@3gcbwu0x you're still making assumptions and sweeping generalizations. Number two is absolutely ludicrous, for one.
Even Ludicris thinks its ludicrous
@SpicyNSweet we're just joyless creatures who forgot how to be playful. 🤷♀️ good grief. 🙄 (sarcasm btw)
So surprised his account is banned 🤣 it gives off the vibe of "where are all the hookers at? I just want to know so I can make sure to go out of my way to avoid them." 🤣
@RebeccaKe Tampa was a female pro actually.
not a pro anymore. 🤷♀️ at least not here anyway.
Has gone from being a pro to being a con.
When someone mentions skin on skin, does your mind automatically assume they are seeking/offering something non platonic?
Answer: YES IT DOES!
Imagine all that massage oil on a client who is fully clothed….
👍👍👍👍
@Carrie_Anne HA! 😆😆😆
When someone is in your DMs asking "do you do skin to skin",
I haven't been randomly asked that question in a while...Lol! However my answer will always be:
"We can hold hands, that's as far as I GO with skin to skin. 🤝"
And crickets happen after I answer that way. .. 😆🦗😆🦗😆🦗😆
(IF I even choose to answer, most times I delete such questions without a response 🤐)
WHAT? 🤷☺️
Holding hands is still skin to skin, hands have skin on them...Right? 😊😏
4). Being close to someone, looking in the eyes and feeling deep platonic love is difficult for most people.
This truly breaks my heart for people.
My understanding is that normal cuddle attire can include things like a tank top and shorts, which naturally means there may be contact between uncovered arms, shoulders, or legs while cuddling. So is the concern specifically with the phrase “skin-on-skin” because it can imply something more intimate/sexual, rather than ordinary contact between uncovered skin being against the rules?
For example, if two fully clothed people in normal cuddle attire are spooning and their bare arms or lower legs touch, I wouldn't have thought of that as violating the rules. I would have just considered that normal cuddling.
Yes. That’s exactly what I and other people have already said. Everyone knows that words can have meaning and nuance. The question doesn’t need to be asked if one is only wondering about naturally occurring instances of bare arms and legs.
In my experience, it is only ever asked here because people are pushing boundaries.
Yes. That’s exactly what I and other people have already said. Everyone knows that words can have meaning and nuance. The question doesn’t need to be asked if one is only wondering about naturally occurring instances of bare arms and legs. In my experience, it is only ever asked here because people are pushing boundaries.
Got it, thank you! Dually noted. This is incredibly helpful info and a great heads up. Much appreciated.
I'd estimate that 99% of the time that I've seen a guy on this site mention "skin on skin" either in their profile or in messages/the forum, if they are not outright seeking SW than they are seeking a girlfriend replacement - not actual platonic connection. If you're using platonic cuddling to fulfill a gap in your romantic/sexual relations, it's not actually platonic.
Unfortunately, because of the way men are socialized in our society, they largely only know how to connect physically with women through the lens of sex or romance. Even for a lot of women, it takes people a lot of work to decouple touch from romance and sex. And because so many people do not have their touch needs met through the only formats they are familiar with, they seek its replacement through inappropriate means - like calling cuddling "platonic" when there is sexual and/or romantic intentions behind it. And also unfortunately, most are so in denial that they are doing this that they'll never even start to do the actual work so they can enjoy actually platonic cuddling.
We have such a long way to go 😞
I really don't know
Are people actually requesting that??
@olinya I've had a person ask about it. He backpedaled of course when I asked what he meant.
@olinya yes, with varying levels of frequency depending on gender and location. Women in more active areas are likely to get it more often than men or those in rural or inactive areas, simply from sheer number of male users.