My bimodal theory about men on CC

JohnR1972

As of 2022, the city of Indianapolis had a population of 880,000 with approximately 25% of that population being under 18. Of the 660,000 adults, 51.5% are women (according to census.gov). This means there are 320,100 adult men in Indianapolis. As of this morning, 71 of them have been on CC within the past month. That equates to 0.02% of the men in Indianapolis are currently active on CC, roughly one out of every 5,000 men in the city. I did not look at other cities but I expect most cities would be similar.

Who are these men? I suspect if we looked at men in the United States, or any given city, in terms of emotional sensitivity we would find something close to a normal (bell shaped) distribution.

However, my theory is that the vast majority of the 0.02% of men who are on CC are coming from the “tails” of the distribution rather than the center. Every man on CC was either looking for something like CC when they found it or they were referred to CC by someone who thought they would be interested in it. I think our numbers are low because CC does not appeal the majority but rather to the minority on either side of the majority.

The predatory men we frequently hear about sending rude, aggressive, and/or obscene messages to women, and who push boundaries in person, are probably from the highly insensitive end of the curve.

The vulnerable men on CC (social anxiety, on the ASD spectrum, those with trust issues due to previous bad experiences, those who have been subjected to abuse or neglect as children, etc.) are probably from the highly sensitive end of the curve. I truly don’t think there are many men on CC from the middle of the curve who make up the majority of men in society.

Why does any of this matter? I think this theory explains a lot of the frequent arguments on the forum that result in time outs and locked threads.

If anyone posts a comment about “men” they may mean the predatory men and sometimes (but not always) that is obvious in the context. But those comments are read by men at the other end of the curve who are more sensitive than most and who feel the comment is directed at them. This starts the dominos falling and within a few more posts we are all back at the “not all men” comments and derisive comments about the men who post such comments.

I am not looking to start an argument about any previous threads, comments or members (past or present). I am genuinely interested in whether you agree with my belief about the bimodal distribution and its impact on the all too common cycle of threads that deteriorate to a point the mods have to lock it.

PS: I have a theory about the distribution of women on CC as well but that is a topic for another thread.

Edited to correct a minor typo.

fluk3d007

I can see your point is valid, especially since I come from one of tail ends of the spectrum. I am a highly sensitive guy. Not only because of my past relationship but also because I was raised by women, it definitely had a impact on my emotional development as a child.

stormydaycuddle

I'd say that these are observations due to lack of concrete evidence (I know you haven't presented them as fact) and I'm not tearing that down simply making a statement. There's more nuance to any one person (man or woman) than sensitive vs lacking it. It polarizes the argument. I feel as if the topic is far more diverse than that. Culturally, socially, inter-personally.

JohnR1972

@fluk3d007 - Thank you for your openness and willingness to share on this topic. I would also put myself on that end of the curve but for other reasons.

RedFox16

@JohnR1972 I actually fully agree with you about this theory. I've noticed the same thing....threads about bad behaviors with men are about those who are predatory. However, as we are all humans and have varying life experiences and POVs, those can be taken in a plethora of ways from everyone.

Those men who do not exhibit predatory behavior, understandably might not be able to fully understand how other men do that sort of thing (because they do not behave that way themselves and cannot see how someone might do that), and therefore might mistakenly come to their defense because maybe they see women as "misinterpreting" said bad behavior.

That, of course can upset those of us who have had to deal with bad behavior (to varying degrees....and sometimes even horrific situations), so it triggers more intense emotions. Emotions sometimes make people say things they don't mean.....or say things harsher then they mean. Thus triggering more emotions from others....

And on and on and on....ad infinitum.

Edited to add: The attempts to explain these things to people who have had completely opposing life experiences (ie, men explaining to women or vice versa) is extremely difficult in the best of situations....let alone when emotions are intense.

Buuuuuuut, a little understanding on the other side can go a long way!

For example: If I were to say that it hurts when I wake up in the morning because I have fibromyalgia and RA (both true) someone that has never had those illnesses cannot tell me that my experiences with pain are invalid .....simply because they're have never experienced that firsthand (and because of that don't believe it should be that painful). People I choose to share those experiences with should empathize and take my word for it that I am in pain. Not trying to tell me how I'm feeling or that my experiences are not valid because they don't understand my pain.

JohnR1972

@RedFox16 - I genuinely appreciate your comment. I was recently in an offline discussion with someone I met on here a long time ago and during our discussion I realized how much we were talking past each other because we were both listening through the filter of our personal life experience.

It wasn’t a matter of either of us was “wrong” but both of us were misunderstanding each other because our experiences were so different.

stormydaycuddle

I do get the idea that some can identify with one or the other or be put into those categories quite easily. Its hard to say because in essence putting it on those spectrum means taking away the human element. That's why people (me) jump when there's insensitivity or to come to another defense. Not because they are actually one side or the other but because they identify.

Edit: Nuance or not I do believe you're right about people (men) being generally good.

RedFox16

Absolutely! @stormydaycuddle that's a great point to make! I think most women who comment about bad behavior aren't saying they think all men are bad....and most likely also feel that people are generally good, like you said. It just doesn't get specified in those heated threads.

And yes! The insensitivity is what riles me up too LOL Or when people try to discount experiences simply because they themselves wouldn't do the same.

stormydaycuddle

I'm basically saying people are themselves. I feel despite the repetitive nature of these posts each one is a little different. And should probably be processed on its own merit when possible. The language tends to follow a formula in some that incline me to think one way or another but not always.

PrettyLuv

@RedFox16 completely agree.

@JohnR1972 I agree with this as well. However nuanced, there’s definitely trends to be analyzed and I think this very well might be one of them. I wish there was a poll for the men responding to this to self-categorize themselves and see how the numbers fall. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the men here placed themselves in the highly sensitive/highly aware part of that curve. I think it also sheds some light on the responses some might have to the tones in a profile discussed prior, in a desire not to be spoken to, umbrellaed under or associated with a predator in any way.

Edit: I should add - due to a highly aware man being highly sensitive to the tones and disposition of a woman.

JohnR1972

@stormydaycuddle - I believe sensitivity is something that can change over time either with intentional effort, environment / repeated exposure to positive or negative examples. There is a decades long debate about to what degree, if any, violent video games are responsible for violence in society. I am not promoting or denying that idea, just saying that the premise is based on the players being desensitized by the games.

With that said, I do not in any way excuse men at the insensitive end of the curve. They are still 100% responsible for their actions.

stormydaycuddle

@RedFox16 when reading yours I seriously thought, "darn, I overlooked a lot." You're right. And I did. lol. Live and learn ... and hopefully don't need loves anymore. That's the brand in that jingle I think. You live and you learn then get loves? rambling.

RedFox16

@JohnR1972 absolutely! Talking past one another because we aren't understanding or can only understand our own personal experiences is a hard thing to even be aware of....let alone get past in the moment. I'm also, of course speaking from experience LOL as I've done that too.

It wasn't because I didn't like that person....just got so caught up in trying to explain, that I didn't stop to see their POV.

Hahaha! @stormydaycuddle Loves is definitely the brand! I do that too.... conversations I'm having will trigger random song lyrics and jingles 😂

stormydaycuddle

@JohnR1972 I'm trying to think through a response to another point but your comment above struck me because I was legitimately thinking the other way around. Not in favor of predators but more like... acknowledgement to a degree that stupid things flow out of peoples mouths. It might not actually make them a predator but it should be pointed out that its coming across that way. What I hate is doubling down. I was genuinely in this case considering empathy toward the idiocy of some comments etc. When they double down I feel that's when it becomes less writing and more of a personal value.
I think people double down too much and sometimes even before the first counter argument is made. When they say things like: "I know I'm going to catch flack for...blank...meaning I know what I'm saying quite clearly and yet I'm going with it"

And that is in my opinion where the worst arguments come from.

So while commenting and debating the theory I'm not thinking you're excusing anyone.

Tygus

I am interested by your post, but I don't think "sensitive" is a very good spectrum for this discussion - especially when presented as almost 'good vs evil' for lack of a better term. Sensitive can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Are pragmatists inherently less sensitive thus increasing the likelihood of them being "predators?"

Are abuse victims and socially awkward people more sensitive thus decreasing the likelihood of them saying something inappropriate and not understanding why it was inappropriate? aka not being "predators."

I think the answer to both of these questions is no to the point where saying 'most predatory men are from the insensitive side of the bell curve' is a stretch. I think, while this is an interesting topic, there are so many other variables - location, religion, culture, the type of people that actually interact on forums etc. that making a prediction, prescription, or identifying a trend based on your assertion is really difficult.

JohnR1972

@PrettyLuv

I think it also sheds some light on the responses some might have to the tones in a profile discussed prior, in a desire not to be spoken to, umbrellaed under or associated with a predator in any way.

Exactly. Tone is crucial in profiles and in text messages. I had a bad experience once in a text conversation with someone I was getting to know. I said something that came across different than I intended. When it was pointed that out to me, I apologized but they continued to elaborate on how they took what I had said. I explained that was not the way I had intended my comment but I understood where they were coming from and again apologized for the way I said it. They continued for several more messages in a tone made me like I was being talked down to so I became defensive. That only accelerated the downward spiral of communication and ruined a potential friendship.

BashfulLoner

@JohnR1972 this is a great start to a difficult discussion of understanding and communication. I think i am one of those men that spent most of his life on one end of this curve and have been reaching to be on the other. Opening perspectives and learning. That's what brought me to cc and why I've remained, while rarely participating in the actual cuddle part. It's also why i do try and add a middle part to every conversation i see tending to go one way or the other. I have over time in my life seen how my attitudes and behaviors have negatively affected my loved ones and have tried to be better, through constant honesty with myself. Asking the hulk in me if he'd rather be more like Bruce banner and vice versa.

CharlieBear

I think the way the discussions are worded are extremely important. It sets the tone for the comments and people seem to like to come in swinging instead of describing their issue in a calm and non-accusatory way. A bit more care is needed when addressing a small sub-section of people so it doesn’t come across as accusing all-[whoever]. We know how the forums work here and how responses will be. Not throwing out accusations right out the gate would help a lot imo.

JohnR1972

@Tygus - All good points. “Sensitivity” was the best word I could come up with but “empathy” (or something else) may have been a better term.

I often quote the late British statistician, George Box, who famously said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

My bimodal distribution theory (actually hypothesis) is a very simple model that does not take into account all the other variables you mentioned (location, religion, and culture) and another big one - age (I suspect there is a big generational effect to this topic).

JohnR1972

@BashfulLoner - I am going from memory but it seems to me your comments are consistently some of the most well worded and well thought out posts in a lot of the threads I have read. Even on the rare times when I might disagree with an opinion you express, your posts are thought provoking without throwing “gasoline on a fire”.

@CharlieBear - 100% agree!

BashfulLoner

@JohnR1972 thank you. Im trying, not to be alpha not to be beta but always to be better.

stormydaycuddle

@Tygus I said something like that in my first comment but it wasn't as developed. This one is tricky because polarization tends to leave the majority lost in the middle.

TheFunCartel

With that said, I do not in any way excuse men at the insensitive end of the curve. They are still 100% responsible for their actions.

But does it excuse sensitive men from their actions? I guess I am referring to men that are sociopaths or possess sociopathic tendencies and these are men who model and identify with desirable traits and behaviors but who really are not invested in performing these desired traits. But they are very good at being the lamb the wolf presents to the world. One can identify as highly sensitive all they want but the details are in their actions. With that in mind I think it erroneous to assume that insensitive men commit the majority of egregious acts on CC. I think it is all over the place and that even the highly sensitive can have episodes of undesirable behavior.

Case in point-I have seen guys on the forums that women fawned over in the forums because they always said the right thing get permanently banned for breaking TOS during sessions. Actions always speak louder than words. I just don’t think there is too much to harvest from speculation about people in general. I thoroughly agree with @stormydaycuddle on this.

TheFunCartel

I would add that in no way am I denigrating your theory @JohnR1972. I was giving the reasons why I can’t buy into it. But then again, I have a hard time classifying people in general because in my job all I do is talk to people all day to see what makes them tick so I can be successful. Nothing that people say or do is shocking and what people think of themselves rarely matches the perceptions of others.

stormydaycuddle

Ugh, humanity. We all wear our perspective glasses and no two pair are the same. Convictions are set until they aren't and paradigm shifts don't seem to show up when they're needed. This is why I want to reincarnate as an apple tree.

@BoomerSpooner yep. Boiling down truths (or perceptions. This is an edit) leads to error. You lose context.

Edit: @JohnR1972 its a very thought provoking theory.

JohnR1972

@BoomerSpooner - I was not trying to identify who was highly sensitive vs who was highly insensitive, just establishing that both are out there and I suspect in higher numbers than those in the middle of the curve. I agree a person could present themselves differently in the forum or via DM than they really are in their hearts and in person.

So regardless of how they appear in the forum, I believe a person who truly is more sensitive (or maybe empathetic would be a better word) would be much more likely to mind their manners while the person who is less sensitive / empathetic would be more likely to try to take advantage of a cuddle partner.

stormydaycuddle

@JohnR1972 there's the feeling aspect that has to be considered. When someone catches feelings for someone else the empathy can actually lead them to believe with extreme conviction that the other feels the same way and are hurt or angry when it doesn't work out that way. In instances this can be equally as dangerous.

JohnR1972

@stormydaycuddle - 100% agree. Whether it is hurt or anger depends on the individual, neither is a good situation.

I remember reading a book about the effects of alcohol and violence. A multi-continental study was done at police reports and the correlation of “public intoxication” and assault, battery, and disorderly behavior. In some countries the correlation was strong which implies drunk people were getting into a lot of fights. However, in other countries the correlation was non-existent, when people had too much to drink they looked for a quiet place to lay down and sleep it off. It wasn’t the stimulus (alcohol) itself that was causing the fights, it was what was inside the person that came out when they got drunk.

I suspect that is true of whether someone in that situation feels hurt or angry.

stormydaycuddle

@JohnR1972 that may bring us around to nurture vs nature... or geographic anomaly. lol.

TheFunCartel

I was not trying to identify who was highly sensitive vs who was highly insensitive

I know you weren’t. I was trying to convey the speculative nature of the whole endeavor. People are shifty, stubborn, kind, mean, passive, assertive, etc often simultaneously. Making sense of men on CC is guesswork at best (just my opinion) and that is not accounting for the vicissitudes of environment, economic situations, upbringing, and other factors not accounted for.

But this does as @stormydaycuddle pointed out make for great conversation.

PrettyLuv

@BoomerSpooner

I guess I am referring to men that are sociopaths or possess sociopathic tendencies and these are men who model and identify with desirable traits and behaviors but who really are not invested in performing these desired traits. But they are very good at being the lamb the wolf presents to the world.

This is very interesting across the board. Question is, at the end of the day, with all things considered, would you consider their actions insensitive or sensitive….you know, once it’s brought to light how they really feel and what they’ve really done.

Of course, a heightened level of sensitivity doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll commit a good action or a bad action with it. But committing a bad action with a heightened level of sensitivity does tend to bleed into the insensitive, I think.

Because in its purest form, only a sensitive person would consider the implications of their actions (both in the light and in the dark or in front of people and behind their backs) and sway from committing actions that would betray themselves in that, where an insensitive person would care less, in one way or another - and their actions eventually would show this, somewhere down the line (in the light or dark).