Any body remember the story about the billy goats gruff.

“Once upon a time there were three billy goats, who were to go up to the hillside to eat grass and make themselves fat. The name of each one of them was “Gruff.””

Well basically they were 3 different goats with the same name using deception to go on there way.There obstacle was the troll under the bridge.

Do you ever think that troll has adopted the technique of the “Gruffs” and came to CC because they are bored or want to prove a point?

«134

Comments

  • The three billy goats Gruff were brothers. The first two each convinced the troll under the bridge not to eat him because his brother was much bigger and would be more filling. When the third and oldest brother turned up, he was large enough to beat the troll. Bit of a surprise for the troll.

  • edited February 1

    ...Ah. So the troll is just pretending to be a bunch of different, tasty goats to get us to play with them.

  • What troubles me is, why?

    I know it’s likely easier for others to pull these things off. But what are the ends to these means? To prove themselves right? To cause embarrassment(can’t be that). It seems like a lot of energy to deceive.

    It’s beyond me....

  • edited February 1

    This most current one might be a try at proving that women who say they pick their buddies on the basis of attraction (without specifying which kind of attraction they mean) are treated differently from men who say the same thing. So kind of a social experiment type thing?


    Edit: Also posting as other people, trying to push the results the way you want them to go, though, makes it less of an experiment and more an attempt at making some kind of fake thing you can point at and say "See? It's real!" so long as no one knows you constructed it artificially.

  • I guess that could be it. It just seems to be ridiculous to manufacture the issue.

    I wonder if this “Gruff” can maintain their composure or will it be revealed in 15 thread comments and mass blocking

  • And how often does this happen in here, how many are we conversing with.

  • I agree with @DarrenWalker on that too. It's possible this goat is gathering what they can and will try and post it elsewhere online as "evidence" as something.

  • @BashfulLoner: ...Well, assuming our troll doesn't make accounts and leave them sitting a while before using them, we could take a look at who (of all the people talking) joined most recently and try to figure it out from there. Lemmesee.

    WiseTraveler and Crusader joined just today. Brynn, JLD, and Suthernmike joined last month sometime.

    Not really a lot to go on.

  • edited February 1

    ....

  • edited February 1

    Augh. Apparently I'm not used to it being 2020 yet.... (WiseTraveler joined February 2019.)

  • I intended that for a message, blew it

  • I. Still puzzled as to why.

  • I wonder if we will every crack the case, i wonder if it’s been foiled...

  • I also agree with @DarrenWalker on his sentiments.

  • @MissAdventurous what sentiment s do you speak of

  • I think this plot has been foiled. twin of the gruff culprits are gone

  • The male : female enthusiast ratio of about 20 : 1 means we can apply the adage "beggars can't be choosers".
    Females can have all sorts of specifications, and still be inundated, while males must relax any specifications they might have started with, including that they don't want to pay.

    I'm not sure why anyone argues that males don't choose on the basis of attraction, when most of them say they only cuddle females ; and gender is a very specific sort of attraction. That's like arguing that I don't choose a car on the basis of attraction, because I would accept a Rolls Royce of any colour.

  • @geoff1000: In this case, beggars can totally be choosers. We can choose not to cuddle with folks who don't understand the word "platonic" even if nobody knows how to keep sex out of it (which is very much not the case).

    I'm not sure anyone argues that males don't choose on the basis of sexual attraction. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people argue the opposite: there are loads of folks on here (male, female, and otherwise) who pick the sexiest cuddle buddies they can get their literal hands on... and I'm pretty dang sure that's not platonic.

    Choose your buddy on the basis of attraction, sure! But not on the basis of sexual or romantic attraction.

    There are loads of other types of attraction out there, and they're all platonic attractions except those two. Why you gotta be so stubborn about bringing non-platonic stuff into a platonic thing?

  • @DarrenWalker
    If someone is choosing, including choosing to go without ; then they are not begging.

    My feeling is that if someone has filtered out everyone who is not their sex- / romance-preference gender, then their subsequent "attractiveness" filter must be sexual / romantic. Only someone who will cuddle those who aren't their sex- / romance-preference gender, could claim the "attractiveness" they seek, is a different sort. Most people seek sexual /romantic partners who are "attractive", more than just physically ; so every measure of "attractiveness" ( wit, intelligence, honesty etc. ), is potentially sexual /romantic.

    If a man chooses to have his lunch in the restaurant with the prettiest waitresses, should we criticise ? A problem surely only arises, if his behaviour becomes inappropriate towards them ; but if he never makes so much as a flirtatious remark or glance, is any harm done ?

    Would we care if a film producer of a major entertainment corporation, merely had sexual fantasies about the actresses he interviewed ( in the same way that many cinemagoers have sexual fantasies about the actresses they see on screen ) ? If the producer wants to sell cinema tickets, then he will choose for certain roles, actresses who are sexually attractive to the target audience ; of which he may be a good example. The problem surely is only the behaviour.

    It is ( not yet ) a crime to think about doing something illegal. I don't think we should criticise someone, because their filter for a platonic cuddle partner, is too much like the filter they would have for a sexual /romantic partner ; while ignoring the "elephant in the room" that they have chosen the gender.

  • There are so many reasons why one might prefer a certain sort of person for snuggling, including gender. Some have experienced abuse at the hands of one gender. Some find the energy of a particular sort of person therapeutic for them, and that may correspond to gender. Some may be afraid of one gender and want to work on opening to them; or avoiding them. Some may want some papa-nurturance or mama-nurturance they never had. Some may want to work on setting boundaries with one gender. Some may just like the sound of a man-voice or woman-voice. Some may have never gotten to be close to someone they idolize or project on and here's a chance to. I could go on.

    Attractiveness is so multi-dimensional. Strip off "I wanna have sex with you" and "I wanna set up culturally-sanctioned relational shop" with you and what's left? A whole lot of human and energetic dynamics that none of us will be able to wrap up in a nice tidy box and tie with a bow. We each get to do what we like with the people who want to do it with us, as long as we're not violating the rules of the site. And to my mind, it's none of anyone else's business.

    Personally I'm not a fan of deception. I like things defined and then I like everyone to play by those rules, above board, honestly and with integrity. There's a lot on this site that isn't that and I'm allergic to it.

    Beyond that, I want to see out in the open why someone is coming toward me so that I can position myself accordingly. I don't mind if peeps are attracted to me in any sort of way, but if they are coming toward me to use me for something that's under the table, I can feel it a mile away and am totally uninterested. Deception is so, well, energetically unappealing.

    I'm not here for the transactional. I'm here for the relational. And if the motive IS purely transactional and above the table, though I honor that, I'm still uninterested. I like connecting with whole humans who are interested in connecting with a whole human heartfully. When that's happening, whatever attractions come along for the ride are just in the side car rather than driving it.

  • @geoff1000

    The male : female enthusiast ratio of about 20 : 1 means we can apply the adage "beggars can't be choosers".

    If someone is choosing, including choosing to go without ; then they are not begging.

    If the men on this site are beggars, they're able to do quite a lot of choosing. If the ability to choose means a person isn't a beggar, no male:female enthusiast ratio can make anyone on this site a beggar—the adage can't be applied.

    Would we care if a film producer ... had sexual fantasies about the actresses he interviewed?

    Or if he had sexual fantasies about the actors he interviewed, or if she had sexual fantasies about the actors and actresses she interviewed... admittedly, I wouldn't care unless I was one of the folks being mentally stripped naked so my image could be used as a masturbatory toy. Would you like waiting on or doing an interview with a man who was thinking of you that way? Even though the two of you weren't even touching?

    And how sure are you that not knowing what he was thinking would make everything better?

    The distance between thought and action is a lot shorter than people think sometimes. That's why I deliberately refrain from using actual people to fantasize about the stuff I like: slipping up would be bad.

    Sure, it's not a crime for me to think about it. Forget simply letting the thought cross my mind—it's not even a crime for me to dwell; to spend time building (subjectively) beautiful scenes in my brain. But do I do that? No, because it's not a good idea. Fantasy is fun, but I don't bring real people into it.

    And if I picked my cuddle buddies on the basis of who I felt most drawn to [censored]? No, I don't think that would be okay. It's non-sexual, sure—but even so, it's not in the spirit of this site, so I set it aside.

    There are so many other things I like about people. Why focus on that?

  • Even if the world was a dark, joyless hell realm, I would get out of bed simply to read sentences like this:

    admittedly, I wouldn't care unless I was one of the folks being mentally stripped naked so my image could be used as a masturbatory toy.

    Whether the cause is nature (lots of testosterone) or nurture (male conditioning that denies lots of types of expression but focuses everything on the grand prize of sex), I'm afraid @DarrenWalker that this is a very common feature of being in a male body, or so I've heard.

    Knowing that and feeling mercy, I'd settle for someone able to see my acting ability alongside my masturbatory toy qualities (which are, thank God, waning with age).

    Yay for male sexuality! It has helped people the earth and brought a lot of pleasure to many! Boo for feeling reduced to a f--- object! That's scary and yucky and demeaning. Also boo for the way we shame the s--- out of men for some things they actually cannot help. (This is not an argument for the "boys will be boys" clause regarding all manner of nastiness, but an acknowledgement that testosterone is powerful, male sexuality is visual, and the culture plays on this to exacerbate the situation.)

    Once, as a young woman, I worked a temp job in a warehouse for a little while, away from my usual desk jobs. I walked in to the boss's office one day... he was a bit younger than me. On the wall behind him, as I brought him my best thinking about an issue on the floor, was a calendar with scantily clad women posing in the usual ridiculous manner. Kali Ma please do not use me to reduce this warehouse to ash!

    I don't know that we will ever be able truly to have mercy and understanding between us, those who have male bodies and conditioning, and those who have female bodies and conditioning. There's a few things that are fun. And there's a whole lot, in this culture at least, that's just really not. On both "sides."

  • Imagine if Satan had visited Jesus on Day 39 in the wilderness, and suggested turning a rock into a loaf of bread ; but Jesus had replied "Actually I'm not that hungry. I had the foresight to bring along a rucksack full of food, and if anything, I've probably put on weight". Not very impressive.
    We must surely be more respectful of those who are tempted, but choose to not act upon it.

    Some people are scared of heights, because they fear an uncontrollable urge to jump off. Perhaps some people are scared of platonic cuddling, for the same reason.

    I don't know how many of my male coworkers fantasise about having sex with me, but if any do, I am unaware. It would be like contracting an illness, that has no symptoms at all.

  • @geoff1000 Very few men have the degrading experience of a man staring at one's breasts when one is trying to make contact as a real person with a real mind talking abut real things. We are very aware when men are fantasizing about having sex with us -- we've been made to sniff out that energy for our safety and well-being, as it often results in boundary-crossing and in its most entitled form, in being overpowered. We don't just see it in long rude objectifying stares, inappropriate cat-calling or rude comments--we can sense it in how someone treats us. So you may be unaware because it likely won't result in any of those things for you...but we are all too aware, constantly aware.

    My daughter recently joked that the men who approach her with the line "I find you interesting" are the "big boob lovers." She's figured this out by 21 based on the scores of men who approach her in varying ways (she's been collecting data since she was 14). For her "I find you interesting" means "I'd like to feel you up." The rude glazed-eyed stares that she gets when we walk down the street together have made me want to wear a t-shirt that says "Thank you for not gaping at my daughter's breasts." She said, "Mom, I don't mind if they look at my breasts, as long as at some point they actually look in my eyes and acknowledge that there's a person attached to them."

  • @littermate
    From the age of puberty, males want females to know that they are seen as attractive. It takes a while for us to grasp the concept "It's OK, they know".

    As Yoda explains to Luke Skywalker, "You must unlearn, what you have learned".

  • @littermate - hysterical! I've played wing man to straight friends trying to pick up women who invariably give ME their phone number, not my straight friends. My advice remains the same: "when you talk to women, you're talking with them and looking them in the eye, not staring at their bodacious ta-tahs." Why is it gay men know this and straight men don't?

  • I once had the very interesting experience of being a cameraman for a photographer with a local cable show. One week we went to a "fashion show" held at a Nudist Resort. The models wore clothes, the audience didn't.

    After the show I walked with the photographer as we chatted with this one very pretty and very naked girl. She was amused by my discomfort. I finally stammered "I'm doing my very best not to stare at... to keep looking you in the eye." Her response: "That you're even trying makes all the difference."

  • I see sweeping generalizations about straight men, gay men and women are still en vogue on the forum. Perfect qualifications to be a US President now days.

  • edited February 3

    @FunCartel IT'S SO NICE TO HAVE YOU BACK!!!!!!!! I'm so excited to see your slumpy neck. :)

Sign In or Register to comment.