Stop-going

DaringSprinter

This was supposed to be an immediate follow-up to the previous survey, but circumstances interfered. My apologies! If you need a refresher, please revisit the previous thread by clicking this sentence.

Onward!

In seriousness so complete it's unquestionable and with my tongue so far from my cheek that it is actually on the moon:

How do all you lovely people feel about having this color—
—treated like the color green in traffic? Called "green," lights of this color responded to just like green lights, no brakes, just continued driving?

(Please remember your response to the last survey, and take it into account when answering this one.)

SnoCapsPerhaps

I'm beginning to doubt the veracity of your seriousness lol

DaringSprinter

Nooooo, surely not. Look at my tongue! It's on the moon! How could I possibly be making a funny?

DaringSprinter

If using incredibly over-the-top language and asking an obviously sarcastic question were signs of not being serious, would I have gotten a five-day account suspension for it?

Clearly this sort of thing must be serious, or it wouldn't merit a harsher punishment than literally announcing that you only cuddle people who let you do something non-platonic with them!

So I must be serious. That's logic.

CharlieBear

Removing my comment because I misunderstood the assignment. Sorry to remove a comment but I don’t want to post something that would be taken as offensive to anyone.

DaringSprinter

No no, this thread is about colors. The two threads together are about how your brain handles logic: can a non-platonic thing be platonic? Can red be green? Can wet be dry, dead alive, past future, here somewhere else, p np?

This isn't a metaphor. It's a legitimate attempt to poke fun at the idea that Not-X can be X.

CharlieBear

Removing my comment because I misunderstood the assignment.

DaringSprinter

....Really I should have known better. I've seen the study. Some people just can't grasp the concept.

Why is it that describing a [X] thing removes people's ability to recognize that it can't be [not-X]?

All right—I see I messed up. This joke is only funny if one has a logical mind. If you can't tell that something is red, and that it's impossible for red to be green, and thus it's silly to even ask whether the red thing can be green.... 🤷🏻‍♂️

CharlieBear

@DaringSprinter oh, looking at that study, in that context (not half-joking about myself being a victim), then red is red and never anything but red, absolutely (if I’m understanding the colors correctly.) geeeez if I made myself out to look like I would ever support or do that… 🤮

I do understand what you are getting at now. My apologies. I did answer the same on both but for the (very) wrong reasons.

MissAdventurous

I feel bad for people with color blindness. I'm sure it would affect them.

DaringSprinter

@MissAdventurous: Oddly enough, one of my uncles was red-green colorblind. In a case like that, you go when the bottom light is lit and stop when the top light is.

That would require a different survey, though. "Do you think the top light can be the bottom light?"

CharlieBear

@MissAdventurous i am not colorblind so I feel real dumb right now 😓

The top light will always be the top light. It can be made to switch to a different color but it will remain on top.

DaringSprinter

@Charlie_Bear: Well, I guess this thread wasn't a total waste, then! Thank you. I was feeling really discouraged until you posted that final edit (under the puking emoji).

CharlieBear

@DaringSprinter haha ok good. I’m sorry, sometimes my brain enters the room and kicks back a few before logic realizes where my brain has gone to 😅

Edit: Also I know in your other comment you were pretty much referring only to me. I deserved that 😅

Minestrone101

I was going to make a post about this. But essentially, social dancing...like ballroom or Latin can be somewhat sexual (Tango, Rumba, bachata), but ultimately it's platonic bc there are boundaries and pple enjoy the activity. Whereas cuddling is less sexual but more intimate imo.

achetocuddle

I think it's apparent that as long as one is part of the majority opinion or the influential minority opinion, red can sometimes indeed be green.

quixotic_life

Yes. Tomatoes & Peppers.

DaringSprinter

As a (possibly overly) rational person, I think it's pretty obvious that

• the color red is not the color green no matter what anyone's opinion is

• red peppers are not green ones

• green peppers ones are not red ones

• the spots on mixed-color ones that are red are not green spots, and the spots that are green are not red

• etc

...but there: that's me. It's not just you, @Charlie_Bear! Lots of people seem to have trouble grasping the idea that [definition] is [defined term], and thus not [term which excludes first term].

I thought posting the definition (red swatch, non-platonic behavior) and then asking whether it was a thing it couldn't be, was excluded from being by definition (green, platonic)... I thought that was funny. Because it's so obvious. But it's not obvious, is it?

• It's not obvious that this color can't be green.

• It's not obvious that holding your erect penis against someone else's body is not platonic.

• It's not obvious that forcing someone to have sex with you when they don't want to is rape.

• It's not obvious that X isn't not-X.

These things need to be thought about. They take careful consideration to see, and even after deep thought many people may disagree. I weep for the human species.

And (unless I forget this lesson) I won't be using this format to make a funny ever again.

achetocuddle

@DaringSprinter I hope this helps someone. I cry for our species also.

GreatHornedOwl

@DaringSprinter Attempting to explain Boolean Algebra here, my generally be a waste of effort.

quixotic_life

All bell peppers start out green and change color as they mature. If it's not picked, a green pepper may become yellow, orange, or red, depending on its varietal. The longer the fruit stays on the vine, the sweeter it becomes and the more nutritional value it gains.

My point being that although they aren't necessarily the same to begin with, things can morph and finding the line where the one becomes another can be nuanced.

Are they the same...? No. But also 'yes' depending on one's perspective.

Also, am I funny...? No. But also 'yes' depending on one's perspective.

Are you, @DaringSprinter , funny...? Yes.

DaringSprinter

@GreatHornedOwl: You may (unfortunately) be right. The very basis of logical thought—!

And yet immediately after your post we get somebody jokingly "explaining" that because some green things can stop being green and become red instead, green and red can be the same color.

At least I hope it's a joke.

A bright red shade is not a bright green shade! That's it! That's the whole thing: this color and this color are not and cannot be one and the same!

Holding an engorged sexual organ against another person is sexual, so it's not platonic! That's it! This should be simple! Why, why, why is this my species?

I regret everything.

quixotic_life

@DaringSprinter ~ 😂 I adore your brain!!

In my limited expetience though... I have had three cuddles with men who I noticed had an "engorged sexual organ" slightly pressing into me some. But with two of them it wasn't a big deal (no, not size wise - just that I didn't care), because I was 100% certain they weren't going to try anything and indeed it eventually passed.

Those could have been seen as 'red' but for me, in those moments, with those cuddlers, it was 'green'.

That said though, the jackass who went from that state, to pinning me and proceeding to grind his against me, clearly had ulterior motives in mind and it was a fricking awful experience. In that case 'red' was only 'RED'.

And unfortunately I think the majority of those who won't/don't reposition aren't in a wholly platonic state. And the "ignore and cuddle through" mode is likely only okay with a small number of people not bothered by certain/trusted people's biology.

TlDr ~ I actually agree with you 99.99%

DaringSprinter

@quixotic_life: So they just held it there? Pressed it against you where it rose, making no effort to reduce the hard contact, enjoying the feeling of your body against their engorged member?

No, I can't say that's platonic. No matter what anyone's opinion is, "platonic" does not include that.

Sure, sex organs will pop up sometimes. To keep it platonic, you gotta keep them out of it. "Ah, sorry. Let me just change positions a little here." Not welcome them in for however long they stay. Eviction from the cuddle, not hinting (through redirected thoughts) that they might want to leave while you continue to hold them against your buddy.

Sex organs are not non-sexual. Not non-sexual = not platonic. Sex organs are non-platonic. They should not be pressing against your buddy during a platonic cuddle. Because they're non-platonic.

I can go over this more slowly if anyone wants.

quixotic_life

Lol ~ I guess you'd have to have been there. It was subtly noticed with the two and not hinky or weird or sexual in any way. I suppose I should check in with them and see if perhaps I was wrong in those moments... But I really don't think I was.

I suppose I just believe the few men who have stated that the two aren't always tied together or in synch. Especially since I've met two who've made zero moves to encourage things.

DaringSprinter

@quixotic_life: Ah. An erect penis that wasn't sexual in any way. I see. Well. It's sure been nice talking to you, but I have to... go. Away. From here. For... mental health reasons.

---

Oh, I know what you mean. You mean their intentions weren't sexual. And good for them—but their sex organs still were.

quixotic_life

@DaringSprinter ~ Sorry. Could be I'm being completely naive. Perhaps someone else who understands where I'm coming from will chime in and explain it better. Or maybe I'll find out how wrong I was when everyone sends me their "WTF?!" messages. 🤷‍♀️

But either way, that person who argued with you in another thread about creating space, using a pillow, taking a break, etc. was a complete asshat!!

If someone scootches away, and he gets all close and pokey again, that is beyond not okay!! And honestly, if he notices it's happening, he should just scootch away to avoid the potential of making his partner feel uncomfortable in the first place.

Because even if it doesn't make one uncomfortable, it clearly makes another (who wasn't even there) uncomfortable and could very likely make others feel that way too.

Anyway, I'll shut up about it now... 🙇‍♀️