Jump to content

I only want to meet other women that are REAL!


46 replies to this topic

#1
lesbotronic

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 191 posts
After reading a LOT of profiles that specify this as a requirement . . . we think we really don't know what "REAL" actually means.

Well. We can sort of imagine those specifying this don't wish to be with someone who lies on a regular basis, or ever lies about anything really important.

Like, don't say you're a licensed veterinarian, then when someone asks you about their cat's emergency medical problem say WHOOPS, oh no, I'm not actually a vet at all, I have no idea about your kitty. Uh Oh! Sorry I'm such an ass that I lied!

Or SURE, I didn't have any alcohol today, I'm fine to drive except WHOOPS, now I wrecked the car because I'm a big lying drunkiepants and now I'm going to jail. Nope!

Or, I'm totally single, I'm totally free to date whomever I like except WHOOPS there's my girlfriend/husband/whatever and I gotta go!

Not good either.

But if lying is the bad thing, why not just ask for someone that is honest? The liars might still respond ('cause that's what liars will do), but at least you'd be clear that's what you meant.

Other than the avoidance of big huge lies, what does "REAL" actually mean?

If someone doesn't tell lies, are they "REAL?" Is that enough?

If not, then what else does it mean?

Can someone who is not "REAL" get that way later? What exactly would that entail?

Thinking about whomever you imagine to NOT be "REAL" . . . would they agree with you?

Would anyone that is NOT "REAL" agree that that is so?

Or does every human on the planet imagine themselves to be "REAL?"

Thoughts and clarifications most appreciated, thanks.

#2
RedFish

  • Members
  • 1 posts
I took this to mean that it's a preference for cisgendered women, and so the profile owner would not be interested in dating MTFs. I take it as a type of transphobia, but I could be reading it wrong.

#3
lesbotronic

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 191 posts
Thanks for responding, RedFish. You know, that's an excellent hypothesis. And it's likely correct for some of the profiles.

But we have about 4000 profiles saying something along the lines of the above. Somehow it seems more . . . basic or personality-based, for many.

Also, the site profiles already clearly allow you to specify yourself as cisgendered and that you only wish to hear from other cisgendered subscribers, if you so choose. This is not to say that some subscribers might still express some transphobic sentiment in their profiles anyhow, but it's just so . . . unnecessary, you know?

I mean, you already do NOT have to hear from anyone trans if you don't wanna. No need to natter on and on about it ANYWAY.

But yeah, transphobia, probably an issue for some. Still wondering about the rest . . .

#4
Farandolae

  • Members
  • 14 posts
I had the same thought as RedFish at first -- transphobia. Which I think is likely the case for some. But that's a whole lot of profiles.

From my perspective, the only way to know for sure is to ask and see if there are patterns in the responses. Which I'm sure you all have time to do - not.

I'm not sure how much I like that my inner research nerd just came out for this. Now I'm like, "Wow, something's going on and wouldn't it be interesting to find out more about it!"

Anyway, given the somewhat annoying presence of my inner research nerd, I can't speculate. Just -- very interesting, whatever is going on.

#5
Rural Technophile

  • Members
  • 10 posts
I think the whole "real" thing may just be a response to the recent cultural backlash against superficiality. Not that long ago you couldn't be considered attractive without fakery. Fake breasts, fake noses, botox, laser optic, capped teeth, not to mention an off the shelf attitude and personality.

About the time that the economy started tanking, suddenly people started being offended by all the fake faces, fake bodies, and fake personalities and started shifting their attention to less plastic people.

Hollywood and television started importing actors from the UK to get a few faces which hadn't been surgically altered to look identical to every other actor's face. It started to be easier to sell things with the idea of reality than with the idea of fantasy. Now this is just a pendulum swing like every other mass phenomenon, but while it is heaving in this direction, people in general will associate cool with real and fake with uncool.

Since most people don't think about this sort of thing and instead just regurgitate whatever semantic bits are most common in their social group at any given time, it seems very likely that statements about "real" things being desirable would be common place.

But maybe I'm just over thinking it?

#6
lesbotronic

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 191 posts
Thanks for your responses, Farandolae and Rural Technophile. :)

Quote

From my perspective, the only way to know for sure is to ask and see if there are patterns in the responses. Which I'm sure you all have time to do - not.

Yeah, we'd have to do a massive email on that, and compile the responses. We've got some inner research nerd going on too (else, why would we even wonder?) but no, no enough time for that right now. We've done a massive email request for feedback and compiled responses in the past for some previous questions that seemed important, mainly about some of the stuff on the profile questionnaire. Sadly, right NOW, just the general site maintenance and new profile approval has us pretty slammed and exhausted. We were really hoping some of those who insisted on the "realness" might clarify their perspective here. But obviously so far, not so much.

Rural Technophile, very fascinating perspective! A shift within Hollywood and subsequent TV programming in relation to the economy hadn't occurred to us at all. Hmmmm. I guess we HADN'T thought about that sort of thing. ?? But if that's "over thinking," please do keep it up, it's marvelous. :)

We were also wondering if "realness" was something that could be more objectively or specifically defined on the part of those requesting it . . . or if it was more like we've come to view "sense of humor." Meaning, that everyone seems to think they have a "good" sense of humor, such that requesting someone that does in a personals profile is virtually meaningless. The only thing to do is be more specific about what you mean by "good," then look for that, such that the descriptive phrase, "good sense of humor" then becomes fairly useless.

But again, still pretty confused about "realness," since the massive insistence that one must possess it is relatively new for us, profile review-wise.

Thanks again for your feedback!

#7
angelica

  • Members
  • 3 posts
Mm, I've a few times seen people on message boards mention bad experiences with dating sites (certain ones being named as specifically bad) in terms of lots of profiles being literally fake; usually, a particular kind of man masquerading as female to fulfil xyz creepy desire - ogle specifically lesbian women, try to strike up lesbian sexychat, even lure someone out into public, whatever. I've not generally got the impression that the people in question were making disgusting references to trans women, but people who identify as men who want to prey on queer women in some sense.

... Other than that, yeah, I'm sure transphobia accounts for a number. And perhaps often "real" as a synonym for "genuine"? Which is still pretty nebulous, but I'd have thought usually lies somewhere in the realm of: no bullshit&lies, no hidden agendas, no power games, no pretensions etc. I'd have thought that most people with any significant relationship history to speak of would've come across at least one aspect of all that at some point (more, certainly, than will have knowingly had any romantic experiences with any trans people - and those that have known anyone trans to any significant degree are, I'm fairly sure, less likely to spew that kind of bigotry anyway), which I'd have thought would go some way to explaining its prevalence.

#8
lesbotronic

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 191 posts
OK, still interested in exploring this, since the profiles expressing concern regarding "REAL" do keep pouring in.

To review, the lovely peeps that have been clever enough to comment thus far have expressed a variety of opinions on what "REAL" actually means, either for those wanting to meet others that are "REAL," declaring oneself "REAL," or both. Those include:

1. people who do not lie, at least not very often, or about anything important
2. NOT males (assigned male at birth, still ID as male currently) masquerading as female in an attempt to fool queer women (similar to number 1, but number 1 might include different sorts of lies)
3. cisgendered women (but we reiterate our distaste for this one on multiple levels, please see previous)
4. NOT an excess of (or any?) strictly cosmetic surgical alteration, including altered noses, botox, and/or homogenized teeth
5. no hidden agendas or undisclosed, non-consensual power games
6. regurgitation of "REAL" because it's popular, without much if any actual, well-thought out meaning behind use of the word

If anyone else would like to share a different opinion on what "REAL" means, we're still open to hearing it!

But meanwhile, we're still wondering about some of our original questions, like:

Thinking about whomever you imagine to NOT be "REAL" . . . would they agree with you?

Would anyone that is NOT "REAL" (according the definitions above, or another one (please express that)) agree that that is so?

Or does every human on the planet imagine themselves to be "REAL?"

Any more thoughts appreciated, thanks!

#9
LizzieLou

  • Posting Members (3 or more)
  • 27 posts
Got 2 B Real?

I think your best answer there is #6: because of its common usage but then ultimately meaningless because of everyone's thinking that they are real. Not in the metaphysical sense like... Wow. I'm real? but in the "I'm just me! I'm so real!" kind of way.

Of course, I can't really say everyone thinks that way. I do not think I am real at all. I am actually ...

1. a pretty big liar most of the time
2. definitely have a hidden agenda
3. completely filled with botox from head to toe, and
4. not popular enough to be real, except in my own mind where I am the most real and the most cool.

#10
jomomma

  • Members
  • 7 posts
I too have seen and hear the term "real" many many times. I have even used it a time or two. I may be off but I would like to share my opinion of real, at least as it fits when I use it.

People are constantly trying to be someone. Starting early in life, we learn that in order to have friends, be successful etc, we have to fit into a certain standard set forth by society. Wear the right clothes, listen to the right music, watch the right movies, etc. At some point, many people lose who they are in order to fit the "norm". Often times in relationships, one person will change their thoughts, opinions, feelings, likes, dislikes, etc. to more closely match whoever they happen to be with. The problem is that over time the person you are with is no longer the person you fell for.

I want someone to be an independent thinker. If we do not agree on something, so be it. Stick to your guns. Stand up for what you believe in. If I wanted someone to always agree with me I would seek out those kind of people.

So for me, real is someone who stands up for what they beleive, is honest with themself about their likes and dislikes een if I do not agree and is willing to share the differences rather than always trying to make sure they are liked





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users