# Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?



## Anon Pink

I just learned of this term today! 

So there is this chick who sends out pictures of herself to men she chats with. All the pics are definitely risqué and she is scantily clad but in highly provocative poses. She then asks her male friends, most of whom are likely married, to masturbate and ejaculate on her photo, I guess somewhere along the line they have to print it out. Then the men friends take a picture of their leavings splashed onto her picture, and send her the picture of their ejaculate on a picture of her.

On one hand, seems a rather harmless form of live porn. On the other hand, there is at least some form of relationship because they chat on line.

What is the consensus of the men, cheating or not?


----------



## GusPolinski

Cheating.


----------



## EleGirl

Cheating.


----------



## heartsbeating

You're asking the consensus of the men - is it from the perspective of her or the married men partaking? 

Either way, this wouldn't fly in our marriage.


----------



## Convection

Cheating, and a sad form at that.


----------



## jasmine9

She's a *****


----------



## jaquen

I wouldn't do it, because it sounds skivvy and feels wrong.

But while I know it would hurt my wife's feelings, if it was some anon person on the internet I don't believe she'd classify it as "cheating".


----------



## Anon Pink

heartsbeating said:


> You're asking the consensus of the men - is it from the perspective of her or the married men partaking?
> 
> Either way, this wouldn't fly in our marriage.


I'm asking if what the men are doing is cheating. Assuming the chick has some form of go ahead from her husband, assuming he gets off on all these men wanking off to his wife's provocative image.


----------



## larry.gray

5/0 after throwing my vote in. 

If my wife did this I'd be very pissed. I presume she'd feel the same way.


----------



## Lyris

It's gross behaviour but I don't think it, by itself is cheating. I think if it were happening alongside a lot of messaging back and forth, then yes, it's cheating.

If I found out my husband was sending tribute shots to random girls asking for them on reddit or similar then I'd be annoyed, but I would feel more betrayed if it were in the context of a longer (online) association, as then it's more into the online EA territory.


----------



## thatbpguy

Cheating.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> I just learned of this term today!
> 
> So there is this chick who sends out pictures of herself to men she chats with. All the pics are definitely risqué and she is scantily clad but in highly provocative poses. She then asks her male friends, most of whom are likely married, to masturbate and ejaculate on her photo, I guess somewhere along the line they have to print it out. Then the men friends take a picture of their leavings splashed onto her picture, and send her the picture of their ejaculate on a picture of her.
> 
> On one hand, seems a rather harmless form of live porn. On the other hand, there is at least some form of relationship because they chat on line.
> 
> What is the consensus of the men, cheating or not?


First, my waistline thanks you for ruining my appetite.

Second, I always hold to the same standard of cheating. To wit, if there are living personalities involved (I'll worry about AI later), it is cheating.

So a man watching a porn movie or reading a porn story: not cheating. Brianna Banks can't look him in the eye, and give him an extra wiggle just for him. It is a bunch of pixels NOT directed at a specific customer and NOT adaptable to his fetishes and emotional needs.

However, sexting, a live actress who will smoke for a smoke fetish guy, a stripper who gives a lap dance and will call him 'Daddy', this involves a living person bringing him off.

She is bringing them off and interacting with them. So it's cheating.

Long winded I know, but I want to be logical and think things through.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Anon Pink said:


> I just learned of this term today!
> 
> So there is this chick who sends out pictures of herself to men she chats with. All the pics are definitely risqué and she is scantily clad but in highly provocative poses. She then asks her male friends, most of whom are likely married, to masturbate and ejaculate on her photo, I guess somewhere along the line they have to print it out. Then the men friends take a picture of their leavings splashed onto her picture, and send her the picture of their ejaculate on a picture of her.
> 
> On one hand, seems a rather harmless form of live porn. On the other hand, there is at least some form of relationship because they chat on line.
> 
> What is the consensus of the men, cheating or not?


If those men's wives had no problem with it, then it isn't cheating. 
But that's hardly likely, except if it's some sort of sex club.

So most likely they are actively involved in an EA with her, no different to cybersex with a webcam girl or another female.

I'm wondering if the same rule can be applied to married men who send pictures of their d*cks to other women for their *entertainment?*

I would think it does.

Not the first time I've heard of " tribute shots" , just in another context.


----------



## richie33

Cheating no. Unacceptable behavior of married people .....yes.


----------



## Maricha75

She regularly chats with them? Like sexting/texting/email/PM on sites? Then yes, it's cheating. If they had no contact, like porn or whatever, I would say no... Disgusting, but no. But talking to someone and requesting or getting the tributes is cheating... and revolting.


----------



## Thound

Any communication with someone other than your significant other that is in a sexual manner with the intent of arousal is cheating IMO.


----------



## Deejo

If it involves serial deception and investing your sexual energy in someone other than your spouse, it's betrayal.

Unless of course the tribute you are sending back is actually a mock shot on her photo covered in 8 ounces of Jergens. Then it's kind of funny, but weirder than it was in the first place.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thound said:


> Any communication with someone other than your significant other that is in a sexual manner with the intent of arousal is cheating IMO.


:iagree:

But what if that person's spouse knows ,and agrees for example , in an " open marriage" or swinger type of arrangement?

Would you still consider it cheating in that context?


----------



## commonsenseisn't

Cheating.
Cheating your spouse out of attention that should be getting invested in the relationship.
Cheating your kids out of an honorable dad.
Cheating yourself out of being a decent human being.


----------



## I Notice The Details

I confess I never knew what a Tribute Shot was until I read this thread.


----------



## COguy

People are f*cking weird....

Anyway, cheating is scientifically defined as "Doing something you wouldn't do in front of your partner."

So if your partner is cool with you jacking off on a picture of an attention wh*re and sending it back to her, have at it.

Highly unlikely though....


----------



## Davelli0331

What an interesting thread!

If it's happening between married people behind their spouses' backs, then it's most certainly cheating.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



Davelli0331 said:


> What an interesting thread!
> 
> If it's happening between married people behind their spouses' backs, then it's most certainly cheating.


And that's even if ONE of that "half" is in the dark. It doesn't matter if the spouse of one gets off on it. If the "other side" is keeping his (or her) spouse in the dark, it is cheating. Period.


----------



## johnnycomelately

Anon Pink said:


> I just learned of this term today!
> 
> So there is this chick who sends out pictures of herself to men she chats with. All the pics are definitely risqué and she is scantily clad but in highly provocative poses. She then asks her male friends, most of whom are likely married, to masturbate and ejaculate on her photo, I guess somewhere along the line they have to print it out. Then the men friends take a picture of their leavings splashed onto her picture, and send her the picture of their ejaculate on a picture of her.
> 
> On one hand, seems a rather harmless form of live porn. On the other hand, there is at least some form of relationship because they chat on line.
> 
> What is the consensus of the men, cheating or not?


Sounds like beating off to a picture of a scantily clad woman with whom you chat.

I don't see why we need everything to fit into black and white, cheating or not cheating categories. For some couples this wouldn't be a problem, for others it would. Members of each partnership have an obligation to know what their spouses find acceptable and doesn't.


----------



## Davelli0331

Although the term is not a new one to me. There's actually an entire subreddit devoted to this phenomenon. Believe it or not, there are women out there who collect these sorts of pictures from men, and they'll troll all kinds of sites to get them.


----------



## I Notice The Details

Johnny, your name is kinda funny given the thread we are in.


----------



## johnnycomelately

I Notice The Details said:


> Johnny, your name is kinda funny given the thread we are in.


I chose it when I was having trouble with delayed ejaculation. Now my name should be johnnynocomeatall.


----------



## I Notice The Details

:rofl:


----------



## Anon Pink

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm wondering if the same rule can be applied to married men who send pictures of their d*cks to other women for their *entertainment?*


No, I don't think so. Erect or not a d!ck pic isn't a direct representation of intercourse. You're applying a level of symbolic prudery here, IMO. Nudists come to mind. I often wonder if our society didn't place such an excruciating exactness of prudery would there be so damn many sexual hang ups? 

Wanking and taking a pic of the ejaculate, that's pretty clearly a sexual event, where as a d!ck pic isn't. Close to the line, but not a sexual event.




Deejo said:


> Unless of course the tribute you are sending back is actually a mock shot on her photo covered in 8 ounces of Jergens. Then it's kind of funny, but weirder than it was in the first place.


8 oz eh? That's an intimidating thought.




Caribbean Man said:


> But what if that person's spouse knows ,and agrees for example , in an " open marriage" or swinger type of arrangement?
> 
> Would you still consider it cheating in that context?



As I said in one of my posts above, the chick is involved in some type of swinging arrangement with her husband. And to be fair, she doesn't represent herself as some model of piety as she flirts outrageously. But if both the chick and the man tributing were in open arrangments...we have nothing to discuss cause it's not cheating.


----------



## Dollystanford

I'm not sure how hot I would find it if someone sent me a picture of my face with what could be week-old mayo all over it

Now if it was an action video I suppose it could be

As for cheating, well agree with what others have said to the extent that if it was my husband/bf jizzing over some girl he's texting/chatting with then of course his ass would be out the door. If he's doing it to porn then whatever. It's the emotional context, as with everything


----------



## Anon Pink

johnnycomelately said:


> Sounds like beating off to a picture of a scantily clad woman with whom you chat.
> 
> I don't see why we need everything to fit into black and white, cheating or not cheating categories. For some couples this wouldn't be a problem, for others it would. Members of each partnership have an obligation to know what their spouses find acceptable and doesn't.


I agree with the philosophy. However, I don't really want to know the details of my husbands private mind movies as he wanks. I would never dictate, nor even influence, what he can think about during the occasional self abuse.


----------



## Davelli0331

Yeah if it's a consensual act among adults with full spousal awareness and support for both parties, then odd though it may be, I wouldn't call that cheating. 

It's when it's done via a covert nature, and/or when one party is diverting time/sexual/emotional energy to this person that should have gone to their spouses that it becomes cheating. 

The issue is that it's not always a clear demarcation in a person's head that they've gone from something innocent to something not so innocent. And a person will invent all kinds of reasoning to justify it as that happens.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Anon Pink said:


> No, I don't think so. Erect or not a d!ck pic isn't a direct representation of intercourse. You're applying a level of symbolic prudery here, IMO. Nudists come to mind. I often wonder if our society didn't place such an excruciating exactness of prudery would there be so damn many sexual hang ups?
> 
> Wanking and taking a pic of the ejaculate, that's pretty clearly a sexual event, where as a d!ck pic isn't. Close to the line, but not a sexual event.


Alright,I'm trying to follow your logic here.

Woman sends pics of herself scantily dressed to random men as wank off material = a sexual event.


Man sending pics of his erect d*ck to random women as wank off material = not a sexual event. :scratchhead:


Would you approve of your husband doing this behind your back?
To me, both are cheating if their partners didn't explicitly approve.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



Caribbean Man said:


> Alright,I'm trying to follow your logic here.
> 
> Woman sends pics of herself scantily dressed to random men as wank off material = a sexual event.
> 
> 
> Man sending pics of his erect d*ck to random women as wank off material = not a sexual event. :scratchhead:
> 
> 
> Would you approve of your husband doing this behind your back?
> To me, both are cheating if their partners didn't explicitly approve.


I believe Anon was meaning the woman sent the pictures, knowing/hoping they would c*m on the photo and send back that proof. That would be the sexual event. Sending the photos, in general, would be in poor taste (revolting, actually), but not necessarily a "sexual event" unless/until proof of said "event" is shared. 

Unless I misunderstood Anon's train of thought...?


----------



## Hope1964

My husband sent **** pics to women who asked for them. That's cheating. I also consider it cheating when he accepted pics of them in sexual poses back. He was interacting with specific women for the purpose of sexual titillation. It's a step beyond looking at porn.

He also posted his pics on his profiles on sites like AFF. I also consider that cheating because the purpose of the profile is to cheat.

I have no idea if he participated in tribute shots. If he did it's definitely cheating.

If he had gone on some exhibitionist site just to post **** pics and nothing else, I suppose that isn't cheating. Just revolting.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Anon Pink said:


> *As I said in one of my posts above, the chick is involved in some type of swinging arrangement with her husband. And to be fair, she doesn't represent herself as some model of piety as she flirts outrageously*. But if both the chick and the man tributing were in open arrangments...we have nothing to discuss cause it's not cheating.


Ok.

Well if they're swingers and her husband is full aware and perhaps get aroused from it, if she doesn't represent herself as a model of piety , then there is no conflict there.

Those who judge her are the hypocrites , because they know the type of lifestyle she and her husband OPENLY embrace.
If she's involved in sex clubs and swinging , and others aren't involved in that type of life, then they need to mind their own business.

However , if she presents herself as a pious person and judges others who aren't in her lifestyle choice , then she too is a hypocrite.

If her husband doesn't know, then she's cheating.


----------



## Shoto1984

If this stuff is being hidden from spouses, then cheating. If spouses are in on it (can't imagine...but ok) then not cheating.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Maricha75 said:


> I believe Anon was meaning the woman sent the pictures, knowing/hoping they would c*m on the photo and send back that proof. That would be the sexual event. Sending the photos, in general, would be in poor taste (revolting, actually), but not necessarily a "sexual event" unless/until proof of said "event" is shared.
> 
> Unless I misunderstood Anon's train of thought...?


I understand .

But if they're swingers or embrace that type of lifestyle, then who are we to judge?

If they aren't in that lifestyle, then it is cheating whether the husband send d*ck pics to other women or she sends scantily clad pics t other men.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other.


----------



## Davelli0331

Yes, but what if the wives of the men sending the pictures don't know it's happening? It may not be cheating for the woman requesting the pictures, but surely it is for the men? 

And if the woman knows the men are doing it behind their wives' backs, while she may not be cheating due to her arrangement with her husband, certainly that is a bit morally repugnant?


----------



## Maricha75

A"bit" repugnant? That's a bit of an understatement.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> Yes, but *what if *the wives of the men sending the pictures don't know it's happening? It may not be cheating for the woman requesting the pictures, but surely it is for the men?
> 
> And if the woman knows the men are doing it behind their wives' backs, while she may not be cheating due to her arrangement with her husband, certainly that is a bit morally repugnant?


" _What if_ " sounds kinda speculative to me.

Fact is, you DON'T know.

If she's into the swinging lifestyle we cannot know for sure that those other men aren't into that lifestyle or not.


Unless you know for sure.

Other than that , if she openly flirts with men and flaunts her swinging lifestyle then you nor we can't judge her using your / our so called moral standards.


----------



## Hope1964

Maricha75 said:


> A"bit" repugnant? That's a bit of an understatement.


Just a bit!

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



Caribbean Man said:


> " _What if_ " sounds kinda speculative to me.
> 
> Fact is, you DON'T know.
> 
> If she's into the swinging lifestyle we cannot know for sure that those other men aren't into that lifestyle or not.
> 
> 
> Unless you know for sure.
> 
> Other than that , if she openly flirts with men and flaunts her swinging lifestyle then you nor we can't judge her using your / our so called moral standards.


At the same time, we cannot know for certain they ARE into that lifestyle. Bottom line is that if the spouses are in the dark, it is cheating. And even if the _ participants _ are into swinging, doesn't mean the spouses are aware. And in that case, it's cheating.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Maricha75 said:


> At the same time, we cannot know for certain they ARE into that lifestyle. Bottom line is that if the spouses are in the dark, it is cheating. And even if the _ participants _ are into swinging, doesn't mean the spouses are aware. And in that case, it's cheating.


Well then we're both agreeing that it's not our business...

We might find it reprehensible, but if we don't know for sure they're cheating , then we have no business casting judgments.

Swingers are known to do that type of stuff , that arouses _them_.

I tend not to make other people's sexual choices my problem, especially if they aren't hurting others.


----------



## 6301

Desperate.


----------



## Davelli0331

I would argue that if one or more of the spouses involved weren't aware of what's going on, they would definitely say it's hurtful and that they would very much think it's at least *their* business to have known.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Well then we're both agreeing that it's not our business...
> 
> We might find it reprehensible, but if we don't know for sure they're cheating , then we have no business casting judgments.
> 
> Swingers are known to do that type of stuff , that arouses _them_.
> 
> I tend not to make other people's sexual choices my problem, especially if they aren't hurting others.



I totally agree. Live and let live. Too much bothering about what other people are doing can lead to being banned.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> I would argue that* if* one or more of the spouses involved weren't aware of what's going on, they would definitely say it's hurtful and that they would very much think it's at least *their* business to have known.



Then we're both agreeing that since you don't know for sure, it is none of your business.

Unless you knew for sure?


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Cheating. And, frankly, pathetic.


----------



## Davelli0331

Caribbean Man said:


> Then we're both agreeing that since you don't know for sure, it is none of your business.


Depends on the context really. In private lives, I agree totally, but, say in a church or on a forum devoted to helping people with their marriages, I think it's rather important for people to know that such a person is trolling married men for "tribute" pictures (or any kind of pictures for that matter).


----------



## the guy

I think its cheating
If the girl sending the pic would send two pics, one of her and one oh her old man...then she's including her and her partner and the guy recieving the pics can choose which tribute shot to use.

So ya the girl sending the pics isn't including her partner and that's cheating her partner from also getting a tribute shot.

Now as far as the guy recieving the pic...well I can think of a lot better places to spend my load. Point here is the guy should be giving a tribute shot to his old lady not someone else...so there it is the guy is cheating his old lady out of a load by spending on someone else.

Thats my $0.02


----------



## the guy

Wait, there is more....

If the guy getting the pics of both the girl, her old man and holds them up to his old ladies face, drops his load on all of them.... then send that pic back to said girl...well then that's a party.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> Depends on the context really. In private lives, I agree totally, but, say in a church or on a forum devoted to helping people with their marriages, I think it's rather important for people to know that such a person is trolling married men for "tribute" pictures (or any kind of pictures for that matter).


Well I agree with you.

The forum rules are clear.

Women ought not to be trolling here looking for d*ck pics from MARRIED MEN ,neither should HAPPILY MARRIED men be sending d*ck pics to MARRIED women.


----------



## Anon Pink

Caribbean Man said:


> Alright,I'm trying to follow your logic here.
> 
> Woman sends pics of herself scantily dressed to random men as wank off material = a sexual event.
> 
> 
> *Man sending pics of his erect d*ck to random women as wank off material = not a sexual event. :scratchhead:*
> 
> 
> Would you approve of your husband doing this behind your back?
> To me, both are cheating if their partners didn't explicitly approve.


This might be where you've run aground? 

Maybe I'm limited in my scope of experience, but I have read quite a bit and my lady friends and I do talk quite openly, so let me say I have never ever ever heard of a woman masturbating to a d!ck pic. Ever! Now I'm sure they're out there, but my guess is it's pretty rare. However, a man masturbating to a boobie shot- so common it's boring.

Also, we are discussing two different scenarios when my question only involved ONE. My question did not ask the fidelity of the attention wh0re, only the fidelity of the men sending tribute shots. My question assumed that the men are married and assumed that the wives of these men are not aware of his contact with the attention wh0re.

A man sending a d!ck pic, IMO is not cheating any more than a woman who sends/posts pics of her parts, or thinly veiled parts. Exhibitionism, IMO, is not cheating, and so long as it is done within respectable parameters I have no problems with it.



Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> 
> Well if they're swingers and her husband is full aware and perhaps get aroused from it, if she doesn't represent herself as a model of piety , then there is no conflict there.
> 
> Those who judge her are the hypocrites , because they know the type of lifestyle she and her husband OPENLY embrace.
> If she's involved in sex clubs and swinging , and others aren't involved in that type of life, then they need to mind their own business.
> 
> However , if she presents herself as a pious person and judges others who aren't in her lifestyle choice , then she too is a hypocrite.
> 
> If her husband doesn't know, then she's cheating.



Once again...the question doesn't involve the actions of the attention wh0re/exhibitionist/swinger/open marriage wife who requests tribute shots. My question is ONLY about the behavior of the married men, who I am assuming have not informed their wives of their intent to masturbate, ejaculate on a photo, and send documentation of ejaculate.




Caribbean Man said:


> I understand .
> 
> But if they're swingers or embrace that type of lifestyle, then who are we to judge?
> 
> If they aren't in that lifestyle, then it is cheating whether the husband send d*ck pics to other women or she sends scantily clad pics t other men.
> 
> Six of one and half a dozen of the other.


We are NOT discussing the swingers, the exhibitionists, or even the flirty chatting. We are discussing the sexual act of masturbating to a picture, ejaculating on said picture, taking a picture of the ejaculate, and then sending that picture back ...as a means of "thanks for the good time" I assume.


----------



## ocotillo

It would be cheating in my marriage.


----------



## pidge70

Hmmmm, idk. Wink, wink.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WyshIknew

pidge70 said:


> Hmmmm, idk. Wink, wink.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thunder7

Look, all I know is that if a woman on here was sending out naked pics privately and I didn't get any, than yes, it is cheating. And I'm the one who got cheated. :rofl:


Too soon?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thunder7 said:


> Look, all I know is that if a woman on here was sending out naked pics privately and I didn't get any, than yes, it is cheating. And I'm the one who got cheated. :rofl:
> 
> 
> Too soon?


Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Davelli0331

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



Thunder7 said:


> Look, all I know is that if a woman on here was sending out naked pics privately and I didn't get any, than yes, it is cheating. And I'm the one who got cheated. :rofl:
> 
> 
> Too soon?


Lol!


----------



## jaquen

the guy said:


> Wait, there is more....
> 
> If the guy getting the pics of both the girl, her old man and holds them up to his old ladies face, drops his load on all of them.... then send that pic back to said girl...well then that's a party.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



Thunder7 said:


> Look, all I know is that if a woman on here was sending out naked pics privately and I didn't get any, than yes, it is cheating. And I'm the one who got cheated. :rofl:
> 
> 
> Too soon?


Nah, I would say "too late" if it's already common knowledge. 

Unless someone were to share with you. Even then... ick!


----------



## sidney2718

Anon Pink said:


> I'm asking if what the men are doing is cheating. Assuming the chick has some form of go ahead from her husband, assuming he gets off on all these men wanking off to his wife's provocative image.


So the whole thing is imaginary, right? You had me worried for a minute.

But since it is imaginary, I'll give an answer: It only counts if he sends her a printed out picture of her with the wet evidence still on it. Otherwise it could just be another Photoshop triumph.


----------



## sidney2718

Maricha75 said:


> At the same time, we cannot know for certain they ARE into that lifestyle. Bottom line is that if the spouses are in the dark, it is cheating. And even if the _ participants _ are into swinging, doesn't mean the spouses are aware. And in that case, it's cheating.


Hey, it is an imaginary situation. No need to get all legalistic over it.


----------



## sidney2718

WyshIknew said:


> I totally agree. Live and let live. Too much bothering about what other people are doing can lead to being banned.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What? Anon basically said upthread that this was an imaginary situation. How could it be anything else? How would Anon have heard about it. Or do we have to change the story to add "and then she told the whole world about it."

Keep moving. There is nothing to see here.


----------



## sidney2718

Anon Pink said:


> This might be where you've run aground?
> 
> Maybe I'm limited in my scope of experience, but I have read quite a bit and my lady friends and I do talk quite openly, so let me say I have never ever ever heard of a woman masturbating to a d!ck pic. Ever! Now I'm sure they're out there, but my guess is it's pretty rare. However, a man masturbating to a boobie shot- so common it's boring.
> 
> Also, we are discussing two different scenarios when my question only involved ONE. My question did not ask the fidelity of the attention wh0re, only the fidelity of the men sending tribute shots. My question assumed that the men are married and assumed that the wives of these men are not aware of his contact with the attention wh0re.
> 
> A man sending a d!ck pic, IMO is not cheating any more than a woman who sends/posts pics of her parts, or thinly veiled parts. Exhibitionism, IMO, is not cheating, and so long as it is done within respectable parameters I have no problems with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...the question doesn't involve the actions of the attention wh0re/exhibitionist/swinger/open marriage wife who requests tribute shots. My question is ONLY about the behavior of the married men, who I am assuming have not informed their wives of their intent to masturbate, ejaculate on a photo, and send documentation of ejaculate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are NOT discussing the swingers, the exhibitionists, or even the flirty chatting. We are discussing the sexual act of masturbating to a picture, ejaculating on said picture, taking a picture of the ejaculate, and then sending that picture back ...as a means of "thanks for the good time" I assume.


Are you now saying that the situation is real? If you say it is, how do you know about it? Were you told in confidence? Perhaps you were lied to? I think that you ought to clarify this. And until this is clarified, I'm going to treat it as an imaginary scenario and ask: why are folks so upset about it? It ain't real.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



sidney2718 said:


> Are you now saying that the situation is real? If you say it is, how do you know about it? Were you told in confidence? Perhaps you were lied to? I think that you ought to clarify this. And until this is clarified, I'm going to treat it as an imaginary scenario and ask: why are folks so upset about it? *It ain't real.*


Do you know this for certain? How can you know unless you may have been privy to information? :scratchhead: 
This is the context I assumed when reading Anon's posts. That it's something she was told about, by one who probably doesn't care who knows. But that others would freak out if implicated. But, you may very well be right. There may be no evidence. But maybe there is... and if there is, wouldn't that make it real? I will treat it as real until proven otherwise.


----------



## over20

Maricha75 said:


> Do you know this for certain? How can you know unless you may have been privy to information? :scratchhead:
> This is the context I assumed when reading Anon's posts. That it's something she was told about, by one who probably doesn't care who knows. But that others would freak out if implicated. But, you may very well be right. There may be no evidence. But maybe there is... and if there is, wouldn't that make it real? I will treat it as real until proven otherwise.


Help me understand, is this gossip?


----------



## pidge70

over20 said:


> Help me understand, is this gossip?


Ummmmmm, maybe, maybe not..... 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



over20 said:


> Help me understand, is this gossip?


Are you asking me? Or asking in general? If the former, how should I know? I'm going by the posts. If the latter, maybe someone will speak up if they know simething? *shrug*


----------



## over20

I think it's gossip if the person is not here to state their side.


----------



## over20

Maricha75 said:


> Are you asking me? Or asking in general? If the former, how should I know? I'm going by the posts. If the latter, maybe someone will speak up if they know simething? *shrug*


Thanks for responding Maricha75.

I was asking you.


----------



## Davelli0331

It's definitely not gossip. Irrefutable proof exists, has been submitted to the mods, and one ban has already occurred.


----------



## Maricha75

But it's good to know that most see it as cheating... at least as long as ALL parties are not informed/consenting.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



over20 said:


> Thanks for responding Maricha75.
> 
> I was asking you.


Why would you ask me? I was only stating what I thought about what Anon has posted...


----------



## over20

Davelli0331 said:


> It's definitely not gossip. Irrefutable proof exists, has been submitted to the mods, and one ban has already occurred.


With all due respect, isn't it gossip if one talks about another behind their back EVEN if the one being gossiped about is in the wrong? :scratchhead:


----------



## Anon Pink

Sidney, I can always count on you to bring reason to the table! Excellent!

Real? I'm not sure it is significant to the question. As I stated in the OP, I just learned of the existence of this "tribute" thing and after laughing my tush off, I began to wonder about the meaning -if any- to the symbolic nature of the act, the relative value of and intent behind the ejaculate by the donor and or receiver. Knowing how fascinated this forum is with declarations of what is cheating and what isn't.

Connecting dots with innuendos and whispers, I'll leave up to you if you care to engage in such wonderment. I'm not seeking confessions, nor any "aha J'accuse" posts. I think adults can decide for themselves what behaviors they should engage in and what not to. 

I do, however, respect forthrightness and dislike being toyed with. So yes, there have been whispers of this occurring right here at TAM. While I personally don't care who participated, I feel that discussing this practice in terms of it's place within the confines of a monogamous relationship has merit.


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> With all due respect, isn't it gossip if one talks about another behind their back EVEN if the one being gossiped about is in the wrong? :scratchhead:


Why yes, yes it is gossip as you defined above. This is why I posed the question here out in the open with out names. It is not so much those involved I am interested in. It is the broader discussion that I think has merit.


----------



## Anon Pink

jaquen said:


>


:lol:

Ah the 80's what fun we had back in the day.


----------



## Davelli0331

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



over20 said:


> With all due respect, isn't it gossip if one talks about another behind their back EVEN if the one being gossiped about is in the wrong? :scratchhead:


I would say that on a marriage forum dedicated to helping people on their marriages, that it would relevant to the population at large to know that there are people here trolling others for these kinds of pictures. 

I think that's especially true for TAM, because for many people by the time they get here, their marriage is in trouble and they are already at risk for succumbing to these kinds of things. 

I don't see it so much as gossip as informing people that there are predators on this site, and to be wary of them.


----------



## over20

Davelli0331 said:


> I would say that on a marriage forum dedicated to helping people on their marriages, that it would relevant to the population at large to know that there are people here trolling others for these kinds of pictures.
> 
> I think that's especially true for TAM, because for many people by the time they get here, their marriage is in trouble and they are already at risk for succumbing to these kinds of things.
> 
> I don't see it so much as gossip as informing people that there are predators on this site, and to be wary of them.


Thank you for responding.


----------



## pidge70

Davelli0331 said:


> I would say that on a marriage forum dedicated to helping people on their marriages, that it would relevant to the population at large to know that there are people here trolling others for these kinds of pictures.
> 
> I think that's especially true for TAM, because for many people by the time they get here, their marriage is in trouble and they are already at risk for succumbing to these kinds of things.
> 
> I don't see it so much as gossip as informing people that there are predators on this site, and to be wary of them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

This is not new on TAM.

People have been banned in the past for similar behavior.

Some people get caught and some get away and some are hoping that they will get away.

The reality is, the minute you upload that pic and send it,

It's GAME OVER.

People ALWAYS TALK, for Christ's sake, the first word in the title of this forum is TALK.

Funny thing about TAM is that people will chat and smile with you on the forum, but you can never tell exactly who knows what you did and how much they know. 

Plus, the evidence just never goes away.

If you did something that stupid, then be man / woman enough to take responsibility and walk.

I have no problem with people in the swinging lifestyle being here, but TAM is not a sex club.


----------



## johnnycomelately

COguy said:


> People are f*cking weird....
> 
> Anyway, cheating is scientifically defined as "Doing something you wouldn't do in front of your partner."
> 
> So if your partner is cool with you jacking off on a picture of an attention wh*re and sending it back to her, have at it.
> 
> Highly unlikely though....


 _Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## sidney2718

Maricha75 said:


> Do you know this for certain? How can you know unless you may have been privy to information? :scratchhead:
> This is the context I assumed when reading Anon's posts. That it's something she was told about, by one who probably doesn't care who knows. But that others would freak out if implicated. But, you may very well be right. There may be no evidence. But maybe there is... and if there is, wouldn't that make it real? I will treat it as real until proven otherwise.


Well, if Anon was told about it and believes it is real, she should say so. Otherwise we are just busting our chops over nothing.


----------



## sidney2718

pidge70 said:


> Ummmmmm, maybe, maybe not.....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's totally not helpful. Are folks playing games here? What is going on? Or are a bunch of us just being taken in by some game to see who falls for what?


----------



## Entropy3000

From this thread it sounds like there are at least rumors of people actually doing this on TAM. Very plausible. --check

Most people think it is cheating but not all!? --check

Maybe this thread should be moved to CWI.


----------



## sidney2718

Davelli0331 said:


> It's definitely not gossip. Irrefutable proof exists, has been submitted to the mods, and one ban has already occurred.


So in other words this is a game to drag someone through the dirt, someone who has already been banned? I always thought bannings were private. Is there a place where I can read about this myself. Do the mods know that we are playing games with a real person?

What was the aim of presenting a situation as hypothetical if it was indeed real? Is there a marriage in peril that we can help?

And how do YOU know it is true, while Anon Pink, who started this thread, isn't sure? In blunt language what the heck is going on here?


----------



## sidney2718

Maricha75 said:


> But it's good to know that most see it as cheating... at least as long as ALL parties are not informed/consenting.


Before I'd make a judgement on a real case, which now seems to be the case, I'd have to know more about it. Does her husband know? Do the folks getting the "pictures" know she is married? 

I know that there is a TAM rule against using TAM as a "dating" site and I assume that is why this person was banned. But I don't know. Isn't there also a rule about dragging someone through the mud here?


----------



## Davelli0331

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



sidney2718 said:


> So in other words this is a game to drag someone through the dirt, someone who has already been banned? I always thought bannings were private. Is there a place where I can read about this myself. Do the mods know that we are playing games with a real person?
> 
> What was the aim of presenting a situation as hypothetical if it was indeed real? Is there a marriage in peril that we can help?


Well, I can't speak for anon pink, but for my part I'd like to know who else was involved. The evidence suggests that this person was involved with no less than 4-6 married men from TAM. Yet there's only been one ban. So who were the other men? Are they big names here? Are they regular posters here, or in social, or wherever? 

And as I said, I think people on a marriage forum need to know if there are others acting as wolves in sheep's clothing.


----------



## sidney2718

Anon Pink said:


> Sidney, I can always count on you to bring reason to the table! Excellent!
> 
> Real? I'm not sure it is significant to the question. As I stated in the OP, I just learned of the existence of this "tribute" thing and after laughing my tush off, I began to wonder about the meaning -if any- to the symbolic nature of the act, the relative value of and intent behind the ejaculate by the donor and or receiver. Knowing how fascinated this forum is with declarations of what is cheating and what isn't.
> 
> Connecting dots with innuendos and whispers, I'll leave up to you if you care to engage in such wonderment. I'm not seeking confessions, nor any "aha J'accuse" posts. I think adults can decide for themselves what behaviors they should engage in and what not to.
> 
> I do, however, respect forthrightness and dislike being toyed with. So yes, there have been whispers of this occurring right here at TAM. While I personally don't care who participated, I feel that discussing this practice in terms of it's place within the confines of a monogamous relationship has merit.


You are confusing the living cr*p out of me. Davelli0331 assures us that it is real, that proof has been given to the mods, and that a person has been banned because of it.

And yet you say "there have been whispers of this occurring right here at TAM." So you don't know if it is true.

I too dislike being toyed with. There is clearly something going on here and perhaps we need a mod to come and explain to us what is real and what is not and what is allowed and what is not.


----------



## Entropy3000

I actually think it is fair to post this as hypothetical because it is very relevant. TAM like it or not is a type of community. 

I agree with those that say that this has no place in the community. This is where people come for marital advice and this type of activity has great potential for being predatory. Do I think we get folks on TAM who are here for an internet hookup of one kind or another? Absolutley. This is what happens when you get people together. This venue comes with some added baggage and risks.

But yeah, I agree it seems like a game because folks are trying to address this scenario without getting banned. I get it.


----------



## sidney2718

Davelli0331 said:


> Well, I can't speak for anon pink, but for my part I'd like to know who else was involved. The evidence suggests that this person was involved with no less than 4-6 married men from TAM. Yet there's only been one ban. So who were the other men? Are they big names here? Are they regular posters here, or in social, or wherever?
> 
> And as I said, I think people on a marriage forum need to know if there are others acting as wolves in sheep's clothing.


Isn't that the job of the mods? I don't believe that it is any of our business at all. It is something like asking a WW the names and addresses of people she had sex with. I doubt you'd do that, but you feel it is ok to usurp the position of the mods and ask here.

And what is so special about Social? I'd think CWI would be a better target.


----------



## Davelli0331

Why are you so defensive about it?

It's a hypothetical situation Anon Pink posted based on something she heard.


----------



## sidney2718

Entropy3000 said:


> From this thread it sounds like there are at least rumors of people actually doing this on TAM. Very plausible. --check
> 
> Most people think it is cheating but not all!? --check
> 
> Maybe this thread should be moved to CWI.


I'd think this is a job for the mods. They have access to stuff we don't have. And since it is claimed by Davelli0331 that the mods have already been given proof, why not let the mods deal with it?


----------



## Anon Pink

sidney2718 said:


> You are confusing the living cr*p out of me. Davelli0331 assures us that it is real, that proof has been given to the mods, and that a person has been banned because of it.
> 
> And yet you say "there have been whispers of this occurring right here at TAM." *So you don't know if it is true.*
> 
> I too dislike being toyed with. There is clearly something going on here and perhaps we need a mod to come and explain to us what is real and what is not and what is allowed and what is not.


At the time I posted this question, I had heard of this occurring and names were named. I did not see any proof so I couldn't say if it was true or not. Though, by the posting style of one of the named parties, it seemed as likely to be true as not.

As I said already, this entire idea was brand new to me and I wanted to have a discussion on where this behavior, on the part of the men send tributes, might fall on a spectrum of monogamy.


----------



## sidney2718

Davelli0331 said:


> Well, I can't speak for anon pink, but for my part I'd like to know who else was involved. The evidence suggests that this person was involved with no less than 4-6 married men from TAM. Yet there's only been one ban. So who were the other men? Are they big names here? Are they regular posters here, or in social, or wherever?
> 
> And as I said, I think people on a marriage forum need to know if there are others acting as wolves in sheep's clothing.


Wait a minute. Didn't you say upthread that you knew that evidence has been submitted to the mods? So there either is evidence for this or their isn't. Certainly nobody will act on rumors, right?


----------



## Lyris

SO MUCH protesting on this thread. Some might even say .... too much


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Will somebody clue me in as to what just happened?


----------



## the guy

Well out of 32 folks 90% think its cheating.


----------



## the guy

Lyris said:


> SO MUCH protesting on this thread. Some might even say .... too much


I protest that statement


----------



## sidney2718

Entropy3000 said:


> I actually think it is fair to post this as hypothetical because it is very relevant. TAM like it or not is a type of community.
> 
> I agree with those that say that this has no place in the community. This is where people come for marital advice and this type of activity has great potential for being predatory. Do I think we get folks on TAM who are here for an internet hookup of one kind or another? Absolutley. This is what happens when you get people together. This venue comes with some added baggage and risks.
> 
> But yeah, I agree it seems like a game because folks are trying to address this scenario without getting banned. I get it.


Why not write a letter to the mods? I'm relatively new here (less than a year) but I've never seen anything like this before. Folks are spreading rumors to the rest of us. And it is the rest of us who are being used as tools for some sort of morality agenda.

I don't like it and I suspect that no good will come of it.


----------



## the guy

I don't like either and I'm going to stay on this thread until something changes.


----------



## Entropy3000

sidney2718 said:


> I'd think this is a job for the mods. They have access to stuff we don't have. And since it is claimed by Davelli0331 that the mods have already been given proof, why not let the mods deal with it?


I think you have every right to think of it as only the mods. I respect that opinion. But I do not have to agree with it. 

I think the topic itself has merit.

I also have a different view than many of authority. I respect it. However, I have a greater sense of independence and self reliance that rides above that. IRL I do not say, oh that is a police matter and none of my business. Indeed I cannot "judge" a case without all the evidence. But I can surely discuss the relevant aspects as they ultimately impact myself and my community.

So I understand your position. But I am also listening to others opinions.


----------



## sidney2718

Davelli0331 said:


> Why are you so defensive about it?


I'm not defensive at all? Whom am I defending?

You posted that the situation was real, that evidence has been given to the mods, and that somebody has been banned because of it.

And then you said:



> It's a hypothetical situation Anon Pink posted based on something she heard. Well, I can't speak for anon pink, but for my part I'd like to know who else was involved. The evidence suggests that this person was involved with no less than 4-6 married men from TAM. Yet there's only been one ban. So who were the other men? Are they big names here? Are they regular posters here, or in social, or wherever?


First: you can't have it both ways. Is it hypothetical as Anon originally assumed or is it real as you claimed?

Second: Why is it our job to police TAM in public. The moral thing to do was to present the evidence to the mods and let them do their job. You've claimed in a previous post that this was done. So why are you presenting this in public? You say "I'd like to know who else was involved." I think that the proper answer to that is that it is none of our business, that the mods will take care of it, and that this entire thread was started for some reason not clear to me.


----------



## Lyris

I don't see any false rumours being spread. A long-time member was caught soliciting tribute shots from married TAMmers. She's been banned. Permanently. That's not up for debate.

What is up for debate is who were the 4-6 men here she was carrying on with, as frankly, they should also be banned.

I'm not going mention names. But I'm pretty disgusted and frankly it's not hard to make some educated guesses if you do a tiny bit of detective work.


----------



## sidney2718

Anon Pink said:


> At the time I posted this question, I had heard of this occurring and names were named. I did not see any proof so I couldn't say if it was true or not. Though, by the posting style of one of the named parties, it seemed as likely to be true as not.
> 
> As I said already, this entire idea was brand new to me and I wanted to have a discussion on where this behavior, on the part of the men send tributes, might fall on a spectrum of monogamy.


Well, I can understand that. What I don't understand are the folks who jumped in afterwards claiming that it was all true, evidence had been given to the mods, and that the number of involved people is wider than one.

As I've said, this seems to be a job for the mods, not us.


----------



## sidney2718

Lyris said:


> SO MUCH protesting on this thread. Some might even say .... too much


Do you think that policing TAM is a job for us or for the mods. That's my current issue.

What is your take on this?


----------



## Lyris

And why shouldn't it also be discussed as a hypothetical situation? It's interesting and relevant to a site like this which exists to discuss relationships and support healthy marriages.


----------



## Anon Pink

sidney2718 said:


> Why not write a letter to the mods? I'm relatively new here (less than a year) but I've never seen anything like this before. Folks are spreading rumors to the rest of us. And it is the rest of us who are being used as tools for some sort of morality agenda.
> 
> I don't like it and I suspect that no good will come of it.


I disagree, I think a lot of good can come from this. 

It happened, here, it involved people here at TAM. A place where people come for help, a place where people open their hearts and reveal their inner fears and concerns, seek help and solutions to their marriage problems and in the end hope to learn! Learn from the mistakes of others, learn from our own mistakes. TAM is a place where learning and growing are the ultimate goals.

I personally don't care to know who the men are who are involved. I do care to know that this type of trolling is spotted and revealed for what it is.

So...what is it? Is it cheating, most believe so.


----------



## sidney2718

Entropy3000 said:


> I think you have every right to think of it as only the mods. I respect that opinion. But I do not have to agree with it.
> 
> I think the topic itself has merit.
> 
> I also have a different view than many of authority. I respect it. However, I have a greater sense of independence and self reliance that rides above that. IRL I do not say, oh that is a police matter and none of my business. Indeed I cannot "judge" a case without all the evidence. But I can surely discuss the relevant aspects as they ultimately impact myself and my community.
> 
> So I understand your position. But I am also listening to others opinions.


OK. But I can't discuss the wider issue without seeing the evidence. TAM is not supposed to be a dating site. But again, that's up to the mods to enforce. We have no power to do so.

As for the original question, as I've said upthread, if the situation is real I'd like to have a bit more information.


----------



## Entropy3000

sidney2718 said:


> Why not write a letter to the mods? I'm relatively new here (less than a year) but I've never seen anything like this before. Folks are spreading rumors to the rest of us. And it is the rest of us who are being used as tools for some sort of morality agenda.
> 
> I don't like it and I suspect that no good will come of it.


This is not entirely about the mods in my opinion. It is about the community. But I also think the general question is valid whether this is real or just hypothetical.

Sociology 101. This is a marriage site. We talk about marriage. But morality kinda does come up once in a while. We can call it values.

This topic is about boundaries. By definition. We were asked if a given scenario was cheating. A value / morality judgement. I think that is both fair and relevant. 

I think folks have a right to openly discuss what impacts the community. Sure the mods at somepoint with break out the tear gas and break this up.


----------



## Anon Pink

I have seen a few screen shots of PMs. Don't know if I have the info you are looking for but I will answer if I do. What do you want to know, other than names.


----------



## sidney2718

Lyris said:


> I don't see any false rumours being spread. A long-time member was caught soliciting tribute shots from married TAMmers. She's been banned. Permanently. That's not up for debate.
> 
> What is up for debate is who were the 4-6 men here she was carrying on with, as frankly, they should also be banned.
> 
> I'm not going mention names. But I'm pretty disgusted and frankly it's not hard to make some educated guesses if you do a tiny bit of detective work.


Whoa! Now YOU say that the story is true also. How do you know this? Certainly the mods didn't tell you about it. And nobody has been debating that.

As for "What is up for debate is who were the 4-6 men here she was carrying on with, as frankly, they should also be banned.", again, how in heck can you know this unless you were a friend of the banned person and you turned her in. I say again that it is none of our business.

And what does "I'm not gong (to) mention names." Do you know names? And if so, how do you know them? Detective work? You have a way of reading folks PM?


----------



## richie33

This thread took a turn. Happened in the social section?


----------



## sidney2718

Lyris said:


> And why shouldn't it also be discussed as a hypothetical situation? It's interesting and relevant to a site like this which exists to discuss relationships and support healthy marriages.


We were doing that until someone claimed it was a real situation. Someone who also had knowledge of the details of the case. That immediately became very interesting. Folks here are "guaranteed" a certain level of privacy. It would seem that there is less privacy that I would have thought.


----------



## Entropy3000

sidney2718 said:


> I'm not defensive at all? Whom am I defending?
> 
> You posted that the situation was real, that evidence has been given to the mods, and that somebody has been banned because of it.
> 
> And then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> First: you can't have it both ways. Is it hypothetical as Anon originally assumed or is it real as you claimed?
> 
> Second: Why is it our job to police TAM in public. The moral thing to do was to present the evidence to the mods and let them do their job. You've claimed in a previous post that this was done. So why are you presenting this in public? You say "I'd like to know who else was involved." I think that the proper answer to that is that it is none of our business, that the mods will take care of it, and that this entire thread was started for some reason not clear to me.


Maybe this is political but some folks take the view that to a point a community needs to police itself.


----------



## Lyris

For someone who keeps saying it's none of our business you're very keen on making it all your business Sidney.


----------



## Entropy3000

Lyris said:


> I don't see any false rumours being spread. A long-time member was caught soliciting tribute shots from married TAMmers. She's been banned. Permanently. That's not up for debate.
> 
> What is up for debate is who were the 4-6 men here she was carrying on with, as frankly, they should also be banned.
> 
> I'm not going mention names. But I'm pretty disgusted and frankly it's not hard to make some educated guesses if you do a tiny bit of detective work.


Ah. I see.

Not knowing the whole situation if there was carrying on then I would think all involved would be held accountable. The one soliciting should be a lifetime ban. But the others? Perhaps so.


----------



## TiggyBlue

A tribute shot if something very different to what I was envisioning.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> I disagree, I think a lot of good can come from this.
> 
> It happened, here, it involved people here at TAM. A place where people come for help, a place where people open their hearts and reveal their inner fears and concerns, seek help and solutions to their marriage problems and in the end hope to learn! Learn from the mistakes of others, learn from our own mistakes. TAM is a place where learning and growing are the ultimate goals.
> 
> I personally don't care to know who the men are who are involved. I do care to know that this type of trolling is spotted and revealed for what it is.
> 
> So...what is it? Is it cheating, most believe so.


Bravo Anon. This is exactly my take. :smthumbup:

You took some risk posting this but I applaud you for taking that risk.


----------



## Anon Pink

Entropy3000 said:


> Bravo Anon. This is exactly my take. :smthumbup:
> 
> You took some risk posting this but I applaud you for taking that risk.


Yeah, each time I post something I expect to get an invalid message followed by a banned box...


----------



## mablenc

While I heard of this site sometimes used as a hook up site, I had no idea to what extreme. However, if the person has been reported and banned and I do agree the men involved should be banned as well. I'm not clear on why for example you Anon Pink have seen the screen shots. Is someone besides the involved parties passing around the picture? And isn't that also reportable? Or did the the person that took the pictures pass them around to more than one party?

And to answer your question it's cheating to me, both or however many parties are involved voluntary.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

Have no idea how those screen shots came to be. I don't think that is the relevant question anyway.


----------



## Lyris

How funny that you should concentrate primarily on the idea of screenshots Mablenc. Like that's the main issue.

Is it because you're interested in seeing them yourself?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

My mind has just been blown. On the up side, I read this thread to my husband and he said he would be happy to send me a "tribute shot".


----------



## larry.gray

Hmm, three votes for no. 

I wonder if they are the same men who made 'trubutes' to the picture?


----------



## mablenc

Lyris said:


> How funny that you should concentrate primarily on the idea of screenshots Mablenc. Like that's the main issue.
> 
> Is it because you're interested in seeing them yourself?


No, not at all. Guess one can't ask anything then. I only asked because even that piperk troll claimed to have evidence, it just seemed like the evidence was passed on beyond the moderators.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lyris

And again, that's the main issue to you is it? Not that married people on a site for helping troubled marriages are using it as a hook up site?


----------



## Almostrecovered

I feel like the kitchen light came on and the ****roaches are scrambling


----------



## richie33

Sh*t I am interested in who would it be. I would rather know if I am taking advice from a hyprocrites.


----------



## Dollystanford

I like to know because I'm a really nosy bastard


----------



## heartsbeating

Therealbrighteyes said:


> My mind has just been blown. On the up side, I read this thread to my husband and he said he would be happy to send me a "tribute shot".


oh beHAVE! 

I told my husband, well, I learned something new! 'Tribute shot' - that should be clue enough that it's time to get off the damn forum. He hadn't heard of it but thought it was sad that it was common enough that it has a name.


----------



## Regret214

The notion that it's okay if the wife knows is silly.

I mean, how does that conversation go?

"Dear, a female poster sent me a nude picture of herself. You don't mind if I pleasure myself to it, orgasm on it, take a picture of it when I'm done and send it back, would you?"

That's beyond silly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JCD

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> 
> Well if they're swingers and her husband is full aware and perhaps get aroused from it, if she doesn't represent herself as a model of piety , then there is no conflict there.
> 
> Those who judge her are the hypocrites , because they know the type of lifestyle she and her husband OPENLY embrace.
> If she's involved in sex clubs and swinging , and others aren't involved in that type of life, then they need to mind their own business.
> 
> However , if she presents herself as a pious person and judges others who aren't in her lifestyle choice , then she too is a hypocrite.
> 
> If her husband doesn't know, then she's cheating.


There is cheating even inside the swinging framework.

And no, people who judge her *according to their own moral principles* are *NOT* hypocrites. They are staying true to THEIR values.

If Hannibal Lecter is staying true to his values of murdering and eating people, it is not hypocrisy for me to judge him badly if my moral position is 'murder is wrong'

If it only when I espouse 'murder is wrong' and then indulge in it myself which makes me a hypocrite.

You are pretty good usually on discussing free rights and alternative lifestyles but you walked too close to the razors edge and nicked yourself.


----------



## JCD

Caribbean Man said:


> Well then we're both agreeing that it's not our business...
> 
> We might find it reprehensible, but if we don't know for sure they're cheating , then we have no business casting judgments.
> 
> Swingers are known to do that type of stuff , that arouses _them_.
> 
> I tend not to make other people's sexual choices my problem, especially if they aren't hurting others.


Well, here is the deal: 'aren't hurting others' is a very key question.

This is a bit of a thread jack so I will keep it short: Several people have approached my wife or myself wondering if we swung. Now, IF they are seeking a consensual couple, that is all fine and dandy. Except it makes people think...And sometimes it weakens a marriage. My value system says 'sleeping with someone else is wrong and weakens the institution of marriage'.

They are saying 'no, it does not weaken it' (despite a rather horrifying divorce rate in the swinging culture). 

So they are, by their very nature, at least seeking to cause uncertainty in that premise. So it is a very strong value conflict.

How strongly they try to put that into conflict is a matter of their own personal politeness.

Thread jack over.


----------



## BradWesley

Dollystanford said:


> I like to know because I'm a really nosy bastard


Damn, I love truthful people.


----------



## johnnycomelately

larry.gray said:


> Hmm, three votes for no.
> 
> I wonder if they are the same men who made 'trubutes' to the picture?


Hahaha. No. One of the 'no' votes was me and I am currently torturing myself with 'NoFap'. 

I just don't see it as cheating, that's not to say it isn't wrong and it definitely shouldn't happen on TAM. 

So, was she hot?


----------



## BradWesley

Interesting that most of the guys suspected are now back and posting.


----------



## richie33

BradWesley said:


> Interesting that most of the guys suspected are now back and posting.


You want to admit to something?


----------



## BradWesley

richie33 said:


> You want to admit to something?


What are you inferring?


----------



## richie33

BradWesley said:


> What are you inferring?


That you are Magnum PI.


----------



## BradWesley

richie33 said:


> That you are Magnum PI.


Hardly, it doesn't pay anywhere near enough


----------



## weightlifter

My definition of cheating is canned vs a live person being involved. Since it involves a live person it is cheating.

Seems also kind of lame. She should at least be naked.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



weightlifter said:


> My definition of cheating is canned vs a live person being involved. Since it involves a live person it is cheating.
> 
> Seems also kind of lame. She should at least be naked.


She likely sent some of those, too.


----------



## soccermom2three

Davelli0331 said:


> It's definitely not gossip. Irrefutable proof exists, has been submitted to the mods, and one ban has already occurred.


What! What!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

One of the men implicated in this implied I was a "[email protected]" on numerous occasions because I had no problem with the occasional girls night out. We are talking twice a year. No, not you Entropy. This man sat here and stood in judgement of me and my married friends who went out for dinner and then to a club where we literally only danced with each other. Why did we do this? Because none of our husbands gave a damn about dancing. Somehow, that made me a woman of questionable morals. 

Let me make sure you understand this Tribute Man. He often advocated for married men to find a hobby, go out on his own to be hit on by women in bars, increase his sex rank to women via gym membership and above all.....never sit at home catering to whims. So I did similar, only it was going to the gym and having a GNO twice a year shirking any male contact. Yup, I was the skank. A complete s!ut whose virtue and marriage should be questioned. 

Yeah, you are a liar, a cheater and an all around pile of crap. What an incredible amount of projection you have done.


----------



## cuchulain36

That clearly seems to be cheating.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



johnnycomelately said:


> Hahaha. No. One of the 'no' votes was me and I am currently torturing myself with 'NoFap'.
> 
> I just don't see it as cheating, that's not to say it isn't wrong and it definitely shouldn't happen on TAM.
> 
> *So, was she hot?*


Her husband thinks so, I believe... as well as the 4-6 TAM men she had been conversing with. Maybe even more thought so (wink wink).


----------



## Regret214

What will be really a funny, happy ending, would be if the female turns out not to be female at all...lol

Kind of like some shabby guy wearing a stained shirt that reads "I was the chick you cybered with last night"!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> One of the men implicated in this implied I was a "[email protected]" on numerous occasions because I had no problem with the occasional girls night out. We are talking twice a year. *No, not you Entropy.* This man sat here and stood in judgement of me and my married friends who went out for dinner and then to a club where we literally only danced with each other. Why did we do this? Because none of our husbands gave a damn about dancing. Somehow, that made me a woman of questionable morals.
> 
> Let me make sure you understand this Tribute Man. He often advocated for married men to find a hobby, go out on his own to be hit on by women in bars, increase his sex rank to women via gym membership and above all.....never sit at home catering to whims. So I did similar, only it was going to the gym and having a GNO twice a year shirking any male contact. Yup, I was the skank. A complete s!ut whose virtue and marriage should be questioned.
> 
> Yeah, you are a liar, a cheater and an all around pile of crap. What an incredible amount of projection you have done.


:rofl: Thanks. I think


----------



## Thunder7

Here's my final take on this. Number one, Lyris taking a shot at mablenc for asking a legitimate question was quite unwarranted. Number two, someone questioned why someone would become defensive about all of this. Well, the answer to that is when the whole A-Z thread, which was meant to be something light hearted, when to hell, good ol' troll Piper was casting a very wide net with the veiled implications. For someone who was so certain something so horrid was going on and who the players were she was dong an awful lot of not so subtle finger pointing, just to try and get a reaction. And as someone who felt the finger was being pointed at, yeah, it can bring out defensive behavior. But, without a direct accusation no proper defense could be stated and anything said came off as 'possible' guilt. While the identity of the female participant may have been known it was a fishing expedition for the alleged men involved. If you want to interrogate someone, which is not your (piper's, or whomever's) job, do it directly and don't cast a wide net to see who's going to bite. Or more accurately, react in a way YOU deem suspicious.


----------



## over20

Thunder7 said:


> Here's my final take on this. Number one, Lyris taking a shot at mablenc for asking a legitimate question was quite unwarranted. Number two, someone questioned why someone would become defensive about all of this. Well, the answer to that is when the whole A-Z thread, which was meant to be something light hearted, when to hell, good ol' troll Piper was casting a very wide net with the veiled implications. For someone who was so certain something so horrid was going on and who the players were she was dong an awful lot of not so subtle finger pointing, just to try and get a reaction. And as someone who felt the finger was being pointed at, yeah, it can bring out defensive behavior. But, without a direct accusation no proper defense could be stated and anything said came off as 'possible' guilt. While the identity of the female participant may have been known it was a fishing expedition for the alleged men involved. If you want to interrogate someone, which is not your (piper's, or whomever's) job, do it directly and don't cast a wide net to see who's going to bite. Or more accurately, react in a way YOU deem suspicious.



Wise post Thunder7! :iagree::iagree:


----------



## Entropy3000

I think what looks odd is when we have some folks defending this practice on TAM in the name of lifestyle and that it is no ones business. While that is certainly a valid position to take it, it can also bring suspicion right or wrong from some. Just trying to be real here.

So while there is no obligation for anyone to out themselves it would be very stand up for them to do so. To maybe clarify their side of this. Or not.

Maybe this would stop the casting of the wide net. Ummm. What do we call this? Oh yeah. Man up.


----------



## BradWesley

Entropy3000 said:


> I think what looks odd is when we have some folks defending this practice on TAM in the name of lifestyle and that it is no ones business. While that is certainly a valid position to take it, it can also bring suspicion right or wrong from some. Just trying to be real here.
> 
> So while there is no obligation for anyone to out themselves it would be very stand up for them to do so. To maybe clarify their side of this. Or not.


Good luck with that policy


----------



## Anon Pink

Okay, speculations are pointless. Except as TheRealBrightEyes pointed out, in cases where false piety should be outed! As an advocate for GNO's myself I've had some go rounds here on the subject. Yes you Entropy! 

Back to the question though. How is this different from a man looking at porn and "wanking? Is it because the subject could reply a simpering...Oooh, Ummm thanks!" It doesn't seem that there is any real relationship. So an EA is out. Is it the interactive nature of soliciting tributes?

What makes this cheating?


----------



## sidney2718

Lyris said:


> And again, that's the main issue to you is it? Not that married people on a site for helping troubled marriages are using it as a hook up site?


But Lyris, that's not the point of this thread. Go back and read Anon's original post. It gave a hypothetical case about a situation involving "tribute" shots.

That was the original issue. That issue changed when one person posted that the situation was NOT hypothetical, that evidence existed, and that the woman involved had been banned.

We've been kicking that around ever since. There's your change of subject.


----------



## BradWesley

Thunder7 said:


> Here's my final take on this. Number one, Lyris taking a shot at mablenc for asking a legitimate question was quite unwarranted. Number two, someone questioned why someone would become defensive about all of this. Well, the answer to that is when the whole A-Z thread, which was meant to be something light hearted, when to hell, good ol' troll Piper was casting a very wide net with the veiled implications. For someone who was so certain something so horrid was going on and who the players were she was dong an awful lot of not so subtle finger pointing, just to try and get a reaction. And as someone who felt the finger was being pointed at, yeah, it can bring out defensive behavior. But, without a direct accusation no proper defense could be stated and anything said came off as 'possible' guilt. While the identity of the female participant may have been known it was a fishing expedition for the alleged men involved. If you want to interrogate someone, which is not your (piper's, or whomever's) job, do it directly and don't cast a wide net to see who's going to bite. Or more accurately, react in a way YOU deem suspicious.


Now that you have figured this crap out, I ask you the question

Who the hell killed Kennedy?


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> Okay, speculations are pointless. Except as TheRealBrightEyes pointed out, in cases where false piety should be outed! As an advocate for GNO's myself I've had some go rounds here on the subject. Yes you Entropy!
> 
> Back to the question though. How is this different from a man looking at porn and "wanking? Is it because the subject could reply a simpering...Oooh, Ummm thanks!" It doesn't seem that there is any real relationship. So an EA is out. Is it the interactive nature of soliciting tributes?
> 
> What makes this cheating?


It is an interactive exchange between people. A form of cybersex.

Cheating does not have to involve an EA. It can be a sexual affair. This is part of a sexual affair. Indeed it could turn into and EA or PA.


----------



## sidney2718

BradWesley said:


> Interesting that most of the guys suspected are now back and posting.


Is there any evidence that they were involved?


----------



## Thunder7

BradWesley said:


> Now that you have figured this crap out, I ask you the question
> 
> Who the hell killed Kennedy?


I don't know, Brad Wesley. But I really wish you would watch where your driving? (you better get that reference)


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> :rofl: Thanks. I think


You are cool. You appreciated that women can in fact go out once a while and not have sex with random men. Weird, huh?


----------



## Regret214

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You are cool. You appreciated that women can in fact go out once a while and not have sex with random men. Weird, huh?


But what about our hamsters???!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

Entropy3000 said:


> It is an interactive exchange between people. A form of cybersex.
> 
> Cheating does not have to involve an EA. It can be a sexual affair. This is part of a sexual affair. Indeed it could turn into and EA or PA.


IDK, I always thought of cyber sex as more of a sexual dysfunction due to the impersonal nature. If I discovered my husband was involved in anonymous cyber sex I wouldn't, at least I don't think so, feel betrayed in the classic sense, but more disappointed/betrayed that his sexual expressions did not include me. 

I think I would look at it as more of an interpersonal and a personal problem. It would hurt that he couldn't freely engage with me on that level...I think.:scratchhead:


----------



## Entropy3000

sidney2718 said:


> Is there any evidence that they were involved?


Can you get DNA from a picture?


----------



## Lyris

I took no shots thanks Thunder7. I said it was very clear what was going on, which was that three people - CarribeanMan, Sidney and now Mablenc - were trying very hard to cloud the issue at hand. This was probably as an attempt to get the thread locked and people banned. 

AnonPink has stated clearly that her OP was couched as a hypothetical to abide by guidelines and also because it is an interesting hypothetical question as well as being a an actual situation recently uncovered on TAM. 

It's very interesting that literally the only people who are defending the behaviour, calling for silence, dragging other things in (seriously CarribeanMan, you'd think someone had sent YOU d*ck pics the way you were going on about it) or hiding behind "it's not our business" were all members of the same two TAM social groups, which have been deleted recently. It makes this look orchestrated, insincere and an attempted cover-up.


----------



## BradWesley

Thunder7 said:


> I don't know, Brad Wesley. But I really wish you would watch where your driving? (you better get that reference)


You don't phase me one bit slick.


----------



## Regret214

Anon Pink said:


> IDK, I always thought of cyber sex as more of a sexual dysfunction due to the impersonal nature. If I discovered my husband was involved in anonymous cyber sex I wouldn't, at least I don't think so, feel betrayed in the classic sense, but more disappointed/betrayed that his sexual expressions did not include me.
> 
> I think I would look at it as more of an interpersonal and a personal problem. It would hurt that he couldn't freely engage with me on that level...I think.:scratchhead:



But isn't it a little personal when a guy spanks and tributes ON a picture and then sends a picture of THAT back? Seems pretty personal to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Regret214

Kind of like a "Wish you were here" postcard.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thunder7

Entropy3000 said:


> It is an interactive exchange between people. A form of cybersex.
> 
> Cheating does not have to involve an EA. It can be a sexual affair. This is part of a sexual affair. Indeed it could turn into and EA or PA.


I guess here's where I stand on that. I came to TAM because of a specific issue. I stayed because there were some people on here I genuinely like. They seem like really good people. However, if I found out they were participating in this type of behavior, how would I react? Meh. Whatever. While I like the peeps I chat and post with here I don't really KNOW them. None of us really KNOWS the others (although I'm sure there are some exceptions and that's pretty cool, I think). But am I going to get my panties in wad because person X, who I thought was quite the upstanding dude/dudette was caught doing something reprehensible, yet it has absolutely no direct effect on me personally? No. Not in the least. People do ****ty things all the time. In my profession I am never shocked by that. So, I wouldn't be shocked here either. To each his own. We all know the old saying, 'you make your bed, you have to lie in it'. I certainly would not participate in this cyber stoning witch hunt.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> IDK, I always thought of cyber sex as more of a sexual dysfunction due to the impersonal nature. If I discovered my husband was involved in anonymous cyber sex I wouldn't, at least I don't think so, feel betrayed in the classic sense, but more disappointed/betrayed that his sexual expressions did not include me.
> 
> I think I would look at it as more of an interpersonal and a personal problem. It would hurt that he couldn't freely engage with me on that level...I think.:scratchhead:


There is a big difference between looking at pictures or videos on the internet and interacting with persons on the internet in a sexual manner. 

I mean taking the anonymous view to the next level would give me cover to interact with women while I was on a business trip as long as I do not use my real name and will never see them again. Not what you are suggesting, but I am saying that the interaction is what matters. There are plenty of adult sites to have this kind of exchange.


----------



## Thunder7

Lyris said:


> I took no shots thanks Thunder7. I said it was very clear what was going on, which was that three people - CarribeanMan, Sidney and now Mablenc - were trying very hard to cloud the issue at hand. This was probably as an attempt to get the thread locked and people banned.
> 
> AnonPink has stated clearly that her OP was couched as a hypothetical to abide by guidelines and also because it is an interesting hypothetical question as well as being a an actual situation recently uncovered on TAM.
> 
> It's very interesting that literally the only people who are defending the behaviour, calling for silence, dragging other things in (seriously CarribeanMan, you'd think someone had sent YOU d*ck pics the way you were going on about it) or hiding behind "it's not our business" were all members of the same two TAM social groups, which have been deleted recently. It makes this look orchestrated, insincere and an attempted cover-up.


Oh, brother. And I only say that because it's G rated. See my above post.


----------



## Anon Pink

Regret214 said:


> But isn't it a little personal when a guy spanks and tributes ON a picture and then sends a picture of THAT back? Seems pretty personal to me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I guess. I can't get passed the ick factor to dig any deeper in this. I still want to laugh every time I think about someone actually going to the trouble of taking a pic of their semen. 

Remember when your kids were little and they'd pick their nose and try to hand you the booger? My nephew did that and aparently I was supposed to get a napkin for him but instead I said "Euw gross, go get a napkin!" And he cried... He was a very sensitive little boy and felt rejected. Adorable!


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



Entropy3000 said:


> Can you get DNA from a picture?


Only if it's in your possession


----------



## Regret214

Anon Pink said:


> I guess. I can't get passed the ick factor to dig any deeper in this. I still want to laugh every time I think about someone actually going to the trouble of taking a pic of their semen.
> 
> Remember when your kids were little and they'd pick their nose and try to hand you the booger? My nephew did that and aparently I was supposed to get a napkin for him but instead I said "Euw gross, go get a napkin!" And he cried... He was a very sensitive little boy and felt rejected. Adorable!


I have a boy. Unfortunately, my mommy instinct took over. But if it were not my child I would certainly be grossed out!! LOL

As for your first comment, I couldn't agree more. I mean, let's be honest here...it seems like something a prepubescent boy would do. If Dig ever told me he'd done that, I'd laugh for a while before getting upset.

Again, though, I also wonder about the "female" in this instance so I'll ask right out: How many of you ladies would be turned on by a guy sending you a picture of yourself with their spunk on it?

I know I'd be pretty skeeved out. Anyone else wanna weigh in?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## over20

Maricha75 said:


> Her husband thinks so, I believe... as well as the 4-6 TAM men she had been conversing with. Maybe even more thought so (wink wink).


How would you know what her husband thought? UNLESS her husband is also a member on TAM and posted as such?:scratchhead:


and what does the wink, wink mean?


----------



## Maricha75

Regret, I can honestly say it would disgust me. Yuck!


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



over20 said:


> How would you know what her husband thought? UNLESS her husband is also a member on TAM and posted as such?:scratchhead:
> 
> 
> and what does the wink, wink mean?


Really? *smh*


----------



## I Notice The Details

WOW, this thread is growing like a weed!


----------



## Anon Pink

I think I would laugh!

I have a single friend who is making a folder of all the d!ck pics she gets. It's laughable! 

Remember when Clinton was accuse by that...what was her name... He was Governor at the time and she was called into his office and he pulled out his d!ck... I remember hearing that and wondering what do men expect from women we they do that? Do they really honestly think it turns us on, impresses us? It's like my nephew and his booger. To him it meant acceptance, to me...get a damn napkin!


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



I Notice The Details said:


> WOW, this thread is growing like a weed!


That's what happens when things are brought out of the dark.


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> How would you know what her husband thought? UNLESS her husband is also a member on TAM and posted as such?:scratchhead:
> 
> 
> and what does the wink, wink mean?


Her husband was a member of TAM until he got banned also permanently.


----------



## over20

Maricha75 said:


> Really? *smh*


What does that mean?


----------



## Entropy3000

Thunder7 said:


> I guess here's where I stand on that. I came to TAM because of a specific issue. I stayed because there were some people on here I genuinely like. They seem like really good people. However, if I found out they were participating in this type of behavior, how would I react? Meh. Whatever. While I like the peeps I chat and post with here I don't really KNOW them. None of us really KNOWS the others (although I'm sure there are some exceptions and that's pretty cool, I think). But am I going to get my panties in wad because person X, who I thought was quite the upstanding dude/dudette was caught doing something reprehensible, yet it has absolutely no direct effect on me personally? No. Not in the least. People do ****ty things all the time. In my profession I am never shocked by that. So, I wouldn't be shocked here either. To each his own. We all know the old saying, 'you make your bed, you have to lie in it'. I certainly would not participate in this cyber stoning witch hunt.


Panties in a wad over this -- uncheck

You do not KNOW the people here. -- check

So does this anonymity change the boundaries here?
For me this does help me speak with folks candidly about issues.
But does this anonymity mean I am ok to to what Anon put in the OP?

I think this is cheating. I think also you have to admit that some folks think this is especially not appropriate on TAM. That there are hookup sites for this.


----------



## over20

Oh, I now know who it is now and what is going on....I just have one thought....why do so many women gang up on the female... and not the males? Fair is fair.


----------



## Anon Pink

Entropy3000 said:


> I think also you have to admit that some folks think this is especially not appropriate on TAM. That there are hookup sites for this.


This is what enrages me about the whole thing. People here are in a vulnerable state and her behavior was predatory. This doesn't excuse the men involved, but she knew damn right well what she was doing, if it really was a SHE and not her husband getting his jollies!


----------



## mablenc

Lyris said:


> I took no shots thanks Thunder7. I said it was very clear what was going on, which was that three people - CarribeanMan, Sidney and now Mablenc - were trying very hard to cloud the issue at hand. This was probably as an attempt to get the thread locked and people banned.
> 
> AnonPink has stated clearly that her OP was couched as a hypothetical to abide by guidelines and also because it is an interesting hypothetical question as well as being a an actual situation recently uncovered on TAM.
> 
> It's very interesting that literally the only people who are defending the behaviour, calling for silence, dragging other things in (seriously CarribeanMan, you'd think someone had sent YOU d*ck pics the way you were going on about it) or hiding behind "it's not our business" were all members of the same two TAM social groups, which have been deleted recently. It makes this look orchestrated, insincere and an attempted cover-up.


Wow, no Lyris I am not trying to do anything. I stated my position very clear, I said its cheating to me and that all participating members shoud be banned.

I simply asked why many people claim to have evidence. I have no idea who the offending parties are and don't care.

You very well took a shot at me, and I will clarify I don't lower myself to cheating in any way or contibute to this behavior. I don't come here to bully people either. I came to the site and found value in helping others and socializing with great, smart, honest, and funny people.

If you think it's orchestrated I can clarify that it's not.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> Her husband was a member of TAM until he got banned also permanently.


And for all I know they were the same person.

This is the internet.


----------



## Maricha75

*Re: Re: Is sending a "tribute" shot cheating?*



over20 said:


> Oh, I now know who it is now and what is going on....I just have one thought....why do so many women gang up on the female... and not the males? Fair is fair.


I'm equally disgusted at her behavior as I am at the behavior of the men involved.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> This is what enrages me about the whole thing. People here are in a vulnerable state and her behavior was predatory. This doesn't excuse the men involved, but she knew damn right well what she was doing, if it really was a SHE and not her husband getting his jollies!


:iagree:


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> Once again you are rude to me.


With all due respect.... Coming up to 200 posts now and those that stay on topic are directly answering about the MAN's behavior.


----------



## Thunder7

mablenc said:


> Wow, no Lyris I am not trying to do anything. I stated my position very clear, I said its cheating to me and that all participating members shoud be banned.
> 
> I simply asked why many people claim to have evidence. *I have no idea who the offending parties are and don't care.*
> 
> You very well took a shot at me, and I will clarify I don't lower myself to cheating in any way or contibute to this behavior. *I don't come here to bully people either.* I came to the site and found value in helping others and socializing with great, smart, honest, and funny people.
> 
> If you think it's orchestrated I can clarify that it's not.


Well, my dear, that's where you've apparently gone off the rails. Me too. Some people care very much who's involved, and will apparently stop at nothing to find out. Me? Couldn't care less. IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME AT ALL! You either, I'm guessing.  And, apparently, some people do feel it's their right to try and bully people. Inflict their views on others. I think they're actually getting off on the attention they're getting.


----------



## over20

Maricha75 said:


> I'm equally disgusted at her behavior as I am at the behavior of the men involved.


The "men" or man? How do you KNOW the difference? Is there a thread that the rest of us can go look at to receive the same info you have? :scratchhead:


----------



## Deejo

Simply noting here, to avoid any further drama that the OP's ban was not related to this thread. Not permanent either.


----------

