#1 ·
First off, I am truly sorry that this thread was locked, especially since the discussion felt so constructive and genuinely engaging. However, I clearly understand why it happened: everything that needed to be said regarding that controversial Advertisement had been aired, the debate was held, a decision was reached, and that’s that. Fine, I accept it.
But let’s just momentarily forget about that Advertisement...
What continues to baffle me are certain logical inconsistencies and contradictions.
I won't be basing this on my own personal musings here; instead, I am going to question yours—specifically, what you all have written.
First, I must offer a huge round of applause to the moderator, Meadow, for her sheer professionalism!
Meadow says:
I just consulted with my colleague who handles most of the Advertisements, and his stance is this: if there were actually a serious Advertisement from a couple living in a polygamous relationship, we would have to deliberate on how to handle it based on the specific wording and the implicit message being sent.
If we examine our Beautiful Our laws, we see that same-sex marriages are illegal—meaning they aren't possible—just as polygamous marriages are. That doesn't mean two people of the same gender can't be in a relationship, just as three people can't be in a relationship. It's just that those types of unions cannot be legally recognized!
Furthermore, in Advertisements, individuals are permitted to state their sexual orientation even if it refers to the same sex. The very term sexual orientation (though, in these ads, they usually just write "gay") implies something physical.
So, if a "gay" person writes that they are looking for a partner, that Advertisement is legitimate. But if a couple writes that they are looking for a third person, then that Advertisement isn't—meaning it requires deliberation. Yet, such relationships are equally unequal/equal before the law 🤷
Meadow goes on to say:
Regarding seeking out new people for the purpose of practicing open relationships, my colleague's stance is negative, and I find myself aligned with him. Not because we personally have an issue with such a lifestyle choice, but because such Advertisements are mostly predicated on finding others for the sake of sexual experimentation.
It’s the exact same thing.
For example:
Greetings!!
A 27-year-old, cute/hot little blonde girl is looking for a female for some hanging out, fun, excitement, and everything else that comes with it (two winking emojis)
I'm from Chicago, feeling fancy...
All other questions via DM
Thanks
Kisses everyone! :*
Here, you all concluded that it wasn't about seeking someone for sexual experimentation... My closed-ended question is: if, instead of describing a single girl, a description of a couple was used while keeping the rest of the text unchanged, would the situation be different?
Example two and the same closed question:
Girl looking for another, for something—we'll see via text or immediately—for what exactly? Movies, drinks, walking along the riverwalk, wandering through the park, all options are open
In my late twenties, located in New York City, I work, and I smile here and there
The main thing is that you are yourself, and that you don't have time for over-analyzing
Moving on:
Meadow writes:
Regarding seeking out new people for the purpose of practicing open relationships, my colleague's stance is negative, and I find myself aligned with him.
Just a few lines later, she writes that the moderators, including herself, are not being subjective 😕
Meadow:
Any kind of swinging, cuckold relationships, sexual experimentation outside of marriage/a relationship, FMM, MFF—no.
(Returning to the paragraph written in a different font regarding equality before the law)
And finally:
rustydrifter10 writes:
On US Advertisements, people look for others for hanging out, going out, talking, or even relationships or FF arrangements. However, it is not the same to write an Advertisement where various options are left open versus specifically asking someone for sex.
Auuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, "what would it even do" to write that?!
That is a total self-goal! 😂🤣
So, looking at the Advertisements here in the USA, apparently it's perfectly fine to hunt for an FWB connection... If I’m reading the fine print correctly—and let me just double-check my understanding—the whole core definition of that term is someone seeking either casual or ongoing sexual encounters. This means people can post ads that directly violate the rules, yet if they phrase things slightly indirectly (as you all so subjectively concluded in our little previous example), then suddenly the post gets nuked? 😕
I truly made a concerted effort to remain completely impartial here, holding back any personal bias until this specific portion of my argument!
I still maintain that there is a glaring issue with inconsistency, a lack of objectivity, and blatant discrimination happening, and honestly, I believe I’ve managed to lay it all out right here using nothing but cold, hard facts.
And you know what the truly hilarious part of this entire circus is? If I were to take nothing but the facts, the guidelines, and the conclusions you all laid out in that last discussion, I could easily whip up an ad that fits perfectly within your own logic—while being much more blunt about breaking that famous rule of yours...
My sincere apologies if you feel like I’m badgering you, really, I don't mean to! Truth be told, I actually find myself looking forward to your replies and starting a fresh debate. Though, naturally, I’d prefer it to be centered on the issue of discrimination... rather than just arguing over one controversial Advertisement.
But let’s just momentarily forget about that Advertisement...
What continues to baffle me are certain logical inconsistencies and contradictions.
I won't be basing this on my own personal musings here; instead, I am going to question yours—specifically, what you all have written.
First, I must offer a huge round of applause to the moderator, Meadow, for her sheer professionalism!
Meadow says:
I just consulted with my colleague who handles most of the Advertisements, and his stance is this: if there were actually a serious Advertisement from a couple living in a polygamous relationship, we would have to deliberate on how to handle it based on the specific wording and the implicit message being sent.
If we examine our Beautiful Our laws, we see that same-sex marriages are illegal—meaning they aren't possible—just as polygamous marriages are. That doesn't mean two people of the same gender can't be in a relationship, just as three people can't be in a relationship. It's just that those types of unions cannot be legally recognized!
Furthermore, in Advertisements, individuals are permitted to state their sexual orientation even if it refers to the same sex. The very term sexual orientation (though, in these ads, they usually just write "gay") implies something physical.
So, if a "gay" person writes that they are looking for a partner, that Advertisement is legitimate. But if a couple writes that they are looking for a third person, then that Advertisement isn't—meaning it requires deliberation. Yet, such relationships are equally unequal/equal before the law 🤷
Meadow goes on to say:
Regarding seeking out new people for the purpose of practicing open relationships, my colleague's stance is negative, and I find myself aligned with him. Not because we personally have an issue with such a lifestyle choice, but because such Advertisements are mostly predicated on finding others for the sake of sexual experimentation.
It’s the exact same thing.
For example:
Greetings!!
A 27-year-old, cute/hot little blonde girl is looking for a female for some hanging out, fun, excitement, and everything else that comes with it (two winking emojis)
I'm from Chicago, feeling fancy...
All other questions via DM
Thanks
Kisses everyone! :*
Here, you all concluded that it wasn't about seeking someone for sexual experimentation... My closed-ended question is: if, instead of describing a single girl, a description of a couple was used while keeping the rest of the text unchanged, would the situation be different?
Example two and the same closed question:
Girl looking for another, for something—we'll see via text or immediately—for what exactly? Movies, drinks, walking along the riverwalk, wandering through the park, all options are open
In my late twenties, located in New York City, I work, and I smile here and there
The main thing is that you are yourself, and that you don't have time for over-analyzing
Moving on:
Meadow writes:
Regarding seeking out new people for the purpose of practicing open relationships, my colleague's stance is negative, and I find myself aligned with him.
Just a few lines later, she writes that the moderators, including herself, are not being subjective 😕
Meadow:
Any kind of swinging, cuckold relationships, sexual experimentation outside of marriage/a relationship, FMM, MFF—no.
(Returning to the paragraph written in a different font regarding equality before the law)
And finally:
rustydrifter10 writes:
On US Advertisements, people look for others for hanging out, going out, talking, or even relationships or FF arrangements. However, it is not the same to write an Advertisement where various options are left open versus specifically asking someone for sex.
Auuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, "what would it even do" to write that?!
That is a total self-goal! 😂🤣
So, looking at the Advertisements here in the USA, apparently it's perfectly fine to hunt for an FWB connection... If I’m reading the fine print correctly—and let me just double-check my understanding—the whole core definition of that term is someone seeking either casual or ongoing sexual encounters. This means people can post ads that directly violate the rules, yet if they phrase things slightly indirectly (as you all so subjectively concluded in our little previous example), then suddenly the post gets nuked? 😕
I truly made a concerted effort to remain completely impartial here, holding back any personal bias until this specific portion of my argument!
I still maintain that there is a glaring issue with inconsistency, a lack of objectivity, and blatant discrimination happening, and honestly, I believe I’ve managed to lay it all out right here using nothing but cold, hard facts.
And you know what the truly hilarious part of this entire circus is? If I were to take nothing but the facts, the guidelines, and the conclusions you all laid out in that last discussion, I could easily whip up an ad that fits perfectly within your own logic—while being much more blunt about breaking that famous rule of yours...
My sincere apologies if you feel like I’m badgering you, really, I don't mean to! Truth be told, I actually find myself looking forward to your replies and starting a fresh debate. Though, naturally, I’d prefer it to be centered on the issue of discrimination... rather than just arguing over one controversial Advertisement.