@Gary either I didn't articulate clearly enough (which is possible), or you again misunderstood what I said.
I thought I made this even more clear when I wrote:
"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."
The issue is not that "not showing ID" means someone is a threat. The issue is that if I expect you to show me your ID to prove that you're not a threat, then by property of equality, you would reasonably conclude that by not showing you my ID that I may be a threat.
Regardless of where a threat might actually exist, the act of demanding another's ID while refusing to show one's own creates the implication. Key word being the implied threat, not a demonstrated threat.
Though I'd also say, if you, a general you: ask someone of something without upfront telling them you wouldn't/can't reciprocate, especially of a sensitive nature, it would be a jerk move to do that.
So it's best to let them know upfront, so they can make an informed decision.
And since doing it in person, as that's the safest, it makes it easier to be more rest assured that you'll both show each other about the same time. If that's what's decided.
@ernesto_2
The issue is that if I expect you to show me your ID to prove that you're not a threat, then by property of equality, you would reasonably conclude that by not showing you my ID that I may be a threat.
You are too easily glossing over why you automatically deduce this. Maybe it's because you are considering that every reaction has an opposite and equal reaction - but that is far too simplistic to apply to this scenario. It's contradictory to recognise there are legitimate reasons for not reciprocating the ID check whilst simultaneously deducing the act of not complying as someone as a potential "threat or violator" - hardly fair is it?
I'm sure we probably are in agreement with the overall sentiment here, but just difficult getting the words across I guess. Might I suggest it would be fairer to say that someone who doesn't reciprocate the ID test is someone who you can be "more cautious of", but I wouldn't go as far to say they are a "potential threat or violator" - it's the use of those sweeping words in connection with incompliance that leaves me slightly uncomfortable.
@Gary "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."
@ernesto_2 "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."
Edit: sorry I misplaced the quote and left one out. Fixed now.
I agree with @ernesto_2 on this, reason being and based on how I understand it: it's like if someone wanted to know where you live, but keep where they live hidden. Now they of course could* have just as valid reasons and non malicious intents for doing that as we discussed. And it could again just boil down to conflict of needs. However, it doesn't take away the fact that: the person whose residence is known is at a disadvantage should that person have or form malicious intent. Or for any other issue that may arise as a result.
@Lovelight Yah I agree with that as well, it's not fair to get sensitive information from someone and then they leave you in the lurch. That's a breach of mutual trust. But what we're talking about here is how @ernesto_2 automatically deduces that someone is a "threat or violator" just because they don't want to share same level of information. I think that's unfair. Especially if you consider that someone might have given you their information without being prompted, then expects the same in return. I think what you wrote before is very important - need to make it clear from the start what information your both comfortable sharing.
Again, I'm not saying the person refusing to show ID is a threat, only that their actions make them just as likely to be a threat as the person they are demanding show ID.
The distinction of whether the person is, or just appears to be a threat is not likely to be seen as relevant to the other party. Thus the "it implies..." part of my sentence.
@Gary if you're responding to this statement of his, "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."
@ernesto_2 doesn't seem to me that he's saying that someone is a threat. Though that they are a potential threat. Cause as I said, it could put the person at a disadvantage should something go wrong or the other have ill intentions.
And by saying "I want you to, though I wouldn't" there's no mutual trust or exchange.
Though I could be wrong. Some tea anyone? I sure could use a cup. 😅
@Lovelight and @Gary I think this just boils down to agreeing in what is said, just not how it's said lol
Meh. Those words imply such strong and negative connotations and used so clumsily to me. Anyway, I'd love a cuppa tea a bit later. Just tucking into a lovely spicy Chicken Jalfrezi, Onion Bhajis, the full shibang ! 😀
I take mine with just a splash of milk, if you don't mind (or, since it's well after 5pm for those across the point, a nip of brandy wouldn't hurt, either)
I've definitely been in the position where someone I was planning a cuddle date with had hard limits that conflicted with my hard limits. She said she would under no circumstances share a photo with her face before meeting, and I told her that I wasn't comfortable with that and that I didn't meet people without seeing the face of who I'm meeting. I don't know that this guy not wanting to share his ID is necessarily a red flag in and of itself, but if he got weird about it or made you feel that you were weird to ask, that's a huge red flag. In my case, she got really defensive, promised me that she is cute if that's what I was getting at, and got mad at me for canceling without seeing a face photo. If two people have conflicting boundaries, then they simply are not right for each other. But don't let someone shame you for your boundaries. This woman wanted her boundaries respected in terms of her comfort sharing face photos, but didn't want to respect my boundaries in terms of not meeting someone without knowing what they look like. It sounds like this guy did something similar to you, and that sucks.
@DrPangloss03 "If two people have conflicting boundaries, then they simply are not right for each other. But don't let someone shame you for your boundaries."
Precisely! And sorry to hear you had to deal with, to put it mildly, such awful temper tantrum. Hope she learned/learns from it.
For instance, I am comfortable to just video call after messaging a bit, before meeting in person. There were 2 guys from what I can recall: who seemed to have simply put said "I have my picture up, so show me yours." I told them they did that of their own accord and that I'm only comfortable to video call. Luckily there wasn't much of a push or rudeness. So we agreed to go our separate ways.
@Gary I made a point of calling it a third party system, because I'm very cognizant that CC wouldn't want that kind of burden! 😊
Seems to me that if one requires to see someone’s ID, they should also be willing to show their own ID to the other.
No one owes it to the other but we also do not owe it to them to cuddle with them. Cuddling with strangers requires mutual trust and that has to be built on a show of mutual respect. That includes having an appreciation of how each party is making themselves vulnerable to the other.
I’m not sure what being licensed by the state has to do with anything. When I meet up with a potential cuddler, they don’t know I’m licensed as a health care worker by my state and would not know they could look me up.
I don’t assume ill will from anyone and I also pay attention. I’ve been a licensed massage therapist for 30 years, I’ve put myself alone in a room with literally thousands of individuals. Only rarely has there been a problem. @Tigerlilly32 asked how long do you take to get to know someone? I think this is something you decide for yourself and you develop a sense of that over time. For the last 30 years I’ve had total strangers come to my office and I’ve had about 10 minutes to decide though there have been lots of others who were screened and eliminated over the phone. I’ve gotten very good at screening on the phone, have gotten familiar with the red flags, know the right questions to ask and the right answers to give. That takes time and experience.
@DrPangloss03 put it well - if you have conflicting boundaries, you’re not a good match. No blame. Just move on to the next.
Good on You. As a Man I always ensure the Woman’s age, or make an honest attempt to do so. The last thing any guy needs is getting T boned by an underage girl. If you are not 21 or more you are not getting my attention, period.
@Tigerlilly32 The difference is that a hotel is an established business. If Holiday Inn does something nefarious with your ID, you have a way to seek damages. You are a stranger to this person just as they are to you. Just as you fear what they could do to you, they fear what you could do to them. Anonymity is just one way they can guard against that. I’ve had a few times in life where I ran into someone who turned out to be psychotic and I left thinking, I’m glad that person doesn’t know who I am or where I live. One time I was at a party and got into a verbal argument with a guy. He said he was going to kill me. I brushed it off. A few months later he was arrested for killing a girl. He recently died in prison. I knew who he was. He didn’t know me. I met another girl more recently. She wanted to come to a party we were having and got super angry when she wasn’t invited. This one’s now in prison for stabbing someone. She doesn’t know who I am and I’m glad of that.
Touch is so personal, if we are gonna share touch, sharing our ID and who we are shouldn’t be an issue. Intimacy means knowing someone, if it’s anonymous something is probably wrong. Usually there’s a wife or they just creepy 👀 one guy deleted his CC account and told me he was gonna delete his phone number too after I asserted my boundaries, but then said if I ever see him around town I should say hi to him lol
@StarFairy i see you understand-
Those who chose not to be vulnerable and cuddle in PUBLIC places should not be speaking about being anonymous, you have no frame of reference.
None.
That being said- certain types of people have heightened awareness that in the efforts to protect themselves they must be vigilant.
And again- a simple showing of BOTH identifications should be warranted.
Photocopy- no
Messaging - no
Remember that Florida man who was treating patients conducting surgeries although he was never a licensed doctor nor ever step foot in medical school?
You would be okay right if he treated you?
Since verification shouldn’t be necessary, the fake doctor should be allowed to touch you just like the anon on here.
I know why certain people want to stay anon and it’s very apparent.
@Tigerlilly32 You make further comparisons with someone operating in a licensed professional capacity, i.e. a doctor - that is entirely different to feeling a right to see ID of someone who you want to cuddle with recreationally. Both parties should be comfortable with the arrangement and information sharing. They shouldn't be made to feel ostracized if they have legitimate reasons for not doing so.
Nope. If he didn’t ask to see yours, then there’s no reason why you should see his. I think everyone has a right to being discreet and maintaining their privacy. If this stresses you out so much, then you shouldn’t be doing this. People these days lol
Some people are sensitive or over cautious. I have had many enthusiasts say- I like your profile or karma. Would like to meet. 2/3 msg later we cuddle. No big deal. Others want 8-10 messages on site 2-3 phone conversations. Then a meet in public. Everybody is different.
I don't see where the OP "ostracized" anyone. She asked him for ID, he didn't want to show it, so he cancelled. She had the right to ask, he had the right to refuse, both had the right to cancel. She isn't reporting him or asking for him to be banned from the site. Everyone has their guidelines for what makes them feel safe, and as another poster said, if yours and the other person's don't match up, move on and find someone else.
He wasn’t referring to the op specifically , he was referring to those who are trying to make it a point that those who don’t want to share personal identification like drivers license / passport ect, somehow have something to hide or are this & that … like anything else, there are exceptions to everything … but to paint everyone with the same brush for not wanting to follow specific protocols or comfortable with certain protocols - nah.
@Rezz 👏🏻 👏🏻
@cuddles_ndream You make an excellent point. You do have people saying that anyone who doesn't show their ID is hiding something/a potential threat... you also have people saying that they wouldn't show their ID for fear of identity theft or blackmail... in other words, anyone who asks for ID is a potential threat. Both sides have trust issues, both sides have valid reasons for concern.
@dave31415, I don’t know where you’re finding these murderer parties, but they sound wild.
@Tigerlilly32 "Those who chose not to be vulnerable and cuddle in PUBLIC places should not be speaking about being anonymous, you have no frame of reference.
None."
So following that reasoning, those who choose to show their ID or who want to see the ID of others "have no place speaking about those who don't want* and who go their own way!"
When "those" are people who you are going on about and made disparaging comment(s) about simply for having different boundaries than you and choosing to walk away: they have every right to speak about it. Again you aren't entitled to someone's ID or their cuddles. And it doesn't necessarily make them bad for declining to show! That's their boundary* and if you can't empathize with it and respect it, and even after the plethora of comments trying to explain our side of things to you, then that's a problem.
Your safety, privilege to be here and be comfortable, doesn't trump that of others, who choose not to associate with you due to difference in boundaries.
@StarFairy "Touch is so personal, if we are gonna share touch, sharing our ID and who we are shouldn’t be an issue."
"shouldn't be an issue" you don't know that. For some of us it is, and it's not out of being malicious. It is our boundaries, safety and comfort. We aren't obligated to have to say why either.
Also as an example, @dave31415 said "I ran into someone who turned out to be psychotic and I left thinking, I’m glad that person doesn’t know who I am or where I live." So at times being more on the anonymous side is what we need to be safer. It's up to each adult to figure out their boundaries and respect one another's.
Not agreeing to cuddle in public is not a red flag. Not everyone is comfortable with public displays of affection. And I’ve met a number of men on this site who are from other cultures where if they were seen even sitting close to a woman not their direct relative it would be considered scandalous. They aren’t doing anything wrong. I ran into one situation with a guy who was afraid to meet in public for this reason. We finally got around it by agreeing to meet in a place where he felt confident that it would be unlikely for anyone he knew to see him.
@Babichev
I think she meant "Those who chose not to be vulnerable and * who * cuddle in PUBLIC places should not be speaking about being anonymous, you have no frame of reference.
Since she said:
"Tonight I supposed to try it out for the first time- as a host- after meeting in public.
He freaked out when I asked him to bring identification."
So it seems she's saying "those who don't host (and be (* that (?) *) vulnerable shouldn't talk about it. Cause like "they don't understand."
Which I'd agree with if the issue was someone refusing to show their ID, but then pressuring to get cuddles or impose their view on the other.
Though, you made a good point still. And we can wait on the OP to clarify it, should she want to.