Discrimination based on sexual orientation and lifestyle choices

Nicholas King said:Rather than resorting to arrogance or these weak attempts at being witty, it would be far more productive—and frankly, more interesting—to hear actual answers to specific questions:

- The moderator explicitly stated right here that there was absolutely nothing objectionable about an Advertisement where a woman is quite literally seeking physical contact. Yet, following this entire ordeal, even that post was removed. Did the moderator change her mind after the fact, or did she simply lose track of her own logic, or perhaps something else entirely?

- What is the tangible difference between that "problematic" post and the one where a married man is looking for "a woman who understands him"—an ad that has been sitting on the Classifieds for days now? Does the moderation team honestly believe a married man doesn't have options—or, more importantly, do they think a married man isn't looking for sex?

Any attempt at a similarly witty response—like the quote above, or some timely sarcasm aimed at the same two tired jokes—will serve as nothing more than a sign of total confusion and utter helplessness.

If you're really that curious, it’s "something else."

Where exactly in a request for physical contact did you read that they were asking for sex? How on earth did you interpret "physical contact" as being synonymous with sex? If that's how you personally view it, fine... but for most people, physical contact isn't sex.

Also, where in Nicole Ruiz's Advertisement did you see anything about it being for Lonely Hearts? How did you conclude that a couple—a man and a woman—looking for a woman for companionship falls under the category of the Lonely Hearts PDF?

Once you answer these two questions—and please, no sarcasm and no using those same two tired excuses you always use. Just give me a direct answer, just as concise as my questions:

1) How is physical contact the same thing as sex?
2) How does an advertisement where a couple is looking for a woman for sex fall under Lonely Hearts?

Only then can we continue this conversation. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you posted this comment while being completely lost and scattered.

So, it's definitely "something else." 🙂

Nicole Ruiz said:Completely irrelevant. 🤷

Well, if it's so irrelevant, why don't you just put your Advertisement right here?

Or maybe over here:

Actually, this spot might be your best bet since the audience there is mostly women.

Honestly, just post it in all three places. I mean, whatever, an Advertisement is an Advertisement, right? 🙂

Excuse me, but why exactly is it against the rules to solicit someone for sex, especially when seeking someone for a movie night followed by sex isn't a violation?😁

Ashley Bishop4 said:If you're really that curious, it’s "something else."

Where exactly in a request for physical contact did you read that they were asking for sex? How on earth did you interpret "physical contact" as being synonymous with sex? If that's how you personally view it, fine... but for most people, physical contact isn't sex.

Also, where in Nicole Ruiz's Advertisement did you see anything about it being for Lonely Hearts? How did you conclude that a couple—a man and a woman—looking for a woman for companionship falls under the category of the Lonely Hearts PDF?

Once you answer these two questions—and please, no sarcasm and no using those same two tired excuses you always use. Just give me a direct answer, just as concise as my questions:

1) How is physical contact the same thing as sex?
2) How does an advertisement where a couple is looking for a woman for sex fall under Lonely Hearts?

Only then can we continue this conversation. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you posted this comment while being completely lost and scattered.

So, it's definitely "something else." 🙂

The sheer depth of your misunderstanding regarding my questions is actually quite impressive.

I am not the one who claimed that physical contact is identical to sex. For those viewers who joined our broadcast later on, here is a brief chronology of events:

- A girl posted an Advertisement stating she was looking for physical contact without a relationship;
- Nicole Ruiz posted an Advertisement where he and his partner were looking for a "woman/girl who would hang out with us. Age doesn't matter! The important thing is that she also cares about her appearance, is relaxed, and is eager for hanging out, partying, and playing games together..."
- The first ad was declared absolutely indisputable based on the moderator's words, "I'm ready to apologize if I was wrong";
- The second ad was deleted;
- After all the drama was kicked up, the first ad was also deleted (that "I'll apologize if I was wrong" bit turned out to be nothing but hot air)

So, I am not questioning whether physical contact is the same as sex; rather, I find it unclear what the criteria are by which seeking physical contact isn't considered seeking sex, yet seeking a "girl to hang out with" is—and more importantly, I don't get how someone's request for physical contact suddenly becomes "seeking sex" and gets deleted after several days of it being fine.

Your second question is equally submerged in a total failure to grasp what was read. Aside from the fact that you are operating under the assumption that you know exactly how the couple in the disputed ad is undeniably seeking sex (just as you know that the girl seeking physical contact outside of a relationship actually just wants casual hand-holding), you are overlooking the fact that I am viewing the deletion of the disputed ad within the context of why other ads weren't deleted—in other words, my question isn't "why is this seeking sex and why isn't it a Lonely Hearts ad?", but rather "why is this seeking sex and not a Lonely Hearts ad, while an ad from a married man looking for a woman without prejudice isn't seeking sex and is a Lonely Hearts ad?".

But, even if you start trying to explain to me how it's okay for a married man to be lonely, but a couple in a relationship isn't allowed to be lonely, the question of all questions remains: since when was a rule introduced on the Lonely Hearts section where only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on any topic (and Advertisements are—I know, I'll shock you—just a very ordinary, standard topic)? Everything written in the introductory post of that section says "It is still open (topic, per LB) just because there are those who truly want to meet someone and they are allowed to do so here".

Here is a detailed explanation of how and why you haven't understood a single thing about my questions, along with detailed answers to yours—without the sarcasm or the evasive little jokes.

Only, I have no idea where you got the notion that I would want to continue this conversation with you at all? 😕

Nicholas King said:Rather than resorting to arrogance or these weak attempts at being witty, it would be far more productive—and frankly, more interesting—to hear actual answers to specific questions:

- The moderator explicitly stated right here that there was absolutely nothing objectionable about an Advertisement where a woman is quite literally seeking physical contact. Yet, following this entire ordeal, even that post was removed. Did the moderator change her mind after the fact, or did she simply lose track of her own logic, or perhaps something else entirely?

- What is the tangible difference between that "problematic" post and the one where a married man is looking for "a woman who understands him"—an ad that has been sitting on the Classifieds for days now? Does the moderation team honestly believe a married man doesn't have options—or, more importantly, do they think a married man isn't looking for sex?

Any attempt at a similarly witty response—like the quote above, or some timely sarcasm aimed at the same two tired jokes—will serve as nothing more than a sign of total confusion and utter helplessness.

it is entirely possible that

- what exactly is the tangible difference between the problematic post and an Advertisement where a married man is looking for "a woman who understands him"—an ad that has been sitting on the Classifieds for days now? Does the moderation team honestly believe a married man doesn't have options, or more specifically, do they think a married man isn't looking for sex?

well, no... I find myself in complete agreement with you on that point.

Nicole Ruiz said:I suppose if a girl—say, a college student—posts an ad saying she’s just looking for physical contact, that kind of thing is generally viewed as perfectly acceptable. However, if a male student were to post that exact same ad, I have a strong feeling it would be flagged or sanctioned almost instantly.
Furthermore, if a married man is out there looking for a woman, society tends to shrug its shoulders because having affairs is somehow socially tolerated, yet if a couple looks for a third, it’s suddenly treated as completely unacceptable, immoral, and just plain wrong...

Look, it’s possible that a specific ad might have slipped through the cracks due to a mistake or some sort of misjudgment, but if you're truly intent on posting these kinds of things, it might be more productive to reach out to the moderators for the romance and adult sections. Perhaps they could open up dedicated spaces where people can openly look for threesomes, group activities, physical intimacy, or whatever else is on their mind.

Jacob Wood9 said:Look, it’s possible that a specific ad might have slipped through the cracks due to a mistake or some sort of misjudgment, but if you're truly intent on posting these kinds of things, it might be more productive to reach out to the moderators for the romance and adult sections. Perhaps they could open up dedicated spaces where people can openly look for threesomes, group activities, physical intimacy, or whatever else is on their mind.

But that isn't even what this thread is about!!
What we are actually discussing here is the double standards, the hypocrisy, the total inconsistency, and that blatant intolerance fueled by the subjective worldviews of moderators who don't even seem to know how to consistently apply the very rules they wrote themselves... 🙂

Jacob Wood9 said:it is entirely possible that

- what exactly is the tangible difference between the problematic post and an Advertisement where a married man is looking for "a woman who understands him"—an ad that has been sitting on the Classifieds for days now? Does the moderation team honestly believe a married man doesn't have options, or more specifically, do they think a married man isn't looking for sex?

well, no... I find myself in complete agreement with you on that point.

Honestly, if you just follow this one thread regarding the Advertisements, the conclusion is pretty obvious: before you can even attempt to agree with me, you first have to reach an agreement with yourself.

Jacob Wood9 said:Look, it’s possible that a specific ad might have slipped through the cracks due to a mistake or some sort of misjudgment, but if you're truly intent on posting these kinds of things, it might be more productive to reach out to the moderators for the romance and adult sections. Perhaps they could open up dedicated spaces where people can openly look for threesomes, group activities, physical intimacy, or whatever else is on their mind.

That argument might actually hold water—at least regarding the subsequent deletion of physical contact—if the moderator, who so bravely stepped up to explain the criteria for publishing (or not), hadn't explicitly declared an Advertisement non-problematic only for it to be quietly pulled later, all while boldly promising an apology if she were mistaken—if only she had actually fulfilled that public promise.

But that’s only one part of the story: we still have our married gentleman who continues to unashamedly and messily look for a woman "on the side" without prejudice 🙄; and it remains entirely unclear what specific rule, criterion, or whatever it is, makes his post acceptable while Nicole Ruiz's is not.

No matter how much "oh, I really messed up, oh man, look what I did, oh wow, did you see that..." humor you try to throw at this banal fact, it’s still going to stick out like a sore thumb and remain glaringly obvious.

Nicholas King said:Honestly, if you just follow this one thread regarding the Advertisements, the conclusion is pretty obvious: before you can even attempt to agree with me, you first have to reach an agreement with yourself.

That argument might actually hold water—at least regarding the subsequent deletion of physical contact—if the moderator, who so bravely stepped up to explain the criteria for publishing (or not), hadn't explicitly declared an Advertisement non-problematic only for it to be quietly pulled later, all while boldly promising an apology if she were mistaken—if only she had actually fulfilled that public promise.

But that’s only one part of the story: we still have our married gentleman who continues to unashamedly and messily look for a woman "on the side" without prejudice 🙄; and it remains entirely unclear what specific rule, criterion, or whatever it is, makes his post acceptable while Nicole Ruiz's is not.

No matter how much "oh, I really messed up, oh man, look what I did, oh wow, did you see that..." humor you try to throw at this banal fact, it’s still going to stick out like a sore thumb and remain glaringly obvious.

this one was deleted too

Nicole Ruiz said:But that isn't even what this thread is about!!
What we are actually discussing here is the double standards, the hypocrisy, the total inconsistency, and that blatant intolerance fueled by the subjective worldviews of moderators who don't even seem to know how to consistently apply the very rules they wrote themselves... 🙂

Well, I suppose your Advertisement was what actually prompted us to go ahead and redefine the rules.

Nicholas King said:The sheer depth of your misunderstanding regarding my questions is actually quite impressive.

I am not the one who claimed that physical contact is identical to sex. For those viewers who joined our broadcast later on, here is a brief chronology of events:

- A girl posted an Advertisement stating she was looking for physical contact without a relationship;
- Nicole Ruiz posted an Advertisement where he and his partner were looking for a "woman/girl who would hang out with us. Age doesn't matter! The important thing is that she also cares about her appearance, is relaxed, and is eager for hanging out, partying, and playing games together..."
- The first ad was declared absolutely indisputable based on the moderator's words, "I'm ready to apologize if I was wrong";
- The second ad was deleted;
- After all the drama was kicked up, the first ad was also deleted (that "I'll apologize if I was wrong" bit turned out to be nothing but hot air)

So, I am not questioning whether physical contact is the same as sex; rather, I find it unclear what the criteria are by which seeking physical contact isn't considered seeking sex, yet seeking a "girl to hang out with" is—and more importantly, I don't get how someone's request for physical contact suddenly becomes "seeking sex" and gets deleted after several days of it being fine.

Your second question is equally submerged in a total failure to grasp what was read. Aside from the fact that you are operating under the assumption that you know exactly how the couple in the disputed ad is undeniably seeking sex (just as you know that the girl seeking physical contact outside of a relationship actually just wants casual hand-holding), you are overlooking the fact that I am viewing the deletion of the disputed ad within the context of why other ads weren't deleted—in other words, my question isn't "why is this seeking sex and why isn't it a Lonely Hearts ad?", but rather "why is this seeking sex and not a Lonely Hearts ad, while an ad from a married man looking for a woman without prejudice isn't seeking sex and is a Lonely Hearts ad?".

But, even if you start trying to explain to me how it's okay for a married man to be lonely, but a couple in a relationship isn't allowed to be lonely, the question of all questions remains: since when was a rule introduced on the Lonely Hearts section where only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on any topic (and Advertisements are—I know, I'll shock you—just a very ordinary, standard topic)? Everything written in the introductory post of that section says "It is still open (topic, per LB) just because there are those who truly want to meet someone and they are allowed to do so here".

Here is a detailed explanation of how and why you haven't understood a single thing about my questions, along with detailed answers to yours—without the sarcasm or the evasive little jokes.

Only, I have no idea where you got the notion that I would want to continue this conversation with you at all? 😕

It wasn't even you saying that—Nicole Ruiz was the one who made the claim. You're just jumping all over the place trying to back her up... honestly, it's a bit much!

Nicholas King said:The sheer depth of your misunderstanding regarding my questions is actually quite impressive.

I am not the one who claimed that physical contact is identical to sex. For those viewers who joined our broadcast later on, here is a brief chronology of events:

- A girl posted an Advertisement stating she was looking for physical contact without a relationship;
- Nicole Ruiz posted an Advertisement where he and his partner were looking for a "woman/girl who would hang out with us. Age doesn't matter! The important thing is that she also cares about her appearance, is relaxed, and is eager for hanging out, partying, and playing games together..."
- The first ad was declared absolutely indisputable based on the moderator's words, "I'm ready to apologize if I was wrong";
- The second ad was deleted;
- After all the drama was kicked up, the first ad was also deleted (that "I'll apologize if I was wrong" bit turned out to be nothing but hot air)

So, I am not questioning whether physical contact is the same as sex; rather, I find it unclear what the criteria are by which seeking physical contact isn't considered seeking sex, yet seeking a "girl to hang out with" is—and more importantly, I don't get how someone's request for physical contact suddenly becomes "seeking sex" and gets deleted after several days of it being fine.

Your second question is equally submerged in a total failure to grasp what was read. Aside from the fact that you are operating under the assumption that you know exactly how the couple in the disputed ad is undeniably seeking sex (just as you know that the girl seeking physical contact outside of a relationship actually just wants casual hand-holding), you are overlooking the fact that I am viewing the deletion of the disputed ad within the context of why other ads weren't deleted—in other words, my question isn't "why is this seeking sex and why isn't it a Lonely Hearts ad?", but rather "why is this seeking sex and not a Lonely Hearts ad, while an ad from a married man looking for a woman without prejudice isn't seeking sex and is a Lonely Hearts ad?".

But, even if you start trying to explain to me how it's okay for a married man to be lonely, but a couple in a relationship isn't allowed to be lonely, the question of all questions remains: since when was a rule introduced on the Lonely Hearts section where only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on any topic (and Advertisements are—I know, I'll shock you—just a very ordinary, standard topic)? Everything written in the introductory post of that section says "It is still open (topic, per LB) just because there are those who truly want to meet someone and they are allowed to do so here".

Here is a detailed explanation of how and why you haven't understood a single thing about my questions, along with detailed answers to yours—without the sarcasm or the evasive little jokes.

Only, I have no idea where you got the notion that I would want to continue this conversation with you at all? 😕

It’s not that you should be questioning it—it’s just that you haven't quite wrapped your head around it yet. 🤦

Look, you didn't actually answer my questions—and I asked for them to be brief and to the point. You still haven't explained why you consider physical contact to be sex, or how a threesome setup even fits into the logic of US Advertisements.
Instead, you're just circling around, stuttering, and hiding behind everyone else's opinions and impressions.

And supposedly, they’re all just out there searching for some kind of freedom and justice.

Look, if you don't want to talk to me because you aren't interested in anything I have to say, then fine—have it your way. Consider this your freedom and your right to walk away. 🙂I’m going to throw another riddle your way. This one is a bit easier, though I’m still holding out a little hope that you might actually wrap your head around it this time! So, we've got two different scenarios here:

So, she’s looking for some physical touch. Honestly? It's pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.
So, this guy's out here looking for a threesome.

Look, I’ll make this easy for you—I’m just going to lay it out exactly as it is. 😵So, looking at your black-and-white chess Swiss system—how do you think these two situations stack up?

Either way, they both just mean someone's looking for sex.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: saying "either this or nothing" doesn't automatically mean someone is hunting for sex. It's just not that simple.

So, looking at it again—if that first point is actually right, then neither of these Advertisements even qualify as US under the rules.
If that second point is actually true, then I won’t disqualify them based on that specific rule. But if we’re going by the other rule—the one involving the actual logic of the US Forum—then I’m out. I’m disqualifying that second option because it just doesn't make sense. You can't have a "Lonely Heart" when there are two hearts involved. One isn't two, you know? Surely you can agree with me on that! 🤷

At the end of the day, I might say—maybe if I were feeling a bit cynical—that you weren't actually fighting to get that girl's Advertisement reinstated. Looking at how you've written everything, it’s pretty clear that you don't actually care that the post was deleted.

Wait, so you don't actually care about people having their advertisements removed? It seems like you aren't even concerned about the ads themselves—you're just obsessed with pointing out how unfair the moderators are. And does it really not bother you if an entire thread, one that’s actually helpful to a ton of people, gets completely ruined because of this? You just don't care at all, do you?

@Ashley Bishop4
If I follow your logic—that only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on the US Forum—then I guess that means only people obsessed with romance or sex are allowed to post on LJES!?
PS: In my humble opinion, the moderators here are fighting a losing battle; they’re just digging themselves into a deeper hole with every move they make.
That Advertisement was deleted unfairly. There were already more than enough arguments provided for anyone actually paying attention.

Jacob Wood9 said:this one was deleted too

How yes no.

I suppose Plan B is surely about to kick in—you know, the whole routine about how moderators can't be online 24/7, how they’re just volunteers, and all that nonsense. It’s a complete distraction from the actual issue—which is that the Advertisement has been up for four days straight, yet today's duplicate was wiped out despite the author explicitly stating it was a repost—so, frankly, trying to argue that we're being selective with deletions is a losing battle. A day where someone finally just writes a simple sentence like, "Yeah, we messed up, it happens, let's move on"—after which absolutely nothing else would occur—is clearly still a long way off (not to mention that promised apology from that brave female moderator who vanished without a trace right after deleting the Advertisement she had previously declared perfectly fine, to say nothing of anything else).

It's much easier to spend days typing out how 2+2=5.

Jack Ward82 said:@Ashley Bishop4
If I follow your logic—that only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on the US Forum—then I guess that means only people obsessed with romance or sex are allowed to post on LJES!?
PS: In my humble opinion, the moderators here are fighting a losing battle; they’re just digging themselves into a deeper hole with every move they make.
That Advertisement was deleted unfairly. There were already more than enough arguments provided for anyone actually paying attention.

Is it LJES or just plain old "Loves"?

So, how exactly did you jump to the conclusion that because Lonely Hearts post Advertisements on the US Forum, then everyone posting on the LJES Forum must be someone who just lives for LJES?
That makes zero sense. 🤷

Jack Ward82 said:@Ashley Bishop4
If I follow your logic—that only Lonely Hearts are allowed to post on the US Forum—then I guess that means only people obsessed with romance or sex are allowed to post on LJES!?
PS: In my humble opinion, the moderators here are fighting a losing battle; they’re just digging themselves into a deeper hole with every move they make.
That Advertisement was deleted unfairly. There were already more than enough arguments provided for anyone actually paying attention.

Oh, please. 😁
It’s pretty obvious you didn't even bother reading the very first post in this thread. It clearly states there was no explicit solicitation for sex and absolutely no trolling going on. 👍

Ashley Bishop4 said:Is it LJES or just plain old "Loves"?

So, how exactly did you jump to the conclusion that because Lonely Hearts post Advertisements on the US Forum, then everyone posting on the LJES Forum must be someone who just lives for LJES?
That makes zero sense. 🤷

Oh, please. 😁
It’s pretty obvious you didn't even bother reading the very first post in this thread. It clearly states there was no explicit solicitation for sex and absolutely no trolling going on. 👍

It seems like you don't quite grasp what the word "explicit" actually implies, or is that the issue?

Nicholas King said:It seems like you don't quite grasp what the word "explicit" actually implies, or is that the issue?

🙂 clearly didn't read the very first post in this thread 😂 😂 😂

My bad! Here is a quick snippet from that original post:

3. No soliciting or requesting sex, no trolling (we need to keep things civil), and please don't comment on the Advertisements within this thread. If an Advertisement catches your eye, just send that person a private message.

So, it doesn't actually say "explicitly" anywhere. I was just testing to see how much you guys actually knew about the rules you were criticizing.😳

This is a formal complaint regarding discrimination.
Look:
Nicole Ruiz is filing a grievance because her Advertisement was nuked for allegedly soliciting sex (and yeah, let’s be real, sex was being solicited). But here’s the kicker: there are plenty of other Advertisements on this exact same thread—check the quotes in the opening post—that are doing the exact same thing without getting slapped. This is textbook discrimination.
What part of this is confusing? Why does one person get a pass while another gets targeted? The post wasn't vulgar, it wasn't trolling, and the request wasn't handled in some crude way meant to offend anyone or ruin the "professionalism" of the PDF. It deserved to stay up... ☕

Nicholas King said:How yes no.

I suppose Plan B is surely about to kick in—you know, the whole routine about how moderators can't be online 24/7, how they’re just volunteers, and all that nonsense. It’s a complete distraction from the actual issue—which is that the Advertisement has been up for four days straight, yet today's duplicate was wiped out despite the author explicitly stating it was a repost—so, frankly, trying to argue that we're being selective with deletions is a losing battle. A day where someone finally just writes a simple sentence like, "Yeah, we messed up, it happens, let's move on"—after which absolutely nothing else would occur—is clearly still a long way off (not to mention that promised apology from that brave female moderator who vanished without a trace right after deleting the Advertisement she had previously declared perfectly fine, to say nothing of anything else).

It's much easier to spend days typing out how 2+2=5.

My bad, clicked the wrong thing

It's deleted now

Thanks for helping out; if you spot another one, let me know

Ashley Bishop4 said:It wasn't even you saying that—Nicole Ruiz was the one who made the claim. You're just jumping all over the place trying to back her up... honestly, it's a bit much!

It’s not that you should be questioning it—it’s just that you haven't quite wrapped your head around it yet. 🤦

Look, you didn't actually answer my questions—and I asked for them to be brief and to the point. You still haven't explained why you consider physical contact to be sex, or how a threesome setup even fits into the logic of US Advertisements.
Instead, you're just circling around, stuttering, and hiding behind everyone else's opinions and impressions.

And supposedly, they’re all just out there searching for some kind of freedom and justice.

Look, if you don't want to talk to me because you aren't interested in anything I have to say, then fine—have it your way. Consider this your freedom and your right to walk away. 🙂I’m going to throw another riddle your way. This one is a bit easier, though I’m still holding out a little hope that you might actually wrap your head around it this time! So, we've got two different scenarios here:

So, she’s looking for some physical touch. Honestly? It's pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.
So, this guy's out here looking for a threesome.

Look, I’ll make this easy for you—I’m just going to lay it out exactly as it is. 😵So, looking at your black-and-white chess Swiss system—how do you think these two situations stack up?

Either way, they both just mean someone's looking for sex.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: saying "either this or nothing" doesn't automatically mean someone is hunting for sex. It's just not that simple.

So, looking at it again—if that first point is actually right, then neither of these Advertisements even qualify as US under the rules.
If that second point is actually true, then I won’t disqualify them based on that specific rule. But if we’re going by the other rule—the one involving the actual logic of the US Forum—then I’m out. I’m disqualifying that second option because it just doesn't make sense. You can't have a "Lonely Heart" when there are two hearts involved. One isn't two, you know? Surely you can agree with me on that! 🤷

At the end of the day, I might say—maybe if I were feeling a bit cynical—that you weren't actually fighting to get that girl's Advertisement reinstated. Looking at how you've written everything, it’s pretty clear that you don't actually care that the post was deleted.

Wait, so you don't actually care about people having their advertisements removed? It seems like you aren't even concerned about the ads themselves—you're just obsessed with pointing out how unfair the moderators are. And does it really not bother you if an entire thread, one that’s actually helpful to a ton of people, gets completely ruined because of this? You just don't care at all, do you?

Nah, we don't...

And that's really the core issue with your posts... everything else just becomes irrelevant because it’s all built on a fundamentally flawed premise... 😉

If you really want to insist that everyone needs to play dumb and start philosophizing about how "physical touch" doesn't necessarily have to mean sex, then let's just look at the reality of the situation...

So, she’s out here asking for "physical touch"...

So, some guy is out there looking for someone who’s just "chill and down for hanging out, partying, and gaming together"...

So, they aren't exactly hunting for sex... at least nothing more explicit than those people looking for "physical touch" or married guys searching for a "woman without prejudices"...

So, what you're saying is...
How exactly did you manage to convince yourself that hanging out and having a good time is somehow the same thing as sex... because if that’s your logic, you're living in a completely different reality than the rest of us, since most people don't view socializing as an intimate act...

To me, it’s crystal clear that both Advertisements are just looking for sex... I can wrap my head around someone arguing that neither one is about sex, but claiming one definitely is while the other might not be? That just feels like someone's playing games... 🙂

If the admin mentioned a few pages back that people shouldn't be overtly seeking sex in their Advertisements and should just mind their phrasing, I have to wonder: why should any of us care what kind of companionship others are looking for? Truly, why does it matter?

We are talking about Lonely Hearts here, and everyone has their own unique way of being lonely and their own specific voids to fill. It is perfectly legal, and frankly, it falls outside our jurisdiction—or anyone else's for that matter. It seems quite absurd to suggest that one person has the right to edit someone else's personal criteria, unless those criteria explicitly state something like "I want to hook up" or "I'm looking for sex"—assuming, of course, that such directness isn't already deemed inappropriate for some reason (even though being upfront about needs is a healthy, normal part of most successful dates, but let's stay on track).

Following that line of logic, you would essentially be banning eighty-five percent of the articles and features found in any major print or digital media outlet today.
Do you realize how much that would tank viewership and readership? The impact would be massive.

I fail to see why a site like US Forum would radically diminish its own engagement by enforcing the personal preferences of moderators and stripping away the right to diversity in what people seek.