Doesn't bother me either way, depends on what the lady wants. If she wants a social first I'm happy to do that. If she just wants to meet and fuck straight off the bat then I'm happy to do that too.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Given the time yes, but as work is eating more and more into our free time, our socials seem to have evolved into 'socials with options'. Although we do still enjoy social only meets, when playing isn't an option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Who prefers social meets to begin"
Nah, usualy seems a waste of time.
Im not opposed to them but its generally easier just to get to know each other in private, on the sofa or in bed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
I like socials - but also "socials with options".
Would never meet someone for sex without having met them somewhere neutral first - I can't decide 100% if I fancy someone from pictures - equally, they may decide that upon meeting me, they don't fancy me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Always prefer a straightforward, no-nonsense social. If we click, that's a bonus for the future.
I'd avoid social-with-options, on the basis that I'd feel awkward, if my best option was to say 'no thanks'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Always prefer a straightforward, no-nonsense social. If we click, that's a bonus for the future.
I'd avoid social-with-options, on the basis that I'd feel awkward, if my best option was to say 'no thanks'."
This reads as "I'm too cowardly to turn a woman down to her face so i have to wait till the social is over and do it via text" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Always prefer a straightforward, no-nonsense social. If we click, that's a bonus for the future.
I'd avoid social-with-options, on the basis that I'd feel awkward, if my best option was to say 'no thanks'.
This reads as "I'm too cowardly to turn a woman down to her face so i have to wait till the social is over and do it via text""
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If we're meeting as a couple then it's always a social with options but if P's planning a solo meet then it's always a public meeting with a cheeky fumble if she wants to take it further at a later date. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Always prefer a straightforward, no-nonsense social. If we click, that's a bonus for the future.
I'd avoid social-with-options, on the basis that I'd feel awkward, if my best option was to say 'no thanks'.
This reads as "I'm too cowardly to turn a woman down to her face so i have to wait till the social is over and do it via text""
A straightforward social does not require any meaningful decisions, or telling anyone yes/no/whatever. Coffee & a chat is 100% harmless.
Being a full-on munter myself, I'm most likely to be the one sent home. I've only met once for social-with-options and we got along fine. Never been in a position where I had to disappoint someone, so have no idea what I'd say. What I do know for sure, is that I'd be honest.
The kindest thing to do, if you have doubts about the person being right for you, is not meet at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
