@Babichev you’re exactly right. The non- platonic stuff bothers , and in my mind if they are not being honest about it being platonic, then how am I supposed to trust that in my private space ?
And someone suggested that you spend time conversing with a potential person, how much time, would one suggest?
It’s been really great though reading from other experiences, I’m learning quite a bit.
When I’m ready to try again, Ill be armed with knowledge lol.
One thing that bothered me , was that the potential cuddler kept comparing it to dating-
I see it entirely different-
There is no way I’m meeting someone that I don’t know, no one I know knows him, etc for a Starbucks date and inviting them to my house the same week-
Major red flag 🚩
One risk of giving someone your ID is blackmail. Another risk is that the cuddler is also involved in other things like prostitution. Imagine they get arrested and the police find a whole bunch of photocopied IDs laying around. You might be getting a call from the police. Many people get into this lifestyle because they can’t get the same intimacy in their relationship and so they want anonymity. Even if they have no partner, many people would be embarrassed should it get out what they are doing this. Imagine a politician having to explain what they are doing when they visit young women in hotels. You think the public will buy the whole cuddling thing? I know you care about your own safety but you also are an unknown to them and they have risks to avoid just the same. Anonymity is one way they can do that.
@dave31415 i respect anonymity - but we are talking about entering someone’s home- not a hotel- and no one’s collecting or even thought about collecting /photographing ids -
It’s odd that you even say that.
Matter of fact- hotels collect id when you check in, everyone uses them- no one complains that hotels are “out to blackmail them”
"I didn’t think about ID when meeting publicly, I wanted to be ascertained that it would work."
I think the suggestions were that it's just easier to request during the first meeting if that's what you want. It kinda feels different to me anyway.
"Private setting vs public setting is entirely different."
Sure is!
"Most cuddling doesn’t happen in public settings."
Perhaps not.
"One thing that bothered me , was that the potential cuddler kept comparing it to dating-"
"I see it entirely different-" Cause it is, maybe not entirely, though pretty much.
"I see a Lack of empathy for women who desire to feel comfortable."
Sometimes it's not about a lack of empathy, though conflicting needs. For whatever reasons some of them likely feel uncomfortable with it and that's okay too. Better to go on to others who you can feel comfortable with.
"And someone suggested that you spend time conversing with a potential person, how much time, would one suggest?"
Only you can decide that for yourself. Also since I personally only do public thus far, I can't really say from my perspective either. Though I imagine it'd take a lot longer with getting to spend time in public before I'd feel comfortable to host or be a guest. Neither of which I can* do in the foreseeable future.
@applepie55 is there a good website for doing background checks? How much is it and how long does it take?
@Tigerlilly32 showing IDs to a company vs a stranger is a totally different thing. There is a huge difference in legal responsibility, confidentially and safeguarding. Public setting meetups sound like the most sensible future arrangement.
Ok @Gary public cuddling sounds sensible to you.
You do realize some of us here are licensed professionals?
@dave31415 , well, I don’t mean send your ID as a message, a text, or email but show it first thing when meeting in person so they can confirm it is you. This method doesn’t have blackmail risks at all.
I wouldn’t mind being background checked on TruthFinder or any other site, except that it also shows your address, and I would hope that the cuddle buddy doesn’t try memorizing the address, but most people wouldn’t try putting in the effort to memorize addresses and license plate numbers and who it belongs to. So I don’t really think background checking me should be a problem. Now if it’s males background checking women, then that would be scary as they may be able to see their addresses. The one thing that would make background check better would be to not show the address.
@Tigerlilly32 Can you clarify what you mean by "licensed professional" and how that is relevant to meeting in public as an enthusiast for safety reasons?
I have seen professionals in my area who only offer public cuddling.
@frace95 "but show it first thing when meeting in person so they can confirm it is you. This method doesn’t have blackmail risks at all."
It's not entirely without issues though, at this point in my life I don't really feel comfortable having to show someone my ID in this type of situation and I don't really care to see theirs either. Unless to just see their photo and confirm their age if I have doubts. And vice versa if they feel the need. Though otherwise I don't feel comfortable showing other details nor having to explain why I'm uncomfortable. So unfortunately it isn't that simple for* everyone. [ PS. Though I'm also not being a guest nor hosting, so it's somewhat different. Which even if I were, although I would understand the limitations and gravity my decisions could come with. I'd still have the right to make those decisions and allow others to do so too for themselves. ]
This is a general comment: Nobody's comfort should be expected to trump another's. If someone isn't okay doing something, they don't owe you and they aren't necessarily bad or inconsiderate. Many have their comfort and safety to keep in mind. So it goes both ways. If it isn't working with ease, if someone isn't comfortable with it, the right thing to do is leave it be. I know it stings, I've been stung countless times so I know. I also know I stung once or twice in my lifetime too. Such is life, it doesn't always work how we'd like it to. In the reality we live in, respecting each other's boundaries is the best chance we have at finding happiness and peace of mind.
@WriterGF But she's not a professional... i.e. a pink p. I suspect she uses the word in a difference sense here. Just not sure why being a "professional" would cause issues meeting in public for safety reasons.
Being highly safety aware and inviting a stranger to your home rather than public... which sounds more sensible? Once trust is built then there should be no need for exchanging of IDs.
Categorically stating men who don't show IDs is showing lack of empathy... well it works both ways. For those who are uncomfortable showing their ID does that mean they have something to hide or aren't a good cuddler? All seems too generalised to me.
@Lovelight well said completely agree! Uncomfortable in showing ID is not necessarily indicative of being afraid of what they will find out, but because your afraid of them and ironically your OWN safety. Understanding that is key for empathy to work both ways. There are other ways to build trust without having to show your passport.
@Gary i wonder why you’re so defensive about this… Anyways These are my thoughts-
I am a professional that carries a state liscense because I work with the public.
My name can be looked up anytime and I have no qualms about having my background run.
It raises suspicion when I see fierce defense as I’m about transparency.
If one chooses meet in public, then identification is moot and thus the argument.
Let’s not pretend that people are not stalked or worse .
I’ve had to remove my personal picture because of the unwanted responses of my features.
I’m not posting this because it “stings”
Im more than capable and this was for research in my studies.
I
If you don't show some form of ID, at least to confirm your name, then the person you are cuddling with has no name to give their safety check. It also means that if someone does something really bad, there is no name to give to the police. I understand the desire to retain anonymity, but in this day and age, there is no anonymity. Cell phone numbers, addresses, license plate numbers, there's a whole host of ways you can be traced. i don't dismiss people who don't want to show ID as being bad actors, but it seems to me "prove you are who you say you are" is a pretty basic thing to ask when you are talking about physical intimacy in private.
@Tigerlilly32 And can I see a copy of your driving license please? All about the transparency. I'm joking, don't do that.
You mention the words "professional", "research" and "study" quite a lot - even in your profile. This makes it sound like some kind of case study/very formalised arrangement when you cuddle for educational reasons. That would go a long way to explaining why you feel the need to ask for ID. Please could you explain more about that - are you studying some kind of thesis?
I feel like this was overlooked, so I want to reiterate:
There shouldn't be an issue with both cuddlers knowing the other's name (actual name) for security reasons. Showing ID accomplishes that. Of course, sending images of IDs should be a no-no (in fact, for certain forms of ID, it's against the law) and I say this not because you can't trust the other cuddler, but you also can't necessarily trust the security of the message itself.
Now, if one party is being required to show ID, but refuses to show their own ID for whatever reason, that is a red flag. You can't argue that "I need to see your ID for my safety" while simultaneously arguing that "I refuse to show my ID for my safety" because you'd be completely invalidating and disregarding the other person's need for safety.
@Tigerlilly32 the point is that to try to put it more bluntly and simply, because it seems to me you didn't get it. Is that you aren't entitled to see someone's ID and their refusal to show it doesn't necessarily mean they lack empathy. When you cast others as "apathetic" for not bending to your comfort and safety over theirs. And thus choosing to walk away instead, then it's natural for others to feel "defensive".
Like @Gary said, empathy goes both ways.
When there are conflicting needs, the best thing to do is go your separate ways and not pass judgement on each other. So really, people's comfort and boundaries shouldn't have to be up for debate or guilt tripping. Someone having different boundaries than you doesn't necessarily make them bad.
I think it would be wise to establish in your profile that you will be asking to see ID. That way you won't waste time on people who aren't going to show it, for whatever reason.
@Lovelight Love it! You understand it's about both sides. It does seem the OP is focussing very much internally.
@ernesto_2
Sorry but I disagree entirely with your statement:
It is unfair to pin it categorically as a red flag that can't be argued with. Let's assume someone has nothing to hide, a complete clean history not a single point on their driving license, no bad history if you were to do background checks, nada... but they are uncomfortable sharing their ID - does that mean you are automatically invalidating the other persons need for safety, or it's fair to say it's a red flag? It's nonsense.
You can be just as fearful as they are with what they will do with that information, even with a completely clean history and a desire for transparency. Blackmail is a thing. Bad intentions is a thing. Confidentially is a thing. Trust is a thing. By not recognising these it's actually showing lack of empathy on the other side. There are far better ways to build a high probability of safety than a requirement of the other person showing their social security information.
I can safely say I wouldn't be bringing my passport to a cuddling session, but that's just me! I'd rather cuddle with someone who respects and values the trust that has been built between us prior to meeting up.
@Gary
"Uncomfortable in showing ID is not necessarily indicative of being afraid of what they will find out, but because your afraid of them and ironically your OWN safety. Understanding that is key for empathy to work both ways."
Exactly!
"There are other ways to build trust without having to show your passport."
There are and if that's not enough for someone, they are free to next.
@Tigerlilly32 though, I do empathize with you on his, [edit: to clarify, by "his", I mean the guy who freaked out at your request to bring an idea. It seems he lacked understanding in where you were coming from, hence probably* the reaction.] reaction to your request as it seems to have been inappropriate. You shouldn't have been made to feel like you were offending, for looking after your safety, as it sounds like you were made to feel just for asking.
@Gary I think you misunderstood my point. The issue I am bringing up is not about wanting to show ID. That's perfectly reasonable for all the concerns you've mentioned.
It is, however, a red flag when someone is unwilling to share their own ID while requiring it of others. Demanding one party provide an ID without affording the same consideration is a red flag on multiple fronts:
1- It's a one-way requirement, and even if arguing that it is necessary to demonstrate good faith, by being one-directional actually violates the very premise of "good faith" actions 2- It shows that one party is unwilling to reciprocate the same level of trust, respect, and safety, which can have broad reaching implications far beyond that of just showing an ID 3- It demonstrates that one party feels that their idea of security is incompatible or exclusive of the other's. Not only does this preclude any mutuality in mutual trust, but it implies, whether you see it or not, that only one party is a potential threat or violator.
Not only does this preclude any mutuality in mutual trust, but it implies, whether you see it or not, that only one party is a potential threat or violator.
A bold and serious claim to make without any demonstrable evidence. I showed reasons for why someone maybe uncomfortable with sharing that information, whereas your point is simply based on a causal observation by not reciprocating means you are automatically a potential threat or violator. That is absolutely not fair or equitable. Correlation does not imply causation.
If one party feels that they are owed the ID of the other (for reasons of "safety" or anything else), but refuses to reciprocate this act in order to demonstrate a concern for the other person's sense of safety, then it clearly demonstrates a lack of mutual trust and respect.
It's easy to say "well, I know I'm not a threat, so..." but the other person doesn't necessarily know that. And if one person requires proof of ID, but refuses to reciprocate, then they are suggesting that the concern for safety is one-directional.
I'm not sure why we're skipping over the crux of my statement.
@ernesto_2 I see your point, I personally don't think I'd want to engage with someone who didn't want to * and possibly in some cases can't * reciprocate the same they ask of me.
Though I feel I could see the side of someone with a similar experience to what @applepie55 shared, as well.
All the while I could argue that if she fears being stalked by a person by giving more than she's willing to, some or many may also have the same concerns she does. The ones you pointed out. Along with feel discomfort about giving something the other is unable to reciprocate. Which means their needs conflict. That to me is just as valid, as her need to be safe in the way she feels she can most be.
So all in all, as long as people make the decisions that make them feel the safest, comfortable and respect each other's boundaries, I don't see an issue with it.
@Lovelight
Exactly! If both parties can't agree on the ID thing, and they go their separate ways, that's perfectly fine.
What's unreasonable (and, to be blunt, disrespectful) is the suggestion that one party has a legitimate concern for safety in not wanting to show their ID, but that the other party must be trying to hide something when they don't want to show their ID.
@ernesto_2 I agree with you fully that if someone asks for your ID you have a right to ask for theirs - I even said that way back in my suggestion many comments ago. If they don't then that does indeed show a contractionary stance that should be viewed with caution.
The objection I raise is with your statement that someone who doesn't want to reciprocate the ID check is potentially a "threat or violator". How are we skipping over the fact that you made that totally generalised and unfair sweeping statement without any evidence to back that up?