Online "Commitment" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News



Message

Mercnbeth -> Online "Commitment" (11/15/2004 1:16:11 PM)

Attention Moderators: Keep an eye out for a new CM profile from this guy!

A middle-aged Romeo has been banned from an Internet dating service for his "lack of commitment" — after officials discovered he bedded more than 100 women he met online.

Ex-miner Clive Worth, 55, of Llanelli, Wales, had 119 dates over five years through DatingDirect.com and admits sleeping with most of them.

"I'm gutted about being kicked out," he said. "I've done nothing wrong . . . It's just that I haven't met the right woman yet."



sub4hire -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/15/2004 1:52:11 PM)

Banned from one, time to move onto another online dating service.
Whatever happened to scruples and not having sex at first meeting?
He'd be out of business if he ran into women like that.



EStrict -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/15/2004 10:02:50 PM)

Being a devil's advocate, why should he not be allowed on here? There are many not looking for commitment (look at all of those who are married and need *discrete* meetings). I'm betting there are also those who are *only* looking for sex in the world.

Don't get me wrong, *if* a condition of the site was that you were to be looking for a commited relationship, he should have been banned. If it was just a way to meet others though, I'm with Gloria. Unless he was raping the women he did nothing they didn't agree to.



Yankeestick -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/16/2004 12:31:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Attention Moderators: Keep an eye out for a new CM profile from this guy!

A middle-aged Romeo has been banned from an Internet dating service for his "lack of commitment" — after officials discovered he bedded more than 100 women he met online.

Ex-miner Clive Worth, 55, of Llanelli, Wales, had 119 dates over five years through DatingDirect.com and admits sleeping with most of them.

"I'm gutted about being kicked out," he said. "I've done nothing wrong . . . It's just that I haven't met the right woman yet."


Merc, you're losing me on this one. What's the problem?

All I can see is: the guy's fucked about 20 different women a year, for the past 5 years, if you do the math. About one every two weeks.

So what?

Did he give 'em all AIDS? Steal their money? Beat them to a bloody pulp? What's the predatory behavior here?

You sound like as a conservative/libertarian self-reliance type, from reading you're posts elsewhere. So why the sex police routine?

What's it all about, Alfie? [sm=rolleyes.gif]

Best,

Yankeestick



INSIDEYOURMIND -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/16/2004 3:56:43 AM)

I will not speak for Merc, but I am sure that his profile rang strong about commitment, and his search for the "one". I am sure it used all the right words to make these women think he was the right guy for them.
Being a Dom, or Master is supposed to be a honorable and trustworthy position, this person lacks those traits, and more.
Yes, this site should allow people to put a profile on here, as long as they are upfront in their intentions.



BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/16/2004 11:13:20 AM)

I don't see the problem either, as long as he didn't force anyone to do anything she didn't want to do, than it's their prerogative...
Don't even think he should have been banned from that site (unless he stated "I guarantee marriage to the 1st lady who sleeps with me", lol;
Ms M



Mercnbeth -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/16/2004 5:36:30 PM)

Hang on everyone!

That was a facetious "Watch out message!".

In this case, I am strictly a correspondent reporter. My post came from a news report that appeared in the London Sun Newspaper. From a personal standpoint and to use a British expression I believe the man is a 'cad'.

But I say "GO FOR IT DUDE!". He's 55 years old and still cranking it out. I would think he's performing a public service. I don't know why his activity resulted in banishment. Maybe it was a 'marriage site'? Who knows. Anyway - don't shoot the messenger.

I guess there is an interesting topic for a thread here. If a Dom or Domme managed to capture the hearts of 119 subs or slaves would CollarMe ban them or make them the site "Poster Dom/me"?




GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/19/2004 12:10:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


I don't know why his activity resulted in banishment. Maybe it was a 'marriage site'? Who knows.


I can only make an educated guess here. And again, it comes down to whiney people who will not take responsibility for their own actions. I suspect, as already stated, that he did say all the right words. How often could he have "dated" these ladies before bedding them if he was managing to unzip approximately every 2 weeks. I suppose he might have the financial resources to "pitch his woo" but I have a tendency to lean towards NOT. Remember this is just the quick conclusions I draw from this, but the ladies need to take this stuff with a grain of salt. If someone (speaking in a vanilla way) is that sincerely interested in Me, they already know aren't going to get Me into bed that fast, and they should be ok with that. I am upfront, and if they take a hike, I got to have dinner or something a couple times. No skin off My nose. These few dates, of course, occur while the male in question is busily trying to convince Me of what I am missing by not going to bed with him. I smile**
The site probably got a bunch of complaints and took the easy way out by banning him, instead of saying, "use your heads ladies"...this is online. If the guy is just looking for lots of sex, this is an easy way to find it as long as you are all willing to jump into the sack that fast."
I haven't heard about any rape charges here, so I would draw the final concusion that the sex was consensual, even if the ladies felt like they were misled after the fact. Happens all the time, on both gender sides. But usually the guys don't complain too much...LOL! It takes two to tango.
Then again, there could be some stuff W/we haven't heard, but things like this do have a tendency to get into the papers. If there is more to this I am willing to bet Mercnbeth would find it!
Kudos to you for bringing so many of these stories to our attention!



Mercnbeth -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/19/2004 1:20:05 PM)

quote:

Then again, there could be some stuff W/we haven't heard, but things like this do have a tendency to get into the papers. If there is more to this I am willing to bet Mercnbeth would find it!


Having that challenge presented - Here is, "The Rest of the story..."

Dating website dumps serial shagger
By Lester Haines
Published Friday 12th November 2004 12:06 GMT "The Register"

A web dating agency has dumped a 55-year-old male subscriber after he indulged in a five-year debauch which resulted in 100 notches on his bedpost, UK tabloid the Daily Mirror reports.

Llanelli-based former miner Clive Worth arranged 119 dates via DatingDirect.com - most of which ended in rumpy-pumpy. Sadly for Worth, the agency struck him from its books after receiving complaints about his "lack of commitment", even though he appears to suffer no lack of commitment to the cause of getting his end away.

Worth lamented: "I'm gutted about being kicked out. I've done nothing wrong. The agency said they received complaints because women were travelling to meet me and wanted commitment, but I didn't. But it's just that I haven't met the right woman yet."

Worth told the Mirror that he would not take the ban lying down, and pledged to join another agency and continue his tireless quest for Ms Right until he's 80.


And from another source....

Randy Romeo gets deleted

London - A middle-aged Romeo has been banned from an internet dating agency for sleeping with more than 100 women.

Ex-miner Clive Worth, 55, had 119 dates in five years and ended up in bed with most of them, reports the Daily Mirror.

DatingDirect.com has taken him off their books for showing a "lack of commitment".

Clive, of Llanelli, who paid £85 a year to join, said: "I'm gutted about being kicked out. I've done nothing wrong.

"The agency said they received complaints because women were travelling to meet me and wanted commitment, but I didn't. But it's just that I haven't met the right woman yet."

He now plans to sign up with another internet agency and vowed to carry on until he's 80.

DatingDirect.com confirmed Clive had been booted out.

A spokesperson said: "We cannot discuss individual cases but the only reason we would remove someone is if we received complaints from other members." - Ananova.com





BeachMystress -> RE: Online "Commitment" (11/26/2004 3:05:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
rumpy-pumpy.


ohohoh! ROFLMAO.. rumpy-pumpy... *turning blue from laughing so hard* [sm=lol.gif]



MistressDREAD -> RE: Online "Commitment" (12/2/2004 2:45:21 PM)

HA lemmie be the other devils avocate here and say
did they throw out the 100 woman whom slept with the 1 man as well?

I mean hell he got to sleep with 100 woman but just how many men did the 100 woman sleep with as well?

and better yet, how the hell did a dating service find out that 100 woman had even slept with the 1 man and who would even be a member to a dating service that asks questions about who you sleep with any how. It all smells of magpies in the settee. [a little British humor there ]
[8|]



MiladyElaine -> RE: Online "Commitment" (12/10/2004 9:37:54 AM)

All those women must have complained about being ditched- LOL



dally -> RE: Online "Commitment" (12/15/2004 7:47:06 AM)

hey atleast they got laid.....anyhow, the guy has the right to search around til he finds the right one, so he's having a lil fun in the process, where's the harm there? [;)]



inadazey -> RE: Online "Commitment" (12/23/2004 5:41:25 AM)

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I just think that's straight out nasty... Yeah, it was stupid to kick him off the site when it was all apparently consensual.... but still-- ewwwwwwwwww [:'(]



angelpet -> RE: Online "Commitment" (1/14/2005 5:25:34 PM)

While most of us consider it a lack of tact or whatever word you want to use, it is still not illegal. Additionally, CM does not state only lifestylers or Masters or subs can have profiles. I think the man is scum, but so what that is my opinion. I met a few from here that fit the same bill.

angel



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375