Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > The way women reject a dude online...      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 npw7557
Joined: 7/20/2015
Msg: 226
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...Page 10 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
I have had "f*** off Shrek" as a reply to a nice sent message.

If that is the nicest she is god help someone who eventually gets her !

If you arent interested then don't reply.
No reply is better than 20 reasons why they dont want to date you !

Had a date once where she sent an email after the date stating 10 things I did wrong on the date !
I replied that she did only 1 thing wrong, she turned up !
 10ky
Joined: 11/15/2012
Msg: 227
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/29/2017 8:06:11 PM
^^
LMAO! Did she really say "f off sherk"? Crazy women by the dozen out there pal.

I had a few such replies as well. Once there was this wee Romanian girl with a huge bosom. She was hot as hell so I couldn't resist. I send her a polite email and she comes back to me saying: "Do you really think that someone like you could ever date someone like me?" I says "yes of course" and she was furious. She was genuinely offended by the fact that I thought that she was within my league. Go figure.
 imanorangetiger
Joined: 12/29/2011
Msg: 228
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 1:57:52 AM


I didn't use the word mad or if I did it was a slip up. Also, I've never called orange that because he doesn't behave like one. He's, frankly, not the smartest cookie in the jar but I don't think he's got severe mental health problems besides a strongly impaired self esteem.


Nice try but it doesn't wash. You can try and deflect all you want, but the truth of it is that you're a failure. Why else would you have started this pity thread in the first place? Attempting to push that onto others to avoid responsibility clearly isn't working, going by your latest admission. No point you reaching for the stars when you have such leaden boots on. You ain't all that, be honest. You seriously need to lower your expectations.
 Justanotherchap
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 229
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 4:31:16 AM
5 pages of ding-dong crap in about 36 hours - must be some sort of record? It keeps going around anyway.
 Paulinenbeans
Joined: 9/17/2017
Msg: 230
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 4:40:41 AM
There are numerous threads on here. If people don't want to be on ones like this they don't need to be.

I personally don't think discussion about sexual assault or abuse is boring crap.

All it takes is for a couple of lurkers to come in and start a thread of their own.

I'll stay off it if it offends peoples sensibilities.
 Justanotherchap
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 231
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 9:53:27 AM
I was talking about the name calling being boring. I'm all for rational debate.

This Weinstein scandal does seem to be having some effect at last. We are seeing some action in parliament, a Corrie star was sacked as soon as the producers found out he was being charged. Kevin Spacey's career looks like taking a nose dive, someone on the radio mentioned that he was one of the people whispered about in the corridors of power. This is the sort of legislation now coming forward. Takes some reading but worth it. borrowed from the Guardian


Each day seemingly brings new revelations about Harvey Weinstein’s three decades of alleged sexual assaults, harassment and sleazy come-ons. As the victims continue to stream forward, we’re left wondering: how did he get away with it for so long?

One thing seems clear. Ultimately, if not for the bravery of his victims coming forward, Weinstein, who has denied allegations made against him, would have continued.

At least eight of the dozens of women he allegedly harassed not only had to endure the terror, confusion and humiliation as a consequence of Weinstein’s misconduct, but also were convinced to sign agreements drafted to protect Weinstein’s reputation by keeping them quiet. In consideration, they received hush money, but in the process they signed away important legal protections against sexual harassment in the workplace.

Silence is acquired. But at what cost? Silence begets more silence, giving predators the license to prey on new victims with little or no consequence. At the same time, accusers who speak up are ousted through settlements, often leaving their unknowing colleagues behind to become victims themselves.

This vicious cycle must stop.

When it comes to sexual assault and harassment, there should be no such thing as an open secret. Confidentiality agreements can play a legitimate role in business, protecting intellectual property, strategy and finances, but they should never be used to cover up illegal behavior like we’re seeing alleged in the Weinstein case. Moreover, employees should never be forced to sign away their rights. After all, what’s the point of strong labor laws if employees can’t take advantage of them?

Weinstein is certainly not the first powerful executive to prey on his employees. Nor is he the first to silence employees who threaten to reveal his incriminating and abusive behavior. As we’ve seen most recently with Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly, non-disclosure agreements serve to institutionalize labor abuses at workplaces and allow employers to sweep allegations of wrongdoing under the rug.

For Weinstein and Fox News, both located in my senate district, settlement payouts seem to have been the cost of doing business.

In response, I’m introducing legislation in New York to ensure alleged predators like Weinstein, Ailes and O’Reilly can no longer negotiate the silence of their victims. Under my legislation, which I carry with Queens assemblywoman Nily Rozic, contracts that conceal abuse or waive an employee’s legal rights or remedies relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment would be deemed “unconscionable, void and unenforceable”.

As long as we allow the Harvey Weinsteins of the world to pay off victims in exchange for silence, we leave all employees vulnerable. Eliminating shady confidentiality clauses would help ensure fair labor standards, prevent workplace hazards and misconduct, and protect employee rights.

Settlement agreements with confidentiality clauses are another example of the power imbalance that fuels sexual harassment in the workplace. They serve predators and facilitators – and no one else.

In a system that too often vilifies victims and harbors powerful abusers at the expense of the safety and rights of employees, New York must declare once and for all that we won’t accept “open secrets” as the norm in any industry.

Senator Brad Hoylman is a Democrat representing Manhattan in the New York state senate
 Paulinenbeans
Joined: 9/17/2017
Msg: 232
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 9:58:28 AM
I will be very very surprised if there is action in Parliament

May will lose her majority if anything happens to these Tory ministers, theres 36 of them been named apparently.

As for Kevin Spacey, he has apparently said, I cant remember and Im now gay.

There will be lots of people coming forward about him from what Ive heard today.
 RoxyMoronic
Joined: 6/7/2016
Msg: 233
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 10:14:07 AM
I god damn really like Kevin Spacey. I don’t really know this story. ‘Drunkenly asked a minor to go to a party with him’? Correct?
I’ll just die if I ever hear this bad news about Jackie.
 Justanotherchap
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 234
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 10:27:12 AM
Well if you've missed the story so far:

"In his interview with BuzzFeed News, the 46-year-old Star Trek: Discovery actor said he was sitting on the edge of a bed after the party - held in Spacey's apartment in 1986 - when Oscar-winning Spacey, now 58, came into the bedroom.
"He picked me up like a groom picks up the bride over the threshold. But I don't, like, squirm away initially, because I'm like, 'What's going on?' And then he lays down on top of me," Rapp said.
"He was trying to seduce me... I was aware that he was trying to get with me sexually."
Rapp said he was able to go to the bathroom before he left."

The rumours are flying
 scareymush
Joined: 8/9/2011
Msg: 235
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 12:18:09 PM
I think there might be other accusations pending for Mister Spacey.

I could almost believe he wasn't aware of what he was doing as he was quite drunk (he says) but he invited a 14-year-old to a party at his home? Who invites kids to late night adult occasions? There's an image of the then boy and he looks like a little kid.

Spacey is basically being suspected/accused of being a paedophile.




vvvvvvvv He was mugged in Hampstead Heath.
 Hotbeaching
Joined: 5/21/2017
Msg: 236
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 12:28:09 PM
Wasn’t there an incident involving Spacey in London a few years back, I seem to remember something in a park, can anyone remember, all I know it was brushed under the carpet
 Mikitaka
Joined: 9/11/2008
Msg: 237
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 1:06:03 PM
Yet this
So the other guys were leaving ahead of me when an attractive, smartly dressed woman of my age entered the bar. One of those instant attraction moments when we both caught sight of each other. So exchanged smiles and I walked to the exit when she grabbed my crotch totally unexpectedly on the way past. When I turned she was yards away with a cheeky smile on her face. Was that an assault ? Hell no! I was very flattered.

Apparently the difference between something being an assault or not is if the person on the receiving end liked it or whether the person doing it was pretty or not.

Ok maybe if she'd fallen from the ugly tree I'd have thought differently but that is what I'd call consensual and acceptable.

Or if she was ugly or not. Someone has just posted saying that getting your private parts grabbed by a complete stranger is consensual and acceptable.

I'd have expected you to recognise the difference between an implicit agreement between two adults and an unwarranted invasion of one's privacy. I'd appreciate if you didn't enforce your moral standards on me. I have no wish to be Talibanned by a seventeenth century puritanical attitude. I was not offended, she was not offended; no assailant, no victim and thus no case to answer. You have made a judgement on an attack that didn't happen.
As for the tongue in cheek ugly reference, we all have our views of ugliness. I have seen some beautiful women on here who are ugly to the core. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and she could just as easily have been beautiful and the chemistry not have kicked in to initiate the flirtation in the first place.
Rather than enforce unwanted rules and laws on others, you should be pressing for proper trial, conviction and sentence on the real offenders. That entails building systems to protect and give moral support to the victim. Admitting as evidence previous attacks even when found innocent. (If someone has three previous accusations of rape and are on a fourth trial, I'd want to know about it. The jury could consider evidence from the previous trials.) Additionally false claims of rape should be heard too. The system needs an overhaul and not over burdened with technicalities.
 scareymush
Joined: 8/9/2011
Msg: 238
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 2:45:26 PM
@mikitaka, I know you were addressing someone else's post but...

I'd have expected you to recognise the difference between an implicit agreement between two adults and an unwarranted invasion of one's privacy. I'd appreciate if you didn't enforce your moral standards on me. I have no wish to be Talibanned by a seventeenth century puritanical attitude. I was not offended, she was not offended; no assailant, no victim and thus no case to answer. You have made a judgement on an attack that didn't happen.

Having any part of your body grabbed, especially by a stranger at a bar is assault....let's face it, if it was a bloke who violated you, never mind an attractive woman, you'd probably have finished your post with #metoo. Finding your attacker, after the fact, attractive and sexy....means feck all...what you did was justify having your privates groped because that's what victims do out of shock, shame and embarrassment.

And of course, you'll argue with me that I wasn't there, can't properly assess the situation etc. But I know that unsolicited groping of another person's privates is sexual assault.

If you were being subjected to the same on a daily basis, you'd soon stop thinking of it as a compliment.

False claims of rape do get dealt with by British courts, a lot of recent examples have been reported in the media.
 Mikitaka
Joined: 9/11/2008
Msg: 239
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 3:44:58 PM
When a shark bites someone on a beach, there are options one can take. You can ban everyone from going in the water, you can hunt down that shark, kill all sharks or you can put nets around the bay and watchtowers. It would be good if you could find that shark, not so good if you wiped out all the sharks, not so good if you banned everyone from the water and risky if a shark got through the cordon. My preference would be the latter. I want the choice of going in the water.
I know what you are saying about the assaults. An unwanted assault I would communicate I wasn't happy to that person, a second I would take action either physically or whistleblowing. Both uncomfortable actions that need you to stand up for yourself. I have no problem doing that and anyone who is afraid, I'd advocate getting support. Because I am comfortable in my own skin I still wish to reserve the choice. Let the courts decide on an assault if I choose to prosecute, not blanket ban what could be a harmless flirtation.
I had my butt felt as a 20 year old in a Parisian disco by what looked like a Harlem Globetrotter. (Must have been my Saturday Night Fever moves on the dancefloor). My response was to move away, the guy clearly had mistaken me for a lover not a fighter. Also had an octopus date from a lady on here ... she didn't make it to second date. Despite these setbacks I still reserve the choice of deciding whether someone has flirted or assaulted me.
 scareymush
Joined: 8/9/2011
Msg: 240
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 6:41:02 PM
What say you then to the person less mild-mannered, docile, well trained as you whose objection to being sexually assaulted results in them not just standing aside or simply saying "Don't touch me!" but rather feels so infuriated they attack their groper and could possibly be up on charge of GBH or worse murder?

I suppose laws dictating how we treat each other go both ways....but in the instance of a person standing up for themselves would you consider it enough of a mitigating circumstance that they felt violated and couldn't help but be explosively angry?

I have a story about one of my sisters...she was at a gathering, it was crowded, a man brushed past her but not before he squeezed her breast....she wasn't delighted with being groped, she didn't take his supposed sexual interest in her as a compliment...she was really bloody annoyed. She pursued the man she believed to be her groper until he was in a prime position to be groped himself and that's what she did, grabbed him by the bollocks and squeezed the living daylights out of them.....saying "How do you like that?"

His eyes were probably streaming with tears as he replied "Not a lot"....turned out he was innocent of the crime and kindly forgave my sister when she explained. Ever since then, she's known amongst a certain group of people as 'The Ball Crusher'

Your analogy above is a pile of poo as far as I'm concerned...utter trash (fear not 10ky will be along presently to remind you that I am an angry frustrated woman and that you shouldn't heed a word I write as I live in fantasy land...that will make you feel better about yourself).

Given what's going on in the media as in the reporting of sexual predators and the rest, the twittersphere is bandying about the name of a British barrister called Barbara Hewson (she's Irish when it suits...wonder if she's related to Paul Hewson aka Bono, the born again Christian?).

Interesting article :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10045699/Allow-legal-sex-at-13-to-stop-old-men-abuse-persecutions-says-barrister.html

In an article for online magazine Spiked, she argued that ''the post-Savile witch-hunting of ageing celebs echoes the Soviet Union'' and says that it is not difficult to see why some elderly defendants ''conclude that resistance is useless''.
She added: ''But the low-level misdemeanours with which Stuart Hall was charged are nothing like serious crime.''
''Ordinarily, Hall's misdemeanours would not be prosecuted, and certainly not decades after the event.
''What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal-justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle.''
She continued: ''It's time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest.''
The barrister added: ''Instead, we should focus on arming today's youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime.
''As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are remove complainant anonymity, introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions and reduce the age of consent to 13.''
Ms Hewson argued that ''touching a 17-year-old's breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one's hand up a 16-year-old's skirt'' are not comparable to cases such as the Ealing Vicarage rape or Fordingbridge gang rape and murders from 1986.
She added: ''Anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality.''
Ms Hewson also labelled charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) as ''moral crusaders'' who have infiltrated Yewtree.


You might be inclined to agree with her sentiments?
 Paulinenbeans
Joined: 9/17/2017
Msg: 241
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 7:46:31 PM
I was in Hamilton the night amanda duffy was killed. There was overwhelming evidence to convict the accused of her murder. Dna. Blood. Hair samples. The accused walked free on a not proven verdict. She was also sexually assaulted..

Not proven. Where there is doubt of a person's innocence but a jury doesn't feel that they are guilty.

Exactly what would people lobbying their mp on the issue of rape or sexual assault do for amanda. Or her family?
 Paulinenbeans
Joined: 9/17/2017
Msg: 242
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 8:01:02 PM
Juries are told of convictions south of the border.

Fine to the men who love getting their balls grabbed or their knob fiddled with. I've yet to meet a woman who got her private parts grabbed by a stranger and enjoyed it.
 Paulinenbeans
Joined: 9/17/2017
Msg: 243
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 8:15:15 PM
No such thing as a blanket ban on anything. How could there be? The only way someone is going to get prosecuted for assault is if it's reported and the police and the fiscal in Scotland think there's enough chance of a conviction. Cps in England.

No one on here suggested a blanket ban on anything.
 scareymush
Joined: 8/9/2011
Msg: 244
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 8:31:45 PM
IIs 'the jury ruled the case was not proven' the same sort of thing as 'not proven beyond a reasonable doubt'?

I don't know what exactly goes on in a court of law except that for the most part facts and evidence play a key role and that witness statements can be dismissed through arguing facts of the case....really it's down to the police and the DPP to have every single bit of evidence and every single fact at the ready.

We, the public, are being failed by inadequate disinterested, probably worn out and cynical police....there's an awful lot of ennui and laziness going on...most public representatives shouldn't need to be bloody well lobbied, they should know already the importance of their elected positions and be fighting the good fight as a matter integrity..after all they were voted in because of their promises to the people.

You should study law Pauline!

Isn't it strange how sometimes people can be convicted of a crime through circumstantial evidence alone also....which is the preferred scenario?



No such thing as a blanket ban on anything. How could there be? The only way someone is going to get prosecuted for assault is if it's reported and the police and the fiscal in Scotland think there's enough chance of a conviction. Cps in England.

No one on here suggested a blanket ban on anything.

I hate to say this about mikitaka, because I had higher hopes but his defensive argument was ludicrous.

As an aside, my little sister (1 year younger than me) wasn't blessed with the same height as her other sisters....I grew up with her and I used to feel awful for her that because she was relatively short (5'3" ) other people would feel inclined to pat her on her head in a condescending manner....she wasn't being sexually assaulted but taller people felt free to treat her like a child because she was short and they dared to pat her on the head and be dismissive of her...I never had to defend her because she's great at sticking up for herself....but who the fvck do those people think they are taking such liberties?
 Paulinenbeans
Joined: 9/17/2017
Msg: 245
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 8:55:23 PM
I've done jury service. All I can say was the process as to how the jury decided guilt or innocence pretty much shocked me. How the conclusions were reached as to someone's guilt or not.

The amanda duffy case shook me. Mainly because I was out that night in Hamilton and very close to where amanda was killed. They actually tried to try Francis auld again after the double jeopardy law was abolished in Scotland but it didn't happen.

If people read the amanda duffy case they'll see just how badly the jury got that verdict wrong.

I'm assuming that Scots juries aren't told of previous convictions because that man who killed the Irish girl in Glasgow a couple of years ago had earlier stood trial for attempted rape and was acquitted.

Juries can and do get verdicts very very wrong.
 Paulinenbeans
Joined: 9/17/2017
Msg: 246
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 9:18:17 PM
Ah ha!
My mum and I were at my pals engagement party the other night and this man walked by and patted her on the head!

I didn't see him do it, I just looked at her face and she was like. He's just patted me on the head!

Lmfao. My main problem with being a short arse is trying to get stuff off the top shelf in home bargains!

Pmsl! It's so funny. My wee brother is five ten and that's like a giant in our world. I come from a family of smurfs.

You have to go and get a shop assistant to get the stuff you need down for you.

My mum is taller than me as well and she got her head patted. I'm five one and she's a bit taller.
 scareymush
Joined: 8/9/2011
Msg: 247
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 11:01:34 PM
See, I'd never denigrate someone on the basis of height, sexuality or gender. Because I've been exposed to all types and actually have experienced sexism and even heightism......it doesn't sit well with me being told you're a magnificent specimen because of your height....look at you, you're so tall so beautiful... and your sister...well we all know the best gifts come in small packages/parcels.

Myself and my little sister grew up being compared to each other, yet we were great friends and the difference in height was not an issue between us...it was everybody else's issue.

My mother was as short as my sister and maybe it was unkind but I'd lean my elbow on top of my mother's head and thank her for being a useful prop, for sturdying my balance...if we were at the pub I'd rest my pint on her head...ah well, sure otherwise she insisted upon her daughters that we cut the corns from her feet, trim her toenails and massage her head, so I don't feel guilty about taking the pee out of our slave master.

I always help anybody who can't reach the top shelf!

I'm not even that tall....nowadays youngsters, where I live, are crazy tall...boys are super lanky and 12-year old girls are already 6'

I live in the land of the giants, I'd invite you over to see for yourself but I wouldn't want to put you at risk.
 10ky
Joined: 11/15/2012
Msg: 248
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/30/2017 11:49:08 PM
-paul
While the so called "perfect" (i.e. most popular) height for women is 5'4, you're much better off at 5'1 or even shorter than 5'6 and certainly not taller than that for a woman.

Height is not a desirable trait on women because it is associated with masculinity. In fact, taller women find it harder to date and marry or be in a stable relationship. Even very tall men would often prefer short women.

This is how society works nowadays. If you're a dude shorter than 5'10, then you're a dwarf and if you're a woman taller than 5'6 then you're a giant. Any taller (even 7'0!!) for men is cool and any shorter for women (even 4'11!!) is ok. I'm disappointed.
 Justanotherchap
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 249
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/31/2017 3:00:27 AM
I can see where Mikitaka is coming from but the problem is when the perpetrator picks on the wrong person and the ramifications of that.

Anyway. I see nextflix are not going to do another series of House of Cards though they'll finish filming this one before doing so. Hmmm?

The press are desperate to smear someone - I rather enjoyed reading this (and i suspect Mititaka would have handled it in a simlar fashion):

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon was once rebuked by a journalist for putting his hand on her knee during dinner, his spokesman has confirmed.
Radio presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer had recounted the "mildly amusing" incident without naming Sir Michael.
After his identity was revealed in the Sun,, she tweeted saying she had not been "remotely upset or distressed".
A spokesman for Sir Michael said he had apologised when it happened in 2002.
Ms Hartley-Brewer, a former political editor of the Sunday Express and regular political commentator, has criticised "wild rumours and claims" circulating at Westminster.
She said she did not consider herself a victim after the incident which happened over dinner at the Conservative Party conference.
After the minister kept putting his hand on her knee, she said: "I calmly and politely explained to him that, if he did it again, I would 'punch him in the face'.
"He withdrew his hand and that was the end of the matter."
 Mikitaka
Joined: 9/11/2008
Msg: 250
view profile
History
The way women reject a dude online...
Posted: 10/31/2017 3:30:43 PM
Chappie - I read this today, quite apt as you say. Noticed also today Billy Connolly commented that the current spate of indiscretions brought to light in Westminster may bring about greater consideration by men about behaviour. Also as a consequence changes to rules about conduct and investigation of any accusations. Interesting, so long as they don't ban me from the water!

Scarey - Does this mean the wedding is off ? I had such high hopes for you.

Re- your question about my view on the said sexual assault. We'll assume this to be a real sexual assault and not an implied one, say an unexpected boob grab. I'd have no problems with the said woman verbally abusing the assailant and even slapping the aggressor. I'd take a different stance if she stabbed or killed him.
Had she been raped and killed him, even days after the attack I'd consider leniency and possibly exoneration depending on the matter of events.
I only used the analogy because it makes people think and not gloss over without taking in points raised. Incidentally 10ky didn't jump in to disagree with you. Maybe your views and his being so polar are not so different after all. You have criticised 10ky for insults rather than response to argument hmm. ;)

Pauline - I hardly think a momentary grab of a man's parts would be sensual. I believe my lady friend was instigating a shock tactic as a bit of fun, not to eroticise or weigh me up.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > The way women reject a dude online...