Yeah. I feel like their personal life they can keep to themselves primarily on romantic relationships. Such a topic can make the other cuddler uncomfortable. I don't like being asked if I am in a relationship for example because then I am unsure if they are just here for cuddling or not. I might see it as not a too much of a crazy question if it is a cuddler you've cuddled with for a while and are good friends now but bringing this topic in in the beginning worries me. Just my personal opinion.
@CuddleTimez5 Scroll to the top, hit the cogwheel and unsubscribe
@CuddleBoston1 and @robroo - gold star.
"MARRIED PEOPLE?!" would have been a more fitting title if we're being honest. iykyk
CC is numero uno!
I think everyone has to go with their own beliefs on this one! Will I give a married man a hug at church? Absolutely! Personally, I’m not comfortable spending alone time with someone else’s husband, cuddling them. So I may ask if someone is single but in my case that does not indicate that I will be any less respectful of a single person’s boundaries. Blessings y’all
Such a great post! I cuddle with many married men and guys going through 12 step programs… I am here to give my full attention… if it’s a fantasy to cuddle with a curvy Latina who smells amazing… O am happy to be that person… married or not married it’s none of my business… life is not black or white… with that said: it is platonic… I myself leave my problems home and give a stranger my full attention and give them the healing time in someone’s arms that they have been craving… my children get to have a mom who comes home with groceries and a smile on her face… good karma all around! I myself crave the hugs knowing that I don’t have to do anything after ten session is over… I love being a Cuddler
@TouchIsTLC
My thought is if we're platonically cuddling, why does me being polyam matter?
For one, there's a large portion of people (namely heterosexual monogamous folks) who view even being platonic friends with members of the opposite gender while in a committed relationship as suspect if not downright "emotional cheating". It's the mindset that people cannot be "just" friends with members of the opposite gender, and that significant others are supposed to provide ALL social-emotional needs such that seeking support from other friends shouldn't be necessary. While us in the ENM community generally have learned to deconstruct these cultural beliefs and the insecurities that often underline them, the vast majority of society has not yet done that work.
Secondly, even though ENM/polyam is becoming more visible to the mainstream thanks to the younger generations and social media, there is still a very large portion of the population that will always believe we are cheating on our partners and are behaving immorally, and nothing we say or do will ever change their minds. And because they view us as cheaters/homewreckers/sluts, they believe that we cannot possibly have only platonic intentions and therefore are direct threats to them and their relationships.
Beyond being an advocate and educator, the reason I originally started being so open and vocal about being ENM was because it's far easier to weed out incompatibility of ANY relationship (platonic or otherwise) at the beginning than it is to have it crash and burn once already emotionally invested. I'd rather learn that someone fundamentally disagrees with my relationship orientation before I start to trust them than to wait and have them reject me at my most vulnerable moments. 🤷🏻♀️
But when you fill out your profile, you must enter your marital status.
...us in the ENM community generally have learned to deconstruct these cultural beliefs and the insecurities that often underline them...
Actually, it seems insecurity is always having to define yourself as part of some "alternate" lifestyle community in every single post.
Living a traditional lifestyle is not an insecurity.
If you want respect, try to show some.
@TxTom it’s just flat out uncalled for to try and imply she is insecure just for being proud of her identity. And foolish. An insecure person would hide their identity and try to fit in. @cuddlefaery was respectful and clearly explaining to someone else why people react poorly to poly people.
Also, she was clearly referring to a specific insecurity that actually is damaging to relationships, traditional or not. She wasn’t disrespecting traditional relationships.
This is the specific part she was saying is built off of insecurity:
It's the mindset that people cannot be "just" friends with members of the opposite gender, and that significant others are supposed to provide ALL social-emotional needs such that seeking support from other friends shouldn't be necessary.
And she is RIGHT. It is unhealthy to make your spouse be responsible for all emotional needs, and it destroys marriages. People need to have support from their friends, and a strong monogamous marriage isn’t threatened by opposite gender friends… as long as you actually trust your partner. If you can’t trust your partner to have a friend, then that’s insecurity. Also, the whole “opposite gender friend” thing is so heteronormative and doesn’t apply to a lot of people. For example, many bisexual people are in monogamous marriages. Should they just not have any friends since they’re attracted to both genders??? Ridiculous. Insecure.
A strong marriage means two partners who actually trust each other and are secure in their relationship. They know the other won’t betray them.
@bobadevotee he's not worth wasting time and energy on. His weird obsession with responding negatively to every comment I make with the same tired complaints and logical fallacies has led me to just scroll on by whenever I see his name. He clearly practices selective reading comprehension and cherry picks or takes things out of context to fit his narrative. Trolls gotta troll, I guess, and while it can be fun to poke them sometimes, I try not to feed the persistent ones.
@cuddlefaery lmao you’re not wrong. Seems like he just hates women 😂
@bobadevotee nah, he's just got a bad case of ism-itis 😂
@bobadevotee
why I love my man and [deleted by Mods] 98% of the rest of em
I am writing in response to this comment above.
“Actually, it seems insecurity is always having to define yourself as part of some "alternate" lifestyle community in every single post.
If you want respect, try to show some. ”
Some folks like to proudly claim monogamy as “traditional”. They speak from cherry-picked, geographical, temporal, and philosophical boundaries when they do so. After they’ve claimed the mantel of “traditional” they swiftly weaponise it, trumpeting their belief that “traditional” implies something that should be respected.
You’ll hear them repeat the phrase “if you want respect, you should show respect” often. But don’t be fooled by their conflation of terms*. The respect they are asking for is actually deference. Meanwhile, the respect they are offering is mere “tolerance” at best.
🙈
*And don’t be fooled by their smiling emoticons.
the respect they are offering is mere “tolerance” at best.
I thought the word tolerance was supposed to have good connotations. I have always heard tolerance is showing respect for all groups. Is that not true anymore? (At the swift rate that institutions, words, and definitions are being reimagined, perhaps that isn't true anymore and tolerance is no longer a good thing. If so, I stand corrected.)
But I don't think consistently labelling something one doesn't subscribe to as insecure is showing much tolerance.
I don't think it's tolerant to assert that "heterosexual monogamous folks" are insecure because they can't have platonic friends of the opposite sex.
I don't think it's tolerant to assert that heterosexual men are insecure if they don't cuddle with other unattractive men.
The "weaponization" seems to be coming from just one side.
@TxTom ” [deleted by Mods] 98% of the rest of em” -wouldn’t that be non-platonic 🤷🏻♂️😂
@lonelytauros That's right. If memory serves, she used a "colorful metaphor" (as Spock would call it) that a Mod had to delete.
Non-platonic, and not very tolerant at all!
@TxTom tolerance never had positive connotations. Any inference that it is positive, especially in human relations, is an attempt to redefine the word.
Fair enough, @BashfulLoner . I don't want to get in an argument over definitions. I just remember throughout the '90s and early '00s, the word tolerance was used a lot in various campaigns for inclusivity.
For example, the SPLC's Teaching Tolerance project "helps foster respect and understanding in the classroom."
If the definition for tolerance has already changed, so be it. But that's where I was coming from.
Mmmmm I pooped twice already and just might again later . What a glorious feeling it is . So light and airy it feels like I could fly
@TxTom i do recognize how it's been used in the past and is used for the most part today. But the definition of the word i would not consider positive, neutral at best, maybe.
It's better than despised, shunned, admonished but being better that hated is a low bar and doesn't equate to positivity.
Society often tends to use words to subtly make current circumstances seem better while actually never changing anything or worse.
@pmvines like R Kelly?
@lonelytauros oh Lord I hope not to do anything quite like him . Prison is for the birds . That and pedos .
The meaning of tolerance has not changed... society's low bar standards have as we've become more inclusive and educated to the experiences of those other than ourselves.
We tolerate things we dislike.
It's a chore, a burden, that we put up with unwillingly because we must. You build up tolerance to things with repeated exposures and it means you either become numb to their effects or you continue growing and adapting.
We accept things that are part of reality, that we have no control over, and that we acknowledge we do not need to try to control or change.
Acceptance is the next step into integration after tolerance - it's where we stop internally fighting the thing and have learned to live with it neutrally. In general, acceptance is the preferred minimum standard in terms of accepting people in all their diversity as we recognize their mere existence as neutral to ours and out of our control. We accept that their reality is built of their own experiences which may be different from our own, and unless their behavior directly impacts us there is nothing to "tolerate".
We embrace things which we have accepted as existing and that we view as being positive and worth actively supporting.
We become allies to those different from ourselves whose experiences we can embrace and empathize. It is at this point that we can actually reach true equity (note: not equality, at least not yet) and create completely inclusive communities as people feel supported, accepted, and not merely tolerated like that veggie you hated as a kid but that your mom made you eat if you wanted dessert.
Word choices matter, and we have such a wealth of constantly evolving language at our fingertips that it can only help us communicate better if we use language as precisely as possible. And where there are misunderstandings regarding definitions? Discuss it, learn from the other perspective and share your own. Language has never been stagnant.
And try not to fall into the trap of selectively chosing isolated phrases out of context in order to prove your own agenda. It's not a good look and only undermines whatever point you are trying to make. If you're going to disagree with someone, at least argue in good faith, or else don't waste everyone else's time.
First, I'm sorry to see that your scroll is malfunctioning, and I hope you can get that fixed... but you're right.
The SPLC has recently jettisoned the term "Teaching Tolerance" in favor of of a new name for their program, "Learning for Justice."
They state, in part, "the system under which we now exist has to be radically changed."
Wow. So what does radical change mean?
I think radical change means a change that is not widely accepted. I think (again with definitions) radical to some has negative connotations but it's actually just describing the level of change compared to what's accepted. I think cuddle comfort is a radical idea, but over time it becomes less of a shift therefore is no longer radical. In America it's probably a radical thought that men would desire platonic comfort and cuddles from other men, but as we are exposed to varying ideas and desires it becomes a thing that is.
So i feel tolerance is the minimal level of engagement for human beings. Maybe because over time I've felt tolerated and not welcomed i see that. If people don't have a perspective similar, then they probably wouldn't feel the same. But after exposure to others perspectives and maybe seeing it themselves the understanding of words change, the definition should never change.
Thank you, @BashfulLoner . I'll accept that tolerance is currently interpreted as a no-frills, bare bones minimum for out-group relationships.
So, as a secure heterosexual man who doesn't cuddle other, unattractive men, I feel I'm tolerated by some folks on this site.
I'm so happy we could end this on a positive note!
Would it be appropriate for me to insert a smiling emoticon? (somebody ask the monkey guy.)
@Communer Actually you don't have to fill it in and can leave certain fields blank if you wanted.
When people ask me, “does it bother you that I’m married?” I always respond with, “does it bother YOU that you’re married?”
Turn the tables on them 😎
Wow, I feel so late for the party!!!!
This thread, regardless if many posts are not directly influenced by the OP, is certainly provocative.....needed.....and inspiring of various thoughts. This community clearly benefits by the exchange of ideas, and the opportunity to discuss something not generally welcomed in everyday coffeehouses and chats.
That being said, to me, the primary tragedy of it all is the assumption that either your perspective.....or someone else's on this thready.....is right/wrong. This predisposition toward binary thinking creates such division in our communities. Most things are not either/or propositions; there are very interesting and creative shades of gray. Wouldn't it be nice if we could simply summons up our radical empathy and wonder what the experience of the other must be to arrive at their perspective? We have literally NO idea what traumas, what influences, what habits......create the viewpoint of the other. There is nothing we can say, especially in a general forum of strangers, no matter how intelligent and articulate, that will convince the other that they are wrong....or right. Our addiction to influencing others so that they will know us, believe us, understand us, and applaud us......eventually separates us. There are several voices in this thread that feel like they might be angry with one another for their very different take on this fascinating subject.
We don't need to be right.....I myself struggle with this literally every day. I use this forum to hear viewpoints/experiences from others who process completely different from me.....and I try to imagine what their experiences of the world are. I value every one who contributes, regardless of how similar or dissimilar their take is to mine.
We clearly need to keep talking.....keep expressing ourselves and our ideas......and CC offers such an opportunity. We all share the value of the importance of cuddling, in one form or another, and that should be celebrated. So thank you, CC community, for creating the dynamic and thought-provoking environment, whereby we can discuss/argue/present issues relating to intimacy, insecurity, poly-everything, traditional roles, etc.....all relating to the art of cuddling.
Feeling wondrous gratitude!