|
|
|
|
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 10:05:13 AM | Yes, it is hypocritical, to provide a forum for communication and then block that communication for a user without giving adequate notice that if you use the forum you will attract a stigma. And just so that you can see how sincere I am about freedom of speech, communication and association I am going now to my profile to remove those filters. Then you can rest assured that I am not arguing against myself, that I am a strong advocate of founding principles of freedom, and that I consider those principles far more over-riding and important than mere personal preferences.
We should be free to talk with and communicate with and freely associated with whom ever we damn well please with fear of censure, sanction or social opprobrium.
Instead, why don't we just create a website for all the prudes of the world who cannot openly discourse about sexual matters accross social lines and categories without becoming judgemental? For those prudes of the world, for all the sex defensive, sex negative, selfimposed celibates and asexual people of the world we could have a web site that is expressly sex forbidden. There would no confusion then about the rules of discourse. Anybody there is just plainly not interested in sex at all.
By the way, can anybody tell me or does anybody know, how can you tall if your profile is tagged or labeled as one that has had communicate with an IE profile?
CT | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 10:10:13 AM |
We should be free to talk with and communicate with and freely associated with whom ever we damn well please yep.
and people should also be free to chose not to have contact with whoever they damn well please
why don't we just create a website for all the prudes of the world who cannot openly discourse about sexual matters accross social lines and categories without becoming judgemental? well, there's already websites that exist exclusively for finding sexual encounters. Why don't you just go to one of those sites?
Maybe the women looking for affairs on those sites will be interested in you contacting them just because you have "an interest in communication"
By the way, can anybody tell me or does anybody know, how can you tall if your profile is tagged or labeled as one that has had communicate with an IE profile? are you really that thick in the head?
or did you just want people to answer that repeatedly?
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 10:21:11 AM | Celestial: How is it hypocritical for me to choose not to have contact with who's looking for intimate encounters when that is not what I am seeking on here?
All that would happen is you would get blocked anyway. A while back, before I set up my new profile, I took the restrictions off just to see what would happen and within minutes, I was getting emails that were loaded with sexual comments and requests...I don't need the hassle! That hardly makes me a prude...I am far from being a prude, in fact.
And I know that the requests are going on for men as much as they are for women. I know of a few guys on here who are tired of getting the requests for sex and the ones who do not take 'no' for an answer.
(Of course, I also know one or two who love the attention and the free cybersex!)
If you don't like it, you have a couple of options. Close the account you have and come back when you are looking for something different and will treat the women with respect. Stay on with the account you have and communicate with people who are looking for the same thing as you are ...or you can go to one of those pay sex sites where you'll have something in common with everybody! | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 11:49:34 AM | I’ve watched their status change many times from, Dating, long-term, not-looking, IE, and the others.
I have known many women that had in the past turned their profiles to IE because they were simply looking for more spirited conversation, not because they had an interest in actually meeting.
Doesn't Matter. Anyone changing their Habits is one Thing, Women not wanting to be contacted by those who have sought Intimate Encounters is another Issue altogether. Its as simple as that. You say its not fair, well that's for those to decide who choose to use that Filter.
spirited conversation
I am not even going to bother ask what "Take" or "Implication" is meant by "Spirited Conversation".
I would assume if you think an IE Seeker has far better "Spirited Conversations" which "Long Termers" for the most part do not, then I would question the Nature of the Communications itself.
Perhaps to you, "Spirited Conversation" means "Sex Talk" ... who knows.
Realistically, if it was me, I'd put a time limit cap on blocking users.
You really need to read the earlier Posts on this Thread.
This is just another Page, yet another Face, same Questions, same Answers.
I'll just keep posting Links to the preceding Pages.
If say a person didn't contact Intimate Encounters for a period of 6 months or a year ... I would set the system to reset the profile automatically.
You have still sought IEs, time-frame irrelevant.
Today you want an IE, in 6 months you want "Long Term".
And you'll seek IEs again when?
The IE Filter adequately takes care of the Flip-flopping.
Those who enable this Filter assume you are here for "Dating" or "Long Term", and if you have sought IEs at one Point, they don't want to hear from you.
Your own personal Level of Ethics may find nothing wrong with that, but someone else may not concure with you. Hence the Filter. You might think its quite OK to do the entire Hen House for a while, then decide its Time to get serious, and now that you have "changed" your Mind, you should be free to contact anyone you like.
Alas ... the Filter doesn't work that Way. It doesn't care what "Decisions" you make. Its based on what you have done.
Next we will have thought police. Did you ever think about having a quickie? Did you ever have a lustful thought and just wish you could have that connection for the purpose of sexual fulfillment?
^^^ This Rationale alone is probably enough to be blocked by the vast Majority of Women. A prime Example what the Filter was designed for.
And in 6 months you are gonna tell us what?
"Oh ... No, no more quickies for me, no more instant sexual fulfillment, I only want a wholesome loving Relationship until Death does us part"
And just so that you can see how sincere I am about freedom of speech, communication and association I am going now to my profile to remove those filters.
You have changed your Mind again.
I am a strong advocate of founding principles of freedom, and that I consider those principles far more over-riding and important than mere personal preferences.
Founding Principle of Freedom to not be contacted by IE seekers.
Part of the Principles of Freedom also includes the Right to be free from having Contact and Communications forced off on anyone.
We should be free to talk with and communicate with and freely associated with whom ever we damn well please with fear of censure, sanction or social opprobrium.
As is anyone free to reject such Communications.
Instead, why don't we just create a website for all the prudes of the world who cannot openly discourse about sexual matters accross social lines and categories without becoming judgemental? For those prudes of the world, for all the sex defensive, sex negative, selfimposed celibates and asexual people of the world we could have a web site that is expressly sex forbidden.
You are really arguing with nothing other than your own "Blind Spots", a "Line of Thought" translated into Actions of Contacting Habits, which is exactly what the IE Filter is set up to block.
 |
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 1:08:14 PM | The whole concept of tagged is ridiculous anyway. No one knows you have been blocked by the filter but you. Well.. until they read these posts.
Social filters are used in real life for all kinds of reasons. To add to the sheer redundancy of the answers to the outcry of this particular filter. Even if you were unblocked, if someday a gal you were communicating with on here found these posts and saw themselves referred to in such a derogatory manner, over and over. They would find the Block User in a jiffy!
Its clear you are not a good match for those that choose to use the filter. Why not just accept that. You are who you are, and it is perfectly okay to continue to behave however you choose, but those who use the filter on this site whom are both men and women are clearly saying, "Not on my time." | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 1:38:32 PM | Rather than look at this filter/feature as a Block against you & your (behind the scenes)choices
For those prudes of the world, for all the sex defensive, sex negative, selfimposed celibates and asexual people of the world
You can take it as your own personal 'Prude Filter'. Now you don't even have to bother with the women that have already indicated that they would not meet your Freedom of Speech standards. I would think this would save you a lot of time.
Oh....and I see that you are listed as Long Term. I would certainly want to know if a man that I was considering a LT relationship with, liked to occasionally slither over to the IE section, even if it was for a perfectly innocent discourse on Global Warming....nudge,nudge.
Again, I find it interesting that not one of the 'Abolish the Filter Bretheren' posting here are listed as IE on their profiles......Hmmmmm........funny that.
KK | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 2:20:34 PM | Again, I find it interesting that not one of the 'Abolish the Filter Bretheren' posting here are listed as IE on their profiles
Be sure to look up Wikipedia for "Filter Reform" at some Point in the Future ... | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 3:55:08 PM | Strawberry and others not specifically caring about what I said, but caring more about what you think I have said, it is not the issue of what you have the freedom to elect to do, that is, filter out people who have communicated with IE profiles, with which I take exception, it is your rush to judgement about what that means. But, moreover, it is also that the apellation that tags on to someone who has communicated with a person under the IE category is not there because it was voluntarily disclosed. It is a label that is imposed or hung on the profile by the system of POF.
In the case of people screening for smokers, for age, for location, for drugs, the case is materially different. These are apellations or labels given to people who make voluntary disclosures. They are free, and that is the opreative word, free, free, free to voluntarily disclose whatever they wish. They are also free to change that label at any time. Maybe they moved, stoped smoking, or had a change in relationship status or had a spiritual epiphany. In fact, they are actually free to lie about themselves, as many do. Perhaps the lie was unintentional, perhaps it was motivated by fear, or whatever. Liars are then free to return to their profile and change it again, so it represents the truth. Yes, in these cases, profilers are as free as the day they were born to represent themselves as they wish the world to see them. As soon as they change their profile, the world sees them differently.
Now, in the case of messages to IE profiles it is completely different. A person may message an IE profile, as I have said repeatedly, but which some readers here refuse to believe, for reasons other than immediate sexual gratification, booty call, hook up, or whatever. It may have been inadvertant, as in the case of a novice poster, it may have been accidental and caused by inattention to detail and fixation on a photo or profile content as in the case of a poster with one too many a glasses of wine imbibed, it could be out of authentic human curiosity about women who actually are interested in consensual sex (it is highly probable that many men have never met a woman who would openly discuss, much less welcome, consensual and casual sex) as they would be in any other rather novel human behaviour, it could be because the profile is well written and articulate and has made passing reference to something of particular interest that is not specifically sexual, and so on, and so on.
In spite of what the motive may have been and completely without the consent of the person who has messaged the IE, the flag is attached. This person is now labeled, involuntarily and without their consent, as one who has communicated with the IE class, apparently an undesirable class. This flag/tag cannot be removed by its recipient and the bearer has now been blocked by myriad of posters that believe this label gives them special insight into the character (or lack there of) of the bearer.
In distinct and high contrast to other filters, the recipient of this label has now, without his/her consent, been tagged and barred from communicating with a vast number of profilers. This person has not had any freedom of choice in the matter and has had freedoms of expression, communication and association withdrawn.
Further, and in my defense, posters here who believe I have taken up this cause because I have a personal interest in casual sexual encounters, hooking up, booty calls and whatever, just because I feel there is a principle worth defending that is in fact a higher principle than personal taste and personal preference, should think again. I have not messaged other users for sex. I can't say for certain whether my profile is flagged. I only know that I have attempted twice to send another a message and it did not appear in my sent box. The profile to which I sent has no filters evident on the profile.
It is possible for a person to stand up for a principle that may not directly and immediately bring personal benefit. Why do people believe that the only time a person wishes to defend a principle is when the adverse effects affect them directly or when they will directly benefit(as in the case of NIMBY syndrom)? That is a very jaded and negativistic view of humanity. Why do people argue "ad hominem" and assault one's integrity by assuming that if you communicate with an IE profile you are by inference promiscuous? That is as rediculous as it is falacious in logic.
I should be free to remain on POF and feel perfectly comfortable communicating with whom ever I please without bearing a stigma. Don't tell me to go somewhere else because you want to feel free to make assumptions about my character. I have strong character and morals. You go somewhere else where censorship and the withdrawal of simple human freedoms of association are welcome. I will stay here where I belong and argue for the elimination of this broken and ineffectual policy which is an insult to founding principles of democracy and freedom.
Those of you whom rush to judgement about the character of someone who has communicated with an IE profile are naive. Do you really think you can screen for deception with this cheesy filter? If you want to know about someone's character, you have to get to know them. Liars, cheaters, deceivers, tricksters, sociopaths without conscience and others have no trouble skating around that silly filter. It is ineffectual.
On the other hand, chauvenists who project their own values on to others, narrow minded prudes who are affraid of open discourse on matters of human sexuality and think people should be censored and labeled, egotists who refuse to listen to the arguments and simply project there own impulses and values on to the discussion, and impatient opportunists who attempt to argue ad hominem do absolutely nothing to protect women and men who are affraid of exploitation and manipulation. Good luck, my friends. You will need it. Your freedoms are fragile and you are, increment by increment, sacreficing them to corporate and technological interests.
CT | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 3:55:57 PM | Ok i am new here as i have stated. A quick check back on my last 2 or 3 posts will explain my problem and i just have to say that while reading the replies of the so called help people here except for yayawhatever who really did try to help me and seems to know that the system isnt perfect and there actually could be something else wrong besides just assuming the users here lying. All i did now after trying again to send a message to this woman i have been talking about is i added her to my favorites and for the hell of it gave it one last try before giving up for the day to contact her.... to my surprise the message went through. So to all of the "helpers" here who just want to assume everyone must be lying when they say they havent messaged anyone for IE and they deserve to be blocked if that is the restriction on a profile, answer this.... if i had been an IE contact as you like to assume then why can i contact this woman after simply adding her to my favorites? I am not saying nobody here is lying but maybe not all are.... point in fact.... I WASN'T!! Show some understanding and instead of brushing people off, check the facts .... maybe there is some kind of glitch in the program.... Are you so arrogant as to think a computer program cant have a glitch in it?? Come on these people may be a click away from much deserved happiness ... at least give it an effort to see if they are lying or give up the help job if it is too much trouble for you!! I just want to thank yayawhatever for at least giving me some benefit of doubt and offering an attempt to resolve my problem. Nobody said I was a liar here but it was a concern to see that the only solution most other helpers were offering was "Tough luck fella...You must be lying" Obviously i wasnt .... maybe some of them are not either!!! To those who are lying well "Tough luck fella" lol
Click on any of the following:
FAQ - Emails/Messages - Sent but not showing up in the sent message area
FAQ - First contact messages - won't send
FAQ - Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
FAQ - Block for sex or intimate encounters (Huh?)
Moderator - Trappedonbayst | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 4:35:53 PM | consent of the person who has messaged the IE, the flag is attached.
Consent? This is a Dating Site that that permit its Userbase to weed out IE Seekers.
This person is now labeled, involuntarily and without their consent, as one who has communicated with the IE class, apparently an undesirable class.
No, your Contact Options have been restricted by those who do not wish to be contacted by those who have sought out IEs or sex.
caused by inattention to detail and fixation on a photo or profile content as in the case of a poster with one too many a glasses of wine imbibed, it could be out of authentic human curiosity about women who actually are interested in consensual sex
Said Operator of electronic Medium affected by self-caused Inebriation of such Magnitude, notwithstanding other Provisions of the TOS, failed to heed his own conscionable Objection of Conduct?
Overruled! Motion denied!
Please call your next Witness.
I should be free to remain on POF and feel perfectly comfortable communicating with whom ever I please without bearing a stigma.
Block IEs in your Mail Settings.
What does "Stigma" have to do with being blocked by those who do not wish to be contacted by those who are seeking an 'Intimate Encounter' or sex?
I have strong character and morals.
Apparently so do those who block Users who have sought contact with those seeking IEs.
I will stay here where I belong and argue for the elimination of this broken and ineffectual policy which is an insult to founding principles of democracy and freedom.
Just some last-minute Protest and Flag-waving now, I guess the argumentative Stage is over.
On the other hand, chauvenists who project their own values on to others, narrow minded prudes who are affraid of open discourse on matters of human sexuality and think people should be censored and labeled, egotists who refuse to listen to the arguments and simply project there own impulses and values on to the discussion, and impatient opportunists who attempt to argue ad hominem do absolutely nothing to protect women and men who are affraid of exploitation and manipulation.
Any other "Closing Statements" before I lock off this Thread?
(A Thread which has become redundant of itself)
|
| |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 5:44:30 PM | hi, have to say it is a bit of a shame you cant change this block or at least ask to have it looked into, i am happy to admit i have mailed a few members whose profiles stated they were looking for intimate ecounters but i didnt mail them because i too was looking for quick fun, i mailed them because i liked their profile, their photo, the things we talked about which couldnt have been further from sex, just nice clean mails, i havent planed to meet them, havent talked dirty online, they just happeed to match other things i was looking for but by choice of thier own had stated intimate encounters, the downside which i didnt know about before is if i see a member that i feellike the feel of who states no mail from anyone who has mailed an intimate encounter member blocks my mails,
i dont want to mail someone for sex or to talk dirty to her, i just hope that oneday is this busy life of mine i meet someone who makes my heart bounce again, butterflies in the tummy and robs you of the ability of stringing a sentence together. i dont think i made a mistake when i mailed these members, i had some very nice normal clean talks and got to know them as people,
i love this site, its the first free one i have foud and have a lot of praise for it, i just wise i could change the settings that now stop me saying a simple hello to what could be the woma i have spent my life looking for, if i could i would never ever mail a intimate contact again nowing the way this site works, i can also provide the site admin with member names who can validate i have never been anything more than just a normal genuine guy........ | |
|
TeJay
|
Joined: 1/16/2007
Msg: 162 | |
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 6:11:32 PM | i am happy to admit i have mailed a few members whose profiles stated they were looking for intimate ecounters but i didnt mail them because i too was looking for quick fun, i mailed them because i liked their profile, their photo, the things we talked about which couldnt have been further from sex, just nice clean mails, i havent planed to meet them, havent talked dirty online, they just happeed to match other things i was looking for but by choice of thier own had stated intimate encounters
Look. I don't want to be contacted by you. I don't care what your reason is for contacting anyone who has such an interests, but I can tell you that I am PAST that in my personal life. Why is this so hard for some to understand? I don't know.
i just wise i could change the settings that now stop me saying a simple hello to what could be the woma i have spent my life looking for,
Too bad. I don't have an interest in someone who has had a habit of emailing someone for I/E, even it was a year ago.
I smoke. I get blocked from people who don't smoke and don't want to be around anyone who does. I guess I could lie. Change my profile to say I don't or even quit smoking for a month or so. Problem is, I would probably go back to smoking the next stressful time I had at work. Doesn't matter. I would only be changing it for I time being. I feel your pain. You just have to accept who you are just as I have to accept who I am. I wouldn't tell someone that I didn't smoke unless I quit for like five years. Only because I quit for two years but went back to it after a really stressful day at work.
So...How long do you think you would change your ways for? Inquiring minds might want to know.
tj | |
|
| Messaged for intimate encounters or sex
Posted: 7/22/2007 6:31:34 PM | it is a bit of a shame you cant change this block or at least ask to have it looked into
maybe there is some kind of glitch in the program
Déjà vu Page-Thread Redundancy is not going into Page 8 ...
And in Summary, there are no 'Glitches' in the System, only Bullshitters as far as the Horizon stretches.
And that is Fact.
[Topic Closed - Locked Thread]
Any and All newly created Threads on this Topic will be deleted on Sight !!!
|
| |
|
|
| Page 7 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
