
Do you see where your argument falls through yet by what she has written? Let me hold your hand and walk you through it like a child....she said "I am going to keep this profile up to date at all times". Yet here is what you say "To take a chance she's changed her mind or may feel differently. Do you understand?". So what is it here that you don't fucking understand yet? If her profile is kept up to date at all times, then that means if she changed her mind in any way regarding her search criteria, then that would be reflected on her profile and kept up to date immediately. It's sad that I have to baby you this way when things are so obviously black and white.

"The same fucking thing applies here with the story in this blog! .... Yes, and the guy took a chance. He can do that."

Again, no chance existed. Sure, he took the chance, but where does that mentality get us? It gets women AND men pissed off, it turn us women off and it pushes us off the site. We have all heard the term 'just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean that you should'. That applies here and ignorance is the enemy to these things.

"there's no reason for this clown ... There's no reason for you to be rude about him either."

Yes, there is a reason....he is a clown. He bypasses and overrides people's profile criteria. This shapes society negatively, whether you realize it or not. So the next time you write to 50 women, get 49 of them ignoring/blocking you and get only a single and vague "hi" in return from one of them....you can sit here and thank us women for telling you what the fucking problem here is with you men that you all seem to ignore and overlook. If you don't read profiles, you're a clown! If you do read profiles, but then override and bypass what that person is telling you in the profile, you're a fucking clown! This isn't being rude, I'm being honest. We have profiles for a reason. Use them! Period!

"to be contacting her at all for physical action. .... He took a chance."

No chance existed by distance alone. He would have known that if he had either read her profile or comprehended the criteria. This makes him a clown either way. You defend someone who, in either circumstance, was in the wrong for either not reading OR reading and blatantly bypassing/overriding someone description.

"She wrote "There is no "chance to take" because none even exists from the start. He's out of range, therefore, he doesn't fit criteria of what I seek/require. End of discussion." ..... There's always a chance of getting together, and some people don't let distance stop them. "

Yes, if someone doesn't describe that on a profile. However, if someone specifically goes to the length to describe a 30-40 minute range and you live 1 hour 22 minutes away, then get a fucking clue! It means that he's out of range directly from the start and is automatically not fitting criteria by the fact of just distance alone. You're as goofy as funcouple if I have to explain something this fucking simple to you like a five year-old.

"Still you thrive on describing some mysterious "chance" ....That's right. And he took it. He can do that."

And as I said, it's a horrible idea to bypass/override someone's specific criteria if you know in advance that it's not syncing. It turns women off and drives them away. Nothing positive comes from friction unless you seek resistance, anger and frustration. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. It's not "taking a chance" if someone fucking says she seeks a FWB ( not an NSA ) and requires 30-40 minute maximum range of distance ( not 1 hour 22 minutes ). Clown!

"The guy didn't read. .... Maybe he did, maybe he did not... but certainly she said she did not read his profile."

Scenario # 1 - Say he didn't read it. Then that makes him a clown for ignoring her profile as a gold member and for not knowing what she sought PRIOR to writing to her.
Scenario # 2 - Say he did read her profile. Then that makes him a clown for bypassing and overriding what she specifically had written. If you know up front that what someone seeks doesn't match what you yourself is seeking, then bye-bye. There's no need to write to someone.

So either way, he's a clown whether he DID or DID NOT read it.

Right, she didn't read his profile. She had no need to. Are you that blind to see the two differences here? Again, take my hand sonny and allow me to walk you through this like a baby.

Him - He was the one pursuing her. By that fact, he was the one who should have read her profile before making contact with her. Anyone that is the one who pursues automatically should be the person who reads a profile before contact. Period!

Her - She was NOT pursuing him at all. She was merely on the site chatting. She had no reason or care to read his profile. Again, she could tell instantly without having to read his profile that by his location of Denver, CO that he was way too far out of range of distance. Again, why the need to read a cookbook cover to cover when the lesson of how to fry an egg is on page one? Her answer of a dealbreaker was known by his distance within his IM box alone. No need or care for her to then read his profile because nothing is at all relevant if from the very start you already know you are way too far. Again, clown mentality!!!!

"If he did read profile before contacting her, automatically he would have known that they sought different things, weren't on the same page in what they each sought and overall wouldn't have had to contact her at all. ...... Unless he felt , contacting her, was worth taking a chance"

There is no "unless" about it. Distance-wise, he was already off the charts, much less in any terms compatibility-wise. Had he either read OR comprehended her profile criteria regarding distance factor alone, instantly would he have known that no chance even existed for what she seeks. No reason to beat the dead horse over going in endless circles of this fictional "chance" nonsense. Again., profiles exist for a reason, that's why we utilize them and mean what we say in them. Otherwise, we have no reason to write out specifics in profiles if they are to be overridden. It's different if people come here and say "open to possibilities" or have a vague or blank profile....then the doors are wide open for chances, but not when someone specifically writes detailed things. When they do this, it means it's an important set of rules and requirements for that person...otherwise, no need to describe them at all.

".no "chances", .... You or anyone else, cannot tell someone they have no chance. If they want to try, then they should try."

And again, when you override profile criteria, what you do is shape society, piss women off, turn women off and drive them away from this site for good. Nothing positive evolves from not listening to what women are TELLING you! Take my word on that first handedly. I ceased my very own search here months ago because I have had it with the way that nobody reads profiles and how others seem to just not give a damn at all about what my profile says. Then I would have to guide people, re-explain my entire details, babysit, etc... . I'm TELLING you...this turns women off and drives them off the site! You hear me speaking but you refuse to listen or comprehend what I am TELLING you. If you know you don't fit criteria, don't be pushy and try for anything that goes against the grain of profile criteria. That only pisses us off and results in frustration, anger, arguments, childish retaliation, etc... . Nothing positive comes from overriding women's profiles. Nobody likes pressure in a pushy person at all!

"..stop making up imaginary fucking excuses and stick to the facts and topic. .... The fact of the topic is he took a chance and she was first to be rude, not him. Then she plasters his name on her blog as being a rude person......when in fact she is the rude person."

Wrong! The fact of the topic is that this clown either didn't read a profile or overrode the criteria. This isn't taking a chance, this is being rude and ignorant to observe the facts that you should already either KNOW and/or RESPECT prior to making contact with her. He didn't acquire one or both of those things. And this blog is the direct result of what happens when asswipes like him either don't read profiles OR ignore what the criteria says. This blog is exactly what he deserved! You don't mix apple ingredients into a pan and expect the ending result to be a cherry pie. He received exactly what his recipe called for. You want to be ignorant and rude, then the recipe calls for it to be exposed on the blog. Simple! When you don't read or want to be pushy and override profile criteria and then childishly make a smartass remark to someone, then you get exactly what the fuck you deserved here! He's rude, not she. Get the story correct, clown!

"He wrote seeking a bj. ... Or he wrote seeking a fantasy about her giving him a blowjob."

Which again, is perfectly fine. Listen to what you are quoting here...comprehend what's being said. He wrote "seeking a fantasy about her giving him a blowjob". See the difference here yet? They are socializing, talking about something NOT realistic ( being it's fantasy ) and is borderline cyber. In the story, she's merely answering his question that he had. She's not engaging in conversation with him to get together. There's a huge difference there between that. Again, she can tell instantly that he's living in Denver. What they are discussing from the very start in their chat isn't based at all on anything realistic or that could be realistic. What he is asking is purely a fictional and fantasy-based question. She is socializing and answers him honestly, as he requested. That's all there is to it.

"Nowhere on her profile does anything like that even remotely exist and she went to a specific point to make it very clear about what she is specifically seeking. .... She sure does... but he took a chance."

"She sure does"...

Where on her profile does it say that she "takes chances"? - It doesn't!

Where on her profile does it say that her mood can vary and that it may be hit or miss that she's take an offer on a whim? - It doesn't!

Where on her profile does it say that her profile may be outdated or gives the impression that it may be outdated? - It doesn't! It specifically says that it's kept up to date at all times!

If any of these were true, then yes, perhaps then a "chance to take" might have existed, but not when none of this stuff exists! How do you deny absolute factual evidence? You say "She sure does"....then where the fuck on her profile are you reading this information? Nowhere does it say anything remotely close to any of these things.

You are such a clown! You get on these deep rants consisting of nonsense, when you cannot even recognize the very basics of what's wrong with the picture. You look way too deep into the story and don't see what's at the surface. You don't have to travel to Mars to find ice when all that you have to do is open your refrigerator door. You are so blind to see things at the surface that everyone here is pointing out to you, yet you get so deeply involved in the story as if there was more to it...there wasn't. You lose complete scope of what this entire blog consists of. You continually go on to describe things of "chemistry", "attraction" and "taking chances". The very point being, none of this shit has ever been relevant to the story at all. This story is simply about someone writing to someone else who had a question, that person answering his question honestly and then becoming an ass by making a smartass comment once he realizes that he's been ignorant/couldn't follow protocol and isn't getting a bj from her once she makes it clear that he's writing to the wrong person for that. So instead of thanking her for her time and answering a question or peacefully departing, he feels the need to retort and send off a very clear sarcastic note out of spite which is nothing more than basically like saying "fuck you" to her when he mentioned the Match comment. How you fail to see what I and every other person on this blog has/is telling you is beyond boggling. I love how you are the only single person here who sees Funcouple as being right and Heels as being wrong. Doesn't that fact alone clue you in....like ummm, maybe everyone here can't all be wrong?

Heathen_G 65M

7974 posts
9/11/2018 4:37 pm

Otherwise, there is no reason for profiles if the idea is to try to override the critical and important details of what a person seeks. .... Profiles are guidelines, written months, maybe years ago....not always updated..... When a person reads a profile, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from taking the chance of contacting that person. You can spaz out all you want, but your spazzing won't eliminate from humanity the concept of , "Taking a chance".

say a white woman seeks ONLY a black man....and you are a white man, for example. There is just no reason for that white man to contact her. None at all. .... Oh yes, there's a reason. He is interested. He is perfectly obligated to take that chance.

Writing to that woman means you are a fucking ignorant loser.... No it doesn't. Writing that woman means he holds onto hope.

and in turn all that you are doing is going to agitate that woman and drive her off of the site, .... If that is all it takes to drive a woman off , then that woman doesn't belong here.

ask maybe to buy her a drink and if she'd like to chat..... No man should be offering a woman a drink bought by him. Today , that is weak. Just introduce, and have a talk.

That's taking a chance! ..... That's one version.... the other , is reviewing a profile, but noticing the woman is attractive in appearance, and lives in the area, ....he takes a chance and contacts her.

However, if that woman sitting at the bar were to have a paper sign hung from the back of her shirt saying "men, leave me alone, I'm not interested in any of you and I'm gay" then the message is perfectly clear and primed that she doesn't want male company, would only ever be interested in other women and that there is no "chance" that exists for you as a man to even approach her at all in terms of trying to hook up. ... I disagree... the sign may say, "No men", but nothing is stopping him from approaching and introducing , and having a chat with her.

sure, take the "chance", but if someone specifically seeks apples and you seek oranges, then no chance even exists. ..... Not true..... Why? Because 8 months ago they might have wanted apples..... take a chance and see if they want an orange.

You think that by people contacting women in whom they meet no criteria is a good idea.. .... It's not a bad idea. The "Criteria" shown in a profile could be months to years old..... people change, and sometimes , someone comes along that you didn't consider, way back when..... There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a chance!

It pisses women off, turns us off and drives us away. ... That's all well and good. Meanwhile the women who stay, are more amiable. This site doesn't need women with a brick on their shoulder.

You aren't listening to us women speaking here. .... No... just ignoring the unpleasant women.

yet you ignore me and keep steadfast to the idea that being persistent in pursuing others in some fictional "chances" when people meet no criteria is the way to go. .... It is "A" way to go. Would be completely ridiculous not to take a chance.

It pisses woman off...... That's her problem. I really don't care if she is pissed off because a male chose to take a chance.

It turns us off! .... Too freaking bad. Go get your vibrator.

It drives us off this site! ... Drives off the undesirables.... and that's a good thing.

Looking at all the female comments left on this blog alone, the message being sent to you is unanimous. .... Really don't care what they are saying.... I insist, anyone can take a chance , if they so feel the need to take a chance.

So sure, just because he can contact someone doesn't mean that he should or that it's a good idea..... Doesn't mean he shouldn't ... and doesn't mean it's a bad idea, to take a chance.

Again, what he's really doing is shaping society by doing this.. .....GOOD!! Society doesn't need bashful , fearful men, afraid of taking chances.

He's pushing women away. .... No... he's pushing the unpleasant women away... and that's good.

He's turning women off, making them leave the site and making them not want to return ever again. ... Awesome!

Women will talk and spread the word of how shitty this site is or a specific user(s) is/are, ... Everyone can notice a screwed up woman blabbing because she didn't get way.
Men take chances. Learn that. Understand that....... Go way if you must.

More and more women leave the site. ... No... just the unpleasant ones. And that's fine.

More and more competition exists. ... "Life" is about competition. Even if the numbers of women and men were the same, only a small group of men and a small group of women would be getting most of the attention. ...And people would still be taking chances.

The more and more competition, the more stress, frustration and anger will exist. .... Oh well....that's life.

No need to initiate contact with her. ... No need not to initiate contact. She didn't read his profile, she said she didn't.... had she read his profile, she could have terminated the conversation long ago.....but she didn't, and he was not wrong for trying.

It's not that it's a "into what she wants" thing, she's literally saying and telling the audience "hey, if you aren't local, then bye-bye". ... Doesn't matter... anyone can chat with anyone , not local.

This has nothing at all to do with "chance". ... You don't know that.

So YES, if you don't meet profile criteria, he should move on. It's just that simple. .... I disagree.

"You're dense as a rock! ..... Actually you are."... And you're another rude unpleasant woman."

No, I'm not at all rude and unpleasant. I'm being honest about that. ... No.. you're rude and unpleasant.

If I personally spent almost a month here discussing the same facts to you over and over again and you continually repeat the same "take a chance" nonsense in return, you are dense. .... Not at all..... People take chances. That's how greatness is born.

You aren't listening at all to what I end every other person on this blog has been telling you over the course of this last month. ... I am... I am merely saying you are all wrong. Men take chances..... some women take chances....if you don't want to take a chance, that's okay.....but you CANNOT TELL A PERSON THEY CAN'T.

It's only you that continues to debate and defend this funcouple asswipe! .... Yep...how about that.

It's so obviously clear to everyone else that he's the one in the wrong, not Heels. ...He isn't in the wrong. I've copied the transcript and read it many times over. Also ...she could have checked out of the conversation at anytime before she did... even at the beginning.

"If someone goes to a specific length in describing something very specific on their profile,..... Potentially months or years ago....Minds change. And again, he's entitled to take a chance. It's in the Constitution of the United States... "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Again, you're dense. ..... Again , you are unpleasant....perhaps one day, you too will leave the site all disgruntled.

You're talking about attraction here. .... That's right. And when one is "Attracted" , one takes a chance.

This blog has nothing to do with attraction. ...yes it does. If shes not attracted to a man, she won't do anything.

Heels' profile says this, and I quote "please live local within no more that 30-40 minutes from me". ... Then she was obligated not to respond, if she was absolute about that.

Now, looking at her location of Bailey, CO and then looking at funcouple's profile location of Denver, CO .... 56 minutes apart... 46.4 miles apart. Doable. Not completely unreasonable.

All else aside, this is an automatic dealbreaker. ... Not necessarily.

And this is exactly why I call you dense. ... No.. you do, because you're rude. And Heels could have terminated the conversation within one minute, or not even responded to his salutation.

....she said "I am going to keep this profile up to date at all times". ... Doesn't mean that she has. And certainly doesn't mean he can't take a chance.

If her profile is kept up to date at all times, then that means if she changed her mind in any way regarding her search criteria, then that would be reflected on her profile and kept up to date immediately.....Maybe she has, or maybe she hasn't.... he is still within his rights to take a chance, as she is within her rights, not to respond.

Again, no chance existed. ... He could still try.

Sure, he took the chance, ...EXACTLY. He took the chance.. good for him.

but where does that mentality get us? .... Review through history of people who took chances.

It gets women AND men pissed off, .... Tough.

it turn us women off and it pushes us off the site. .... again just the unpleasant women, and that's fine. Go away.

We have all heard the term 'just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean that you should'. ... Doesn't mean you should not, either.

he is a clown.... You don't know that.

He bypasses and overrides people's profile criteria. .... He took a chance. I cannot fault him for that.

This shapes society negatively, ..... No it doesn't.

If you don't read profiles, you're a clown! .. Then Heels is a clown. She didn't look at his, and we don't know he did not. He may have only chosen to take a chance.

You defend someone who, in either circumstance, was in the wrong for either not reading OR reading and blatantly bypassing/overriding someone description..... That's right... he took a chance.

However, if someone specifically goes to the length to describe a 30-40 minute range and you live 1 hour 22 minutes away, .... 56 minutes away. An extra 16 minutes... big deal.

And as I said, it's a horrible idea to bypass/override someone's specific criteria if you know in advance that it's not syncing. ... .No it isn't. It's taking a chance..... that "Someone" [Heels] doesn't have to respond.

It turns women off and drives them away. ..... Again... okay with me... the site doesn't need unreasonable and unpleasant women. Bad for business.

"The guy didn't read. .... Maybe he did, maybe he did not... but certainly she said she did not read his profile." ....She did not. She is a clown. He took a chance.

If you know up front that what someone seeks doesn't match what you yourself is seeking, then bye-bye. There's no need to write to someone...... Nothing is stopping someone from trying [taking a chance].

Right, she didn't read his profile.... Then by your definition, she's a clown.

She had no need to..... She was answering an "Incoming".... When you get a call, you look at the area code, and number ID if there is one.... so she had a need to.

Him - He was the one pursuing her. By that fact, he was the one who should have read her profile before making contact with her. ... Maybe he did, we don't know.

instantly would he have known that no chance even existed for what she seeks. ... Not necessarily no chance.

profiles exist for a reason,... They are not absolute.

Otherwise, we have no reason to write out specifics in profiles if they are to be overridden..... That's up to any individual...however writing specifics, maybe isn't necessary, because brave, confident, headstrong people will always take their chance.

It's different if people come here and say "open to possibilities" or have a vague or blank profile....then the doors are wide open for chances, .... It's different. A blank profile, there is no chance involved. When there are specifics mentioned, and you want to bet you can get through anyway... then that taking a chance.

When they do this, it means it's an important set of rules and requirements for that person...otherwise, no need to describe them at all..... Not necessarily... it's a guideline. Not absolute. If I write , "Looking for women with dyed green hair" , and a confident woman with dyed blue hair contacts me..... I may or may not respond... but there is a chance that I may be interested... .and the woman with dyed blue hair knows that "CHANCE" exists.

And again, when you override profile criteria, what you do is shape society, piss women off, turn women off and drive them away from this site for good. .... Nonsense... only the unreasonable and unpleasant women. No loss there.

Nothing positive evolves from not listening to what women are TELLING you! .... Nothing positive evolves from not listening [not understanding] to what I'm telling you.

I ceased my very own search here months ago because I have had it with the way that nobody reads profiles and how others seem to just not give a damn at all about what my profile says. ... No real concern with that at all.

I'm TELLING you...this turns women off and drives them off the site! .. I'm telling you the site doesn't need unreasonable and unpleasant women .

You hear me speaking but you refuse to listen or comprehend what I am TELLING you. .... No, I comprehend what you are advocating, compiled with a flimsy threat of women going away mad....ha.. phttt .... and I'm telling you, it's ridiculous.

If you know you don't fit criteria, don't be pushy and try for anything that goes against the grain of profile criteria. ..... No. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

That only pisses us off and results in frustration, anger, arguments, childish retaliation, etc...... Not my concern.... go away frustrated and pissed... that's fine.

Nothing positive comes from overriding women's profiles.... Sure it could be positive... YOU don't know.

The fact of the topic is that this clown either didn't read a profile or overrode the criteria. This isn't taking a chance, ... Sure it is , taking a chance. And she's a clown because she admitted not reading his profile.

already either KNOW and/or RESPECT prior to making contact with her....Maybe he did know... but doesn't have to respect it...... that's the entire point of taking a chance.

And this blog is the direct result of what happens when asswipes ... You're being rude ....knock it off.

This blog is exactly what he deserved! ...ha... "Deserved".... I really doubt he gives a damn.

He's rude, not she. Get the story correct, clown! .... She was rude to him. He did not approach her with intent to be rude.

He wrote "seeking a fantasy about her giving him a blowjob". ... Yes, he can do that.... this site is that kind of site.

They are socializing, talking about something NOT realistic ( being it's fantasy ) and is borderline cyber..... Practically the entire site is full of "Cyber" and "Borderline cyber".

What he is asking is purely a fictional and fantasy-based question. ... In that case the distance between the two could be half way around the world, but she continues the conversation with him.

Where on her profile does it say that she "takes chances"? - It doesn't! ... True...and it doesn't have to say she takes chances.... he does, and ANY other man, may take a chance, regardless of what the woman's profile says.

If any of these were true, then yes, perhaps then a "chance to take" might have existed, but not when none of this stuff exists! ...No... a man is not told he now may take a chance...... to take a chance, is his decision.

You are such a clown! ... You're being rude again. Knock it off. The next response to me better be more civil.

This story is simply about someone writing to someone else who had a question, that person answering his question honestly and then becoming an ass by making a smartass comment .... Suggesting the site "Match", is not a smartass comment. It was completely reasonable.

So instead of thanking her ... There was nothing to thank her for. Again, she was in control of the conversation just as much as he... either one could have terminated. Did he write a blog about Heels? No. But she wrote about how upset she got. .... ha... geeez just disconnect when you feel your curlers steaming up.

nothing more than basically like saying "fuck you" to her when he mentioned the Match comment. .... ha. . nonsense..you're funny..... he mentioned she go to that site... that was perfectly reasonable.

maybe everyone here can't all be wrong? ....No.... When mobs gang up on a person, due to the unreasonable rantings of some woman, the mob is usually always wrong.

Become a member to create a blog

Persons appearing in photographs may not be actual members. Other data for illustrative purposes only.

Passion does not conduct criminal background screening of its members. Learn about Internet Dating Safety, click here.

This website is operated in the US by at , ; in the EU by At , ; in Australia by ,, ; in Singapore by , . Contact us at 888-575-8383 (US toll free), 0800 098 8311(UK toll-free).

Hide

English
- Español
- Français
- Deutsch
- 日本語
- 한글
- Português
- Italiano
- Nederlands
- Svenska
- 繁體中文

Other Sites:

Alt.com
OutPersonals.com
NoStringsAttached.com

funcouple1976tt ; rude SOB! Prev 123 Next

funcouple1976tt ; rude SOB!
Prev
1
2
3 Next