After a male and a female have effective intercourse ; for the gestation period at least, the survival of the offspring is far more dependent on the survival of the female than on the survival of the male. This biological fact has led to the evolution of some males being more concerned with the survival of females, than of themselves ; so regarding them as more valuable.
Conversely, a male can impregnate females at a rate of say one a day, so their potential birth rate contribution is maybe 200 x higher ; making them more valuable, and less concerned about the survival of any particular offspring or female.
Both are valid and hence evolution-driven philosophies. Which one males adopt, depends on what contribution they intend to make after the act.
@DarrenWalker This whole "it mimics the century-old idea..." accomplishes what, exactly? It tries to put a stain on the whole human connecting process here? Or it just gives you a chance to pontificate and write really long posts with the goal to make everyone on here... feel bad? Which is counter to the purpose of the site?
It's definitely over-thinking trying to take a human touch service site and apply some antiquated "men buy, women are bought" paradigm that is only marginally applicable. (Sure doesn't explain the popular enthusiasts, which - by your reasoning - should be ignored because I'm societally driven to PURCHASE a woman. There's no ownership if she's "free," is there? )
Yeah... no.
You're deconstructing the process trying to somehow condemn it... but that's like deconstructing a peanut butter sandwich by thinking about how long it took to harvest the peanuts, and didn't there used to be slavery involved, so that means there is generations of human trafficking in every jar of Peter Pan... and that doesn't even take into consideration what you put the peanut butter ON... crackers or bread and is it gluten-free, because someone is having an allergic reaction just reading this... and oh NO, I forgot, some people have peanut allergies so we better just cancel the whole thing. Jelly-only sandwiches from now on. Jelly is a century-old idea too, isn't it? I'm pretty sure.
There is a magic to the human touch, to the energy we generate and how that entwines with those who have harmonic vibrations and somehow manages to bolster both and make them stronger... all of this word salad does a disservice to a process and a site that tries to heal people and make them better through connection and compassion.
You're focusing on the wrong thing. In my humble opinion, of course. I don't feel "less than" for finding a cuddler here to share some compassion with, and I don't consider any of the Professionals as "product." I kinda feel sorry for people who do.
@StoryDoctor1138 I humbly offer that you are missing @DarrenWalker's point.
@StoryDoctor1138 asks,
This whole "it mimics the century-old idea..." accomplishes what, exactly?
Simple: it explains where the differences in how men and women are treated on this site come from. It also debunks the idea that men are somehow less "worthwhile" than women.
You're focusing on the wrong thing... in my opinion.
@littermate Equally respectfully (I don't share a Calvin with just anyone) I got the point... I just don't buy into the philosophy. I don't think there is an idea that men are less "worthwhile" than women on this site that needs debunking.
Some guys don't know how to follow rules. They = bad. Some cuddlers don't follow rules. They = also bad. But I don't think we have a Buy/Sell General Market going on here that reduces women to "products" (in fact, people are free to choose to be a Pro or not. See what I did there? "Free" to choose? Ah, I kill me.) For the MOST part both the men and women I've seen have been not only polite and respectful but also very HUMAN and compassionate.
I focus on the human interaction. Anything else, to me, is just lecture notes for a psychology seminar that only vaguely applies.
@StoryDoctor1138 says, "I don't think there is an idea that men are less 'worthwhile' than women on this site that needs debunking."
mb0 [W]omen by default are worthwhile, but men by default are worthless. That's just the way it is, in dating or in cuddling.
calineur I agree with @mb0
mb0 [W]omen aren’t inherently more worthwhile because bride prices exist(ed). Instead, bride prices exist(ed) because women are inherently more worthwhile.
There's not an idea that men are less worthwhile than women on this site? Huh. That's funny. I could've sworn I saw it around here somewhere. Silly me, responding to things no one ever said.
Edit:
@StoryDoctor1138 also says, "I don't think we have a Buy/Sell General Market going on here that reduces women to 'products'."
Dear heaven, no. But society in general expects women to "sell" themselves through pretty packaging and posturing, while men "buy" with money and compliments. Men, society says, pursue. Women, society says, play hard to get. Men buy. Women are bought. Men aren't worth buying. Women are.
How does this show up on CuddleComfort? Well....
dharma1257 I have read that women, even in the same age range as me, with no pic, get bombarded with messages, or at least some, while i get zero emails, Zero, none, never, and i have participated on the forum and share and i think i am a nice decent evolved guy.
My assumption is i can write something really good and deep on the forum, which i think i have and most wont take notice or thank me or what not, but if a female writes the same exact thing, the guys would be thanking her and telling her how good it is and how appreciative they are, and wanting to talk, etc.
Kalabear So, to be honest...regardless of what site you're on (with a few exceptions), women will be messaged more than men. It has nothing to do with the quality of conversation any individual male may or may not have...it's the pure point of reasoning that girls get more attention because they are girls.
mb0 You've got to do or say something to show her that you're worth spending time with, and it's so difficult to do that via a few typed sentences and photographs, especially when you get zero feedback. If you talk to a woman in person, you can actually generate some kind of chemistry, show her that you're safe, and moreover, if it doesn't go your way, you can learn from what went wrong.
geoff1000 I'm not sure why some men are so against pros. A quote from "Jack Reacher" : "It's the ones you don't pay for, that cost the most".
The men chase the women, trying to "buy" them with compliments and chemistry and promises of safe cuddles—and yes, sometimes money (which can, as the movie says, be cheaper than other things a man might end up paying with). And the women field all these offers. Women get bombarded with messages from men, flooded with compliments from men, and the men continue pouring all this out.
That's how the age-old dynamic manifests itself on CC.
Has anybody noticed how we respond differently to men and women on this site? Why, yes—we have noticed this element of human interaction.
@DarrenWalker how you think and write so fast boggles me.
This was what I was about to write, so will put it here even though it's mostly redundant at this point.
@DarrenWalker:
But on a site like this one, what we mainly see are male enthusiasts trying to hire female pros for a totally non-sexual thing that nonetheless mimics the century-old idea that men buy while women are bought.
@StoryDoctor1138
I don’t think this represents what @DarrenWalker is saying:
So it really makes little sense to disparage those who would seek out her services as "men trying to buy a woman." That actually runs counter to the spirit of the site (and of cuddling) itself and presumes that anyone who hires a Pro has some kind of misogynistic or hedonistic ulterior motive.
I think you are taking their words too literally. The history behind the basic context in which a woman volitionally puts a price on her time and a man is willing to pay that price is what @DarrenWalker is pointing to. They are not saying that pros are being oppressed by misogynistic men. They are pointing to their theory that part of the historical context of the setup where we women CAN put a price on our time in this arena is the historical precedent of women being in the position of being bought – whether it’s with dollars, horses, sheep, diamonds, mansions or attention. Many men on here have alluded to chatting us nonpros up as the price of getting to cuddle with us, and remarking that it’s easier to just pay the monetary price of a pro. This perspective does exist and it doesn’t mean all men share it or that all men who hire a pro or chat up a woman on here are in heartless transactional mode.
I’m not 100% convinced myself that the origin of “men pursue, women are pursued” lies in this historical precedent--I’m currently wondering at it. But the paradigm does exist, it does exist on this site, and it’s easy to see.
I'll add that @DarrenWalker has me beat by actually showing it to you, but I've seen it before in any thread that starts to go into the arena of men being frustrated with the nonpros who won't respond to them or who take so much work to "chat up" in order to earn a cuddle.
Is anyone bad? No. We're all doing our best within a system that DOES condition us with certain attitudes/perspectives/paradigms and it's great to have these discussions. There's a lot of love and respect and mutual admiration and downright snuggly fun happening on this site.
I'm still musing on the origin of women being in the position of being pursued. I can only think that it goes back to the traditional roles of women birthing and caring for children, men providing the meat. Simply put: you provide the meat, I'll bear your children, because you look like you could feed us.
@littermate: Heh. I'm actually in the middle of another debate with somebody else on a different site, and going back and forth is kinda throwing me off. Usually I go over stuff a few times to see if I can say it more succinctly. Not doing great at that tonight.
I love your restatement of my point, btw!
"They are not saying that pros are being oppressed by misogynistic men. They are pointing to their theory that part of the historical context of the setup where we women CAN put a price on our time in this arena is the historical precedent of women being in the position of being bought – whether it’s with dollars, horses, sheep, diamonds, mansions or attention."
You put that way more concisely than I think I've managed thus far.
@DarrenWalker Too funny. Thanks. Being more concise than you means I can die now, I've reached heaven.
By the way, go to bed.
What? Oi. Don't you dare die, @littermate.
[laugh] You're funny.
Edit: And you go to bed. It's only 5:30 pm my time. Ain't it great to be nocturnal?
OK, I'll hang on for a few more for you. Wowzer, that's awesome. I had an artist friend who got up at 5 pm and painted all night. And yes, I do need to go to bed. PS I saved that @DonLong masterpiece of you with bat wings. I felt like if I ever left this site, that was the perfect souvenir to leave with.
@littermate: You saved that? Ha. That's simultaneously hilarious and flattering.
Sleep well when you sleep.
You too BatPerson.
You guys can believe whatever you want, I suppose. I always find that accusations of a faceless "society" dictating what people do is, at best, a generic catch-all argument that is so unspecific it has no teeth. At worst, it's an over-dramatic simplification.
As to taking words too literally? I take them as they are presented.
In any event, there's nothing more to be gained through participation in this thread. It's a bit like watching a hamster on it's wheel... amusing at first, but ultimately the little fellow is going nowhere fast.
@littermate - you said that "There's a lot of love and respect and mutual admiration and downright snuggly fun happening on this site" but that's not the mindset being revealed over the course of this "society is to blame, it's not a good thing, women are products" round robin. If those were truly the attitudes and opinions of the majority of the site users, I'd see no reason in hanging around. Brrr.
I prefer optimism and humanity over blame culture. Those are my feelings... although as to how I came to those conclusions, it could be said that society is to blame.
@StoryDoctor1138 as with most things institutionalized over time , I don't feel like it's really the mindset of most site users at all . However there is something to be said about the way things can subtley be based on our histories . Take for example racism . Apples and oranges I know but stick with me on this one . There are certain normative things that we accept and go unnoticed . We still live in a racist society, even though if you poll the population many will tell you they are not . However the system that becomes our very existence , in fact , is . To me this is what I relate to in @DarrenWalker argument
Exactly @pmvines. Saddens my heart to have hate attributed to what @DarrenWalker is pointing to.
Does this mean you're giving me my Calvin & Hobbes back? Because I don't remember saying anything about "hate."
You're so dear. Nope. I treasure that Calvin and Hobbes.
I may have picked the wrong word, so sorry. I see some attributing of a blaming or unfriendly tone (man-hating is how it's usually described) to @DarrenWalker's observation/analysis of a dynamic and a reaction to it on your part. That's what saddens me.
Man-hating? I think there's another wrong choice of words. There was no gender-bias in anything I said. In fact, I went the exact opposite direction.
And my counter-argument was in favor of personal choice and freedom from the vagueries of blaming "society" and generational history for what people do now. I have advocated humanity and connection... and we're living in a time when more and more people are enlightened to real human... and HUMANE... interaction, so I stand by what I've said and don't feel the need for anyone to be saddened by it. I think it's by far the more positive and uplifting view.
That's a misreading of what I'm trying to say. Maybe badly because I'm on this darn tiny device right now with my ancient eyes.
I saw you attributing blame and unfriendliness TO @DarrenWalker for their observation and analysis and observed what I grokked as reactivity on your part to something they weren't saying. And then creating a false dichotomy between cold and blaming vs. enlightened human. I experience @Darrenwalker to have oodles of humanity toward their fellows along with interesting analyses of dynamics.
Whether you feel the need for me to be saddened or not, I remain saddened.
Then... I have to be saddened by your saddening. I'm going to just double down on my "there's nothing more to be gained through participation in this thread" comment and move along. I have no doubt someone will feel the need to "have the last word" here but I'm going to Peace. Out.
Here's my last word... onward!
@StoryDoctor1138 Its not worth being the hamster, don’t waste any more time. It is as you stated overly dramatic. Things that don’t pertain to the topic at hand are brought to the thread and then when people give opinions we have what I see as unfriendliness all around, not just from you as stated above.
If anyone should be saddened it’s when cuddlers don’t partake in forums because this is typically the outcome.
.