A non-pro who only cuddles people they're sexually attracted to is a non-pro a platonic site can do without.
If the type of attraction the OP meant wasn't sexual, then I hope she comes back.
@Groucho Yep, because guys on this thread literally chased her off the site by assigning her motives (that were none of their business anyway) then judging her on them and casting aspersions on her character and online behavior. Gosh, who WOULDN'T want to hang out with swell folks like that?
I didn’t catch those judgements of motives. But there were some questions asked that could be unnervingly interpreted
Weeeell....
DarrenWalker You don't owe anyone an explanation for the criteria you use to determine if someone is a match for you unless you're using the criteria of sexual attractiveness... and in that case, come to think of it, it's not an explanation you owe: it's an apology. PlayWithMyHair To the gentleman that said I deserve this guy an apology because I am only cuddling people I am attracted to...
DarrenWalker You don't owe anyone an explanation for the criteria you use to determine if someone is a match for you unless you're using the criteria of sexual attractiveness... and in that case, come to think of it, it's not an explanation you owe: it's an apology.
PlayWithMyHair To the gentleman that said I deserve this guy an apology because I am only cuddling people I am attracted to...
But I didn't say she owed whoever-it-was an apology. I said she would owe him an apology if (and only if) she was using the criteria of sexual attractiveness to pick her cuddle buddies.
She's the one who decided she met the requirement for apology.
I must have said something wrong in here, she messaged and asked me why i thought she should get banned. I’m not sure why she came to that conclusion. I guess you can all blame me.
@BashfulLoner: Dear me. None of your posts look like they're advocating for that (at least, not to me). Why would we want someone banned unless they were being non-platonic somehow?
That’s true, it’s beyond me!
You see me trying to get on the gif train.
My guess is something touched a nerve that i wasn’t aware of, oh well
Heh. Gifs.
Anyway, based on the data we have, she seemed like an okay person who was maybe a bit naive about online safety (and maybe also what it means to have a platonic cuddle buddy). At the very least, she ought to be safer online now, and I think that's cool.
So a non pro who seemed willing to cuddle with folks, just had some personal preferences that came into question due to her honesty and transparency, and still though her motives did not appear to fly against the purpose of the site she was dissected to the point of deactivating her account even though her thread was a completely valid point to begin with? Great job fellas. Time to start another thread about a lack of non pros and complain about how nobody will cuddle you nor respond to your messages, or perhaps complain about how mean people are on here to you....
@pmvines , that's how I saw it - damn. 👀
@Brynn @pmvines see thread about billy goat gruff
Sorry, @pmvines, I must be missing something: how would refusing to cuddle with people unless you find them sexually attractive not be flying against the purpose of the site?
If I'd thought she was talking about any other type of attraction (goodness knows there are plenty of others), I wouldn't have said a word, but I had a suspicion—and she pretty much straight out confirmed it. Picking your cuddle buddies on the basis of sexiness isn't okay.
Well, that certainly deteriorated quickly. @DarrenWalker, I don't know why you had to take such a confrontational attitude toward her; nothing she wrote in this thread or on her profile hinted that she was seeking anything non-platonic. She was very clear about not wanting intimacy or being ready to date again. There's nothing wrong with her wanting to cuddle with someone she finds attractive. Everyone here has the right to choose a cuddle partner based on any criteria they wish, including looks. To claim that any consideration of appearance must mean a sexual intent is absurd.
We're all SO lucky Darren Walker is here to approve or disapprove of our motives, thoughts, and emotions! Maybe we should allow Darren Walker to approve or ban people on this site based on Darren Walker's "suspicions" about what is or isn't their motivation.
I wanted to express my thoughts about what @DarrenWalker said on this thread but I think that @Parad0x and @StoryDoctor1138 (with a great touch of sarcasm) have done much better than I could and expressed my sentiments very accurately. I would still like to point out that I checked the OP carefully and nowhere did I see @PlayWithMyHair say that she only wanted to meet with people she found sexually attractive, that was @DarrenWalker take. She seemed like a real person just wanting to find people to cuddle with but found negativity in this thread, I feel like the forum behaved like Lenny did in Of Mice and Men and that’s the real shame, we lost a wonderful cuddler, a non pro who took the time to respond to messages and was willing to meet with CC people.
I’m not sure where you all see that @DarrenWalker was confrontational wit her. He simple stated that some one seeking sexual attraction is looking in the wrong place. I don’t think he accused her of it but i do know he states that some of her dialogue sounded like it. That came through from a lot of people after reviewing her profile.
So to blame Darren for any of this was absolutely wrong. She did apparently feel attacked, by me???? In a message the asked me why did i want to get her banned or flagged her account. I said nothing of the sort in the forum or in a message. So where she got that from is unknown. I’d encourage you to inspect the thread again.
I think everyone supported her in the conversation she had with the other fellow and gave her support and advice. In doing that some people seen somethings that she might want to consider could cause her issues. Non of it was malicious.
Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the mantra of many on the forum.
Upon Further Review ( an appropriate term for what is Super Bowl Sunday ) there was enough evidence on her profile at least in my mind to suggest it was a fake or some sort of catfish profile. With the being said was @DarrenWalker a little over zealous ? Probably but so much so that it warranted her to quit over it ? No or at least I don't believe so. But I also maintain and I'm sure I'll catch heat for this but if the genders were reversed in this situation and it was a male claiming he would only cuddle females he was attracted to I don't believe there would be the same energy coming to his defense as you did for her. A lot of you probably would have his intentions were non platonic and dissected his story much in the same way @DarrenWalker did to the OP. So can we blame someone for being fair across the board ? Or are we really going to push this double standard no matter what ?
A male, or female, looking only for someone attractive, will have to spend longer looking ; their choice.
I'm with @hugonehugall. I think the account was fake. Couple that with interactions that have taken place with other accounts I think it was all the same person trying to "prove a point"; that it's "okay" for women to choose a cuddle partner based on attraction but not men.
They also could have been trying to get some free advertising out of it.
She had karma from actual site members how is that fake
@pmvines Maybe they were fake too, just like the moon landings. 😀
Yes, @Parad0x: Everyone here has the right to choose a cuddle partner based on any platonic criteria they wish; and yes, visual (or aesthetic) attraction is platonic. That's why I said people can use whatever criteria they like to pick a buddy—anything at all!—unless the criteria are sexual. Then, and only then, would an apology be owed.
PlayWithMyHair is the one who decided this meant she owed an apology. Not me; I didn't have the data for that, couldn't possibly have known what type of attractiveness she meant. She made the call.
Actually, everyone here has the right to choose a cuddle partner based on ANY criteria they wish, and it's frankly no one else's business what that is. It is no one else's business to accumulate "data" on what they think others are feeling and then pass "platonic" judgment. That's on the person judging... not the person being judged. That behavior just drives people away, and I've been hearing from more than one person that such has been happening here for a long while.
The site's "platonic" rules are very specifically for outward behavior, which is the only thing people can be held accountable for. Keep your hands in the Friend Zones, wear reasonable attire, keep your lips to yourself, don't sell sexual services, watch your language. No further thought process privileges are required or deserved. You're accountable for what you DO, not what you THINK or FEEL.
No one is owed an apology for WHY they were chosen. What we are owed, each of us, is to be treated with respect, according to the site rules, and a sharing of our humanity and compassion. THAT is what the site is about: human connection. Therapeutic touch. Feeling "seen." Sharing the warmth not just of our bodies but what our soul generates inside. That seems to be more and more forgotten for a preponderance of stating and defining terminology and applying that to our very thought processes.
The obsession with whether someone is even THINKING "romantic or sexual attraction" is growing to a fever pitch. That's not how you establish a community, unless it's a neighborhood of Stepford Wives. We absolutely don't need Platonic Karens monitoring the forums then swarming to condemn people for what they suspect is in their minds. That just divides the community and sets us at odds with each other. Is that what we want? Why?
Maybe some folks here have a hard time controlling their own impulses and actions and so try to inflict that totalitarian approach on the masses. If I can't control myself because of my feelings, I'll try to enforce disallowing anyone from having those feelings! What other reason for trying to be Thought Police?
We're all Human Beings, not robots. We have emotions and feelings and the process of having them isn't defined by any logical process. Do we really need to dissect what kind of ATTRACTION we have? Is ANY attraction only "one kind" of attraction? If I think "I really like her smile" is that a platonic attraction? Yes, no, maybe? How about 50% platonic? 75%? Is having emotion ever that logical? SHOULD IT BE? (The answer is "no," by the way.)
Human Beings not only have the capacity to FEEL, we have the ability to control our impulses and our actions, whatever they may be. At least I do. I can't be the only one? Can we not try reacting more with the humanity and compassion we claim this site is about instead of obsessing over whether someone's very THOUGHTS are "platonic"? Intentions are what matters; if a person only ever intends to behave in a platonic fashion during a cuddle (by the very definition of site rules for behavior), what does it matter what kind of attraction they had TO A PICTURE when seeking a cuddler?
@StoryDoctor1138 👍 . . . and a gif as well.
@DarrenWalker said:
Picking your cuddle buddies on the basis of sexiness isn't okay.
For you. That's your personal rule, not the site's TOS.
There isn't universal agreement on what sexiness IS. Sexiness is more than physicality. Sexiness is also intelligence, courtesy, literacy, charity, and for those who've been in long term relationships, silence is sexy as well.
If one's criteria includes sexiness, they're not wrong. As @StoryDoctor1138 pointed out, it's our actions and behaviors that define accountability, not thought police.
@StoryDoctor1138 @Sideon you guys are totally on point and thank you for sharing this with the community, we gotta curtail that kind of behavior and we don’t need no thought control.
@cuddleversed
If we knew what was going on in the head of another at any given time we would think twice about the future of humankind. It is not always about thought but about intent and action. I think a lot of my friends are very attractive and "sexy". Is this why i choose them? Of course not. However i would not avoid touching them based on the fact that i find them attractive or "sexy". Seems we are attempting to put a little too much debate into something that is pretty straightforward, common, and normal.