• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Grindr says no to "No fatties, no femmes, no Asians": when gay sex apps go woke.

 
 
 
M

Metaphor

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
12,378
A few years ago, profiles on Grindr (the most popular location-based "dating" app for men who are seeking sex or "relationships" with other men) would sometimes be very upfront about what the user wanted--as well as what he didn't want. Profiles would often say, quite bluntly, things like "no fats/chubs, be age appropriate, not into Asians". (Be "age appropriate" means "don't be older than me"). Other profiles might express the opposite: where "ethnic" men (usually meaning black, Asian, or Latino) should get "to the front of the line" or looking for femmes specifically.

But, rather than let men be direct about what they wanted, the Grindr powers that be got upset that men had preferences and had the gall to express them, and it launched a "Kinder" campaign. Direct references to what someone did not want were forbidden. Instead, Grindr suggested profiles should say what the person did want. In the febrile woke dreams of Grindr's restless sleep, saying "whites only", "fit men only", or "masc4masc" was better than saying "no blacks", "no fatties" and "no femmes".

Or, more likely, this campaign merely caused more people to message others fruitlessly (when they had no chance), and everyone had more of their time wasted, and nobody's feelings were spared.

Don't get me wrong - Grindr is a private company and it's free to indulge in its own ill-thought-out policies. It's just another chapter in the Church of the Great Awokening, which, like any religion, offers nothing but false hope and false gods.
 
As a gay non-femme non-fattie, of Irish and Norwegian descent who is "age appropriate" for anyone from 25 to 45, I think this might be a pretty decent idea to discourage these kinds of discriminations.

I get that sometimes people have preferences. I think, largely, that it's not really productive to cater exclusively to percieved preference. Discouraging "seeking perfection" is probably the right move in a community that is too focused on the physical in the first place
 
If someone's deeply offended by people who are thinking "no fatties" it seems like it would be useful to know who is and isn't thinking "no fatties".

In general when you're trying to make good matches and avoid bad matches the immortal words of Emil Faber apply: "knowledge is good".
 
dismal said:
If someone's deeply offended by people who are thinking "no fatties" it seems like it would be useful to know who is and isn't thinking "no fatties".

In general when you're trying to make good matches and avoid bad matches the immortal words of Emil Faber apply: "knowledge is good".
Click to expand...

It would be a nice feature to have one be able to select those options so that the code can then have everyone else on the app not see anyone who selected those options. Just make the whole place a much more pleasant experience.
 
Isn't the whole point of these sites to find potential matches for sex? For dating sites in general whether straight or gay people should be able to post what they consider a "hard no". That way people who fall into that "hard no" category know not to waste each other's time. I think it's a dumb idea, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people on said site to prohibit people to post their "hard noes". PC doesn't change preferences nor does it restore lost time.
 
Last edited:
Tom Sawyer said:
dismal said:
If someone's deeply offended by people who are thinking "no fatties" it seems like it would be useful to know who is and isn't thinking "no fatties".

In general when you're trying to make good matches and avoid bad matches the immortal words of Emil Faber apply: "knowledge is good".
Click to expand...

It would be a nice feature to have one be able to select those options so that the code can then have everyone else on the app not see anyone who selected those options. Just make the whole place a much more pleasant experience.
Click to expand...

So just make them cleverly named labels for the "shadowban myself" option?
 
Terrell said:
Isn't the whole point of these sites to find potential matches for sex? For dating sites in general whether straight or gay people should be able to post what they consider a "hard no". That way people who fall into that "hard no" category know not to waste each other's time. I think it's a dumb idea, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people on said site to prohibit people to post their "hard noes". PC doesn't change preferences nor does it restore lost time.
Click to expand...

Maybe they just don't want to cater to people who use things like "fatties", "femmes" and "asians" as a "hard no".

Maybe they can make a new platform together, "SHITr"
 
Jarhyn said:
Terrell said:
Isn't the whole point of these sites to find potential matches for sex? For dating sites in general whether straight or gay people should be able to post what they consider a "hard no". That way people who fall into that "hard no" category know not to waste each other's time. I think it's a dumb idea, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people on said site to prohibit people to post their "hard noes". PC doesn't change preferences nor does it restore lost time.
Click to expand...

Maybe they just don't want to cater to people who use things like "fatties", "femmes" and "asians" as a "hard no".

Maybe they can make a new platform together, "SHITr"
Click to expand...

No. Shitr is for the kinky people seeking being pooped and peed on.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Jarhyn said:
Terrell said:
Isn't the whole point of these sites to find potential matches for sex? For dating sites in general whether straight or gay people should be able to post what they consider a "hard no". That way people who fall into that "hard no" category know not to waste each other's time. I think it's a dumb idea, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people on said site to prohibit people to post their "hard noes". PC doesn't change preferences nor does it restore lost time.
Click to expand...

Maybe they just don't want to cater to people who use things like "fatties", "femmes" and "asians" as a "hard no".

Maybe they can make a new platform together, "SHITr"
Click to expand...

No. Shitr is for the kinky people seeking being pooped and peed on.
Click to expand...

I have no problem taking a shit on people who place a hard no on race.
 
Is it racist to have racial preferences for who you want to boink? Is it racist to not find people of a particular race sexually attractive?
 
dismal said:
If someone's deeply offended by people who are thinking "no fatties" it seems like it would be useful to know who is and isn't thinking "no fatties".

In general when you're trying to make good matches and avoid bad matches the immortal words of Emil Faber apply: "knowledge is good".
Click to expand...

Having preferences at all is an offense against intersectionality.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhmZfzBSR0Y[/youtube]
 
Jarhyn said:
Terrell said:
Isn't the whole point of these sites to find potential matches for sex? For dating sites in general whether straight or gay people should be able to post what they consider a "hard no". That way people who fall into that "hard no" category know not to waste each other's time. I think it's a dumb idea, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people on said site to prohibit people to post their "hard noes". PC doesn't change preferences nor does it restore lost time.
Click to expand...

Maybe they just don't want to cater to people who use things like "fatties", "femmes" and "asians" as a "hard no".

Maybe they can make a new platform together, "SHITr"
Click to expand...

That also means fewer customers, whether it's funded by ads or it's members. You'd think that dating sites are in the game to make money; like any other business.

Why is it necessary to insult people for saying I have these specific deal breakers? It spares their time & the time of those who would want to get with them but have no chance whatsoever? Is there a specific way they can word "If you're X; you have no chance" that the PC crowd won't find offensive? IF so what is said phrase & why?

IMO it's a bad business decision, for a dating site, to expect people to refrain from saying these specific people aren't my type. Should a guy/gal on a site that allows all orientations be expected to refrain from saying "No gays" or "no straights"? If so why?

If it were a heterosexual or all orientations, dating service, would it be okay for women to say any of the following:
  1. You must be over 6'
  2. No romance without finance.
  3. No game players
  4. No younger than X
  5. No older than X
  6. No Fat guys/gals
  7. No dudes
  8. No chicks
  9. No transsexuals.
If they choose to state their preferences bluntly should women be deplatformed? If it's okay for women to state preferences, bluntly, why is it not okay for men to do the same?
 
Orgasms are a powerful reinforcing agent.
Cum with a particular looking person a few times and you get imprinted.

This is orgasm cross training. Cum with various looks.

This really is for the best.

0_qjEhkS9bSxTygijk.png

State enforced ^interracial^ homosexuality
 
One day we'll look back and shudder about the way the anti-"no fatties" bigots persecuted, shat on, and drove people into the closet merely for trying to be themselves and pursue consensual sex with people of their own preference.
 
Politesse said:
Their platform, their rules.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I kind of want to know, what do the people critical of GRINDr over this decision to ban behavior think of, say, a conservative forum that bans anyone who posts anything that acknowledges climate change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom