?? this horse can take a beating. Let him live!
@dave31415 I get what you are saying. The way I look at it is basically if you wouldn't want your wife/husband/s.o. to know you were doing it, it's probably not platonic. If the folks here arguing that cuddling should be or is or can be strictly platonic devoid of any sexual nature then I'd ask them to put their money where their mouth is and demand all photographs be removed from this website. I can't think of a single truly platonic activity in which looks actually matter to the functionality of the activity. Yet somehow I doubt in a million years that would happen, and we all know why. I'm sure I'll hear some interesting explanations why pics are a necessary feature on a website advertising a purely platonic exercise like cuddling though, although none of them will be coherent because physical attraction is not actually a meaningful relevant factor in a truly platonic endeavor. Some will likely say, "Yeah but every other meetup site on the internet has pics as a feature." Well, this is the only one actively encouraging people to meet up and literally get as physically close to one another as possible without actually having intercourse, while simultaneously discouraging any sexual desire that occurs as a result of it. It's really very bizarre when you think about it.
As a matter of fact, if cuddling is a strictly and explicitly platonic activity then common sense would dictate that removal of all pics would decrease the amount of people, men AND women, looking to use this site as a dating/hookup app, improving functionality and lowering abuse, since the chances of interacting with someone you knew yourself to be attracted to would necessarily be much lower than if you could see whom you were interacting with, that is, assuming one has any preferences at all, attraction-wise, with which to narrow down their personal field of attraction in the first place - I mention this obvious fact because it would be supremely irrelevant for those like @DarrenWalker with disorders like asexuality - they should be the first ones to advocate for the removal of the feature of pics on this site since they know just how irrelevant looks are to the cuddling equation.
But that just makes too much sense and there's not enough mental gymnastics there for it to be taken seriously, is what I'm guessing. Some people have some need to believe they're different than how nature made them. Whatever. lol
@CuddlyGuy2018
“disorders like asexuality”
Has anyone ever told you that you’re a giant ****?
Removed swear word. [Mark]
@hogboblin No.
@CuddlyGuy2018 There's no rule against expressing controversial opinion if it is done respectfully and in the interest of discussion. However, in your case you chose to reference someone directly in connection to that opinion which makes it provocative, intentional or not. Please keep this in mind in order to avoid action by a moderator.
@CuddlyGuy2018: I believe I covered the platonic nature of aesthetic attraction in the "Accurate pictures" thread—it's perfectly possible to like looking at someone or something without sexual stuff entering the picture. It's not wrong to fill your life with things and people that you enjoy looking at! Looks aren't irrelevant to the cuddling equation, because aesthetic attraction exists (and, by itself, is platonic).
While removing all photos would probably decrease the number of people looking for hook-ups, it would also cause problems for people who want something nice to look at first (then someone nice to talk with).
Also, I find pictures easier to remember than names. For me, a picture of a talking paperclip would do just as well as that one you have up of your face—so long as nobody else had the same picture, which would confuse me—but for people who want to be sure they have a nice face to look at during a cuddle, the paperclip wouldn't really do the job.
It's a shame so many people have trouble separating sexual and aesthetic attraction, but there it is. They understand having trouble taking your eyes off the sky during a particularly spectacular sunset (without sexual anything turning up), but they don't understand how anyone could feel the same way about a face or a figure. You're right, it might be safer to eliminate all possibility for aesthetic attraction from the site... but that would be awfully rough on the people who just love pretty things. And would it really prevent sexual attraction? Sometimes it seems like pretty much everything can make allosexuals want to have sex with somebody. The way they look. The way their voice sounds. The way they write. Grief's sake, I've had to turn down a sapiosexual or two, and we all know how charming I am.
I think sexual attraction's weird anyway, but I found it especially weird to have people who'd never seen me announce that they wanted to sleep with me. Removing pictures doesn't remove sexual attraction... alas. That, you have to control yourself.
@CuddleGuy2018 Asexual is not a disorder, but I think bigotry could be considered socially dysfunctional.
But here you go if you do not value the community’s opinion:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201609/asexuality-is-sexual-orientation-not-sexual-dysfunction
And I am not an asexual person, just someone who can check himself when needed. I can be a tiger in bed or I can be Switzerland, because I have self-control. And I think self-control is not a disorder, although a lack of it can get you elected to a political post now days.
Here's a survey I created about cuddling, whose results I can share with you all (might help clear some things up):
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/G3VTVLV
Fellow cuddlers, if there was any question at all, @CuddlyGuy2018 has made it VERY clear that men don't cuddle men (because evolution), that asexuality is a disorder, he's not a fan of social justice and political correctness (which brings up ALL kinds of questions about his views of feminism and equality), and men can't cuddle without it being sexual.
It sure sounds like Tinder is a better venue for him.
In other words, how can we miss you if you don't go away?
Ok folks... I am closing this discussion. The point of same has already been established, and now it’s time to draw the line regarding the personal attacks.