Huh... no wonder some don't "get it" 🤔🤨

quixotic_life

Deactivated, then saw all this on the main/CC home page...

---

So I clicked "Learn More" and...

---

Um... IDK how others feel about all this, but I think it's pretty misleading. At a minimum it sets one up to make some communication missteps as well as developing unrealistic expectations.

And this one is at the top of the main/home page...

---

So perhaps this is why we see some of the comments we do. Either way though, IMO, some editing should at least be considered...

quixotic_life

Seriously... So many complaint threads make more sense in this context. But why present things in a way that isn't the reality?

Or, are these statements actually accurate for those who don't do much posting/commenting in the forums?

it's a head scratcher 🤔🤷‍♀️

cuddlerforu24

its Meant to attract people to sign up to the website.

funnycuddles

The diagram is 90% of how it has worked for me. The other 10% is vetting out people that have other motives.

I see what you mean. “You message them without having to explain...” Does make it sound almost effortless and automatic. It may work like that for some, but not for me. My only hope is my ability to communicate. And I’m still working on that. Maybe they could put the “Individual results may vary” disclaimer 😊. But as @cuddlerforu24 said, they’re trying to get people to the site. I guess ultimately that might be best for everyone.

littermate

I'm with @funnycuddles.

I'm still not clear what happened for you @quixotic_life but I'd like to hear. Maybe it was detailed in another thread. I didn't follow the tailor thing, though I tried. Spell it out for me... my sense is you got hurt somehow and I'd love to hear about it. to you.

Mike403

@littermate - She deactivated.. I'd like to know as well.

@littermate, @Mike403: You ever have one of those things where you ask someone, "Hey, wanna hear me explain some stuff?" and they say, "Heck yeah, that sounds awesome!"

So you start explaining and they don't get it, don't get it, keep going off on a weird tangent, but mention that they're super tired and their brain might be working kinda slow, so you go over the point again and again, doing your best to make it really simple—and they still don't get it.

But you like this person, and they were so excited to hear you explain, you don't wanna disappoint them.

So you keep trying for four whole hours.

At the end of which time they say, "LOL, I totally understood what you were trying to say this whole time, I just wanted to talk about my own thing because I'm super interested in that."

...That ever happen to you?

It's super hurtful. 0/10, would not recommend to anyone ever.

---

Edit:

On the actual topic, I like how clear the advertising is about the fact that this whole thing's platonic. It could maybe be a little more open about the fact that actually getting responses from people is hardly guaranteed; but really, who puts the negatives in their advertising?

The more platonic cuddle-seekers join the site, the easier it ought to be to find someone, anyway. Like @cualtzin says (paraphrasing freely), the more the merrier!

nurturingman

The fourth of four cartoons looks like a man and woman who are each very happy to be pregnant!

FlyingToaster

I can see how some people might get confused. That description of the process makes it seem so simple. I like to get to know someone a bit before meeting for something like this.

sunnysideup

@quixotic_life Hmm, I don't remember seeing that! It is a bit misleading, but as others have said, no one advertises the negatives of their site. To be fair, it seems like that's the kind of site the creators hoped it would be. That last slide, however, is more misleading than the first two- I'm pretty sure we have to do all the reaching out, and the site doesn't find cuddle buddies for us?!

To be fair, the steps 1 through 4 seem to be pretty realistic regarding PROS, atleast for a good majority of them.

Reaching out to enthusiasts has been miserable for me though, it doesn't seem any different from a dating site in that regard.

Mike403

I must be missing something, but I fail to see the issue. Yes, not every message you send will result in a cuddle. Not every message you send on a dating site will result in a date.

CuddleDuncan

The issue is that cuddling is new. Most people who arrive at the site have never even heard of it. They are therefore very susceptible to suggestion. The simplified explanation can create unrealistic expections.

Yes, everybody knows that not every message on a dating site will result in a date. But they don't know that the same is true on a cuddling site, and they especially don't know it when the intro suggests that it does.

The graphics also conflate enthusiast and pro cuddling. And you have to remember that a significant number of people who are able to read, find it hard work and prefer to avoid it. In other words they look at the graphics, don't read anything else on the site and then jump right in. I suspect that if you could do a proper investigation you would find a correlation between unacceptable behaviour and below average reading ability.

Mike403

@CuddleDuncan - No matter what the intro says, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that other people on the site are also real people with their own desires and may or may not want to meet you.

That's just my 2 cents.

CuddleDuncan

@Mike403 but that's my point, yes it does. Or at least somebody who is able and willing to read, and/or able and willing to think.

It does not matter how stupid, thoughtless, lazy, unreasonable and foolish you think the public can be, I can promise (from long and bitter experience) that they will exceed your expectations by a considerable margin, immediately.

Mike403

@CuddleDuncan - When I first joined this site, platonic cuddling was a new and strange concept for me, but I kept my expectations reasonable. To me, the intro only suggested that the intent of this site was to meet somebody only to cuddle without it progressing to something sexual.

thejuggernaut

@CuddleDuncan I get that you are saying people can be misled but i dont think cuddling is new.. its been happening ever since humanity began. I think people will get out of it what they want. People will choose to see what they want even if the warnings and labels are obvious! Im happy to find this place.

@Mike403 you have made some great responses. I agree that the site is clear about what it is. This is for cuddling and not for sex.

Im new myself but i think this is going to be a very good step for myself and also for those I can help by pro-cuddling. Having been married and divorced i know that the value of human touch is immense! Without touch babies die, without touch we never learn to be confident, we dont understand the words "i love you". Without touch the world will cease to exist.

Looking forward to having convo's with all. My message box is always open.
Mark

ReltvlyCanshes

I don’t get the issue..... *crawls back under rock

@thejuggernaut honestly, you are a pretty big advertisement for the idea that the site’s initial pages mislead new people.

Mike403

Male pros tend to have very unrealistic expectations it seems. That $20 fee I think would be better spent at Vegas on Roulette. They'll have a better outcome.

@thejuggernaut - I suggest switching to an enthusiast account cause that's free and it's very unlikely this will be a money making opportunity for you.

quixotic_life

OP Follow-Up

I agree they hit it out of the park when it comes to the platonic nature/expectations but I still see a few issues.

The first is the disconnect in stating,

"Get a cuddle buddy today"
"We'll find you a cuddle buddy so you can start a friendship based on cuddling without any expectations of more."

[Um...?] "Get a cuddle buddy today" [??? ~ To what degree is this true enough to even be considered a reasonable expectation/statement?]

We'll find you a cuddle buddy [no they don't] so you can start a friendship [client's don't equal friendships and many have stated being here for the cuddles and don't want/need/expect friendships] based on cuddling without any expectations of more [true]. 

Current home screen image:

So, I propose they reword it to:

Start meeting other cuddlers today

We've developed a platform where one may find their next cuddle buddy without any expectations of more!

[Which is all true and amazing! So why not advertise in that way?]

---

Second is this...

Which isn't really true when you consider the number of people put off by openers such as "Sup", "I'm in", "See you tomorrow" etc. It's just not true that it doesn't matter because they (the recipient), "already get it".

I think it could be worded to be more accurate...

Send Them a Message

They sound like someone you'd get along with, so you send them a brief introduction but don't need to worry about how you word it - they will likely view your profile to learn more about you, and they already get it. You're both here to cuddle and nothing more.

[These changes reflect that the first contact is due to one's interest in the other. It further specifies introducing oneself, and provides an indirect hint to fill out one's profile, both of which many have noted, if absent, they won't reply.] "

---

Third is this...

That just needs a minor edit:

Meet-Up and Cuddle

They think you sound like someone you'd they'd get along with too, so you two organize to meet-up and cuddle. And most importantly, it's pressure-free without any expectations of it progressing to something more. 

[slight changes that acknowledges this isn't a one-way exchange and that regardless of what date/time one selected when "booking" a pro, or said when reaching out to an enthusiast, if they aren't interested from the jump, you won't hear back and that setting up a time to cuddle requires both parties working together.]

edited : typos

Mike403

@quixotic_life - Maybe take your suggestion to @Mark ?

Also, who introduces themselves with "See you tomorrow"? I'm not sure what site (dating site or other) they've been on where that line worked.

Debster

Hardly any of the men have pictures, sentences, or their real name on this site. Looking at their profile is useless in those cases.

quixotic_life

@Mike403 and @littermate ~ Not everything people tell us are well thought out and balanced interpretations of an exchange.

[please excuse any grammatical errors or typos - beyond this I don't really want to give anymore of my time to the situation]

When one jumps to their own conclusions in a vacuum and seeks not to understand the way in which another may have come to their reflections and insights [though agreed were off and not well thought-out and repeatedly admitted to as such] is a miss. But to also belittle that person repeatedly throughout the exchanges, then attack them for not understanding that as a "student" they weren't to interrupt or engage in the private (personal message) "lecture" (his term not mine), which had only come about due to said "student's" earlier comment in class (the forum), is not something I appreciate participating in, nor signed up for.

Further, to come to (what I thought would be) a 'meeting of the minds', with their assumption they're all knowing, and I'm an idiot, is a poor way to approach me. Because, "YES", I got the obvious that this said "lecture" was about...

"Logic and math are both processes. Logic works with statements. Math works with numerical values. I'll start with math because most people understand what math is better than they understand what logic is."

A couple messages later, I'm thinking, Really? Who doesn't know/understand all that? And I replied while also thinking maybe he has something beyond what I'd consider to be the basic premise here. But nope. It was well put but still basic.

What I didn't "get" or "pick up on" was the complete lack of interest or ability to extrapolate on the premise hypothetically. Which resulted in the lecturer choosing to go round and round in unnecessary circles, repeating themselves and implying I'm "simple" and "stupid" while doing so.

I tried to approach my misstep with self depreciating humor, because (as I know myself to have done before) I'd messed up by not starting a reply with, "Yes, and..." and I'd simultaneously drawn up a piss-poor analogy (that was continually referenced long after I had admitted it wasn't what I was trying to say). Eventually though, I was able to write out what I'd tried to give as an example early on (to fully write out what I meant and give supporting examples), but it didn't matter to him and had come too late. In further hindsight I've realized all he wanted was a simple, "Yes, I get it."

It really hurt that someone who I'd had respect for as a thinker, writer and being, whose prior discourse I'd found intriguing and thought provoking, didn't have any respect for me in return. They took an opportunity, where I had expressed my brokenness early on, to prey upon my insecurities and beat me down, while making false accusations and not listening to where I was coming from to remedy the situation.

After trying for several hours to explain myself, I received statements that included:

I'm self absorbed, like to think of myself as a good person, refuse to see anything I think is less than pleasant, blame others for my failings, I'm selfish, I'm the kind of person who makes people happy to stoke my ego, I like that pleasant and comforting self image, I don't care about others - only myself, I'm hurting others and myself by pretending, and I'm self indulgent...

And when, in a thoroughly exhausted and upset state I said,

"Lash out at me. But know that you've already hit me with the worst you could. You found my weak spot and you got your reaction out of me. I'm done. I already deal with being treated like shit in my own home every day, I certainly don't need it from you too."

"So think what you will. I don't need your validation and won't benefit from your hostile, accusatory and mislabeled criticisms either."

I was met with mockery... which included:

"Nobody BENEFITS from hostile or accusatory criticisms. Mislabeled ones, maybe—but I think the word you wanted was "suffer." You won't SUFFER from my criticisms."

"Which is another lie. Why do you people do that?"

Followed by more insults.

But I did mean I wouldn't "benefit". That trying to illuminate my shortcomings in that manner pushes me further from being able to examine them in a constructive way (I work better with a lamp/40w soft light than I do glaring overhead fluorescents).

And indeed I did "suffer" the consequences as I allowed myself to become completely unraveled and was sobbing for hours upon hours straight, multiple times, in a 24 hour period. Causing myself to not only break out in stress hives, but my jaw popped out of place and was painfully swollen from all the clenching I'd been doing while holding my breath to not cry anymore. Yesterday when I woke up (after finally getting a few hours of sleep) my face was so swollen, and my eyes so puffy, I looked like I'd been hit in the face by a truck.

So, @DarrenWalker ~ I did use the word I meant, I have since "got a grip" (no thanks to you and your last PM to me), and until I saw your posted comment above (that was a response to a question posed to me), I never would have aired all this in public.

If I too had allowed myself to react in a childish manner there are a couple choice things I'd say. Instead, I'm posting this in response and hope it makes sense to those who weren't involved (it's hard to summarize a 5+ hour exchange), and will finally close in saying,

The rating comment is mutual ~ "... super hurtful. 0/10, would not recommend to anyone ever."

Good day sir.

@CuddleDuncan your conjectures make a lit of sweeping statements without any hard data. For instance, I could just as easily say, "Most people coming to this site know what cuddling is before signing up." I'm guessing neither of us have the actual information to back it up.

@DrDeb Your statements seem a bit loaded. I don't post a picture for various reasons, but am happy to share (as I have) once I have engaged in conversation with an individual. As for names, it seems just as many women have a cute "user name," so it's a nonstarter. (My user name, by the way, was suggested to me by two cuddle buddies from this site.) As for sentences, the judge reduced mine down to "timed served," so it's no body's business.

Mike403

@DrDeb - Some people especially those who are only here for pros will share their photo when booking a session, but don't want or need the entire community to see it.

Riverside77

There should be a step 3b. Repeat process over and over and over and over, get ghosted, and over and over and over.... until:

Option 1: give up
Option 2: remain hopeful

You may get to step 4:

Option 1: repeat customer and go broke
Option 2: one night stand (in the cuddling sense)

It's true that the website doesn't find buddies for us, as such. What it does do is find as many people as possible who're interested in cuddling, and makes them more accessible to us than everyone else in the world (with the exception of people we already see every day, of course).

And, at least hypothetically, it weeds out the folks who want non-platonic things, freeing us up to look for more in a buddy than just "won't try to make out with me."

In concept, the site's great—and as an advertisement of the concept, I think what @Mark has up works well.

The thing is that, for reasons I've gone into multiple times before, any website like this one is going to have more man types than woman types, and the man types are gonna have a tougher time finding buddies. Is there really any point in advertising that? Surely everyone already knows! It's practically a law of society.

The one thing I might change about any of the advertising is the models used in the header. Those two are a bit too conventionally attractive. Why not put in some homely types, in the British sense and make it look more cuddly than seductive?

That's what I'd do... at least, if I could find the types. Maybe user-submitted photos?

---

[MODERATOR edited. Please, no personal attacks or threats. Please do not share personal conversations/screenshots. -Sid]

quixotic_life

[MODERATOR edited: removed per request - Sid]

@Mark - tagged

Edited to add @SoulcuddlerZ

Mike403

@DarrenWalker - Just drop it.

quixotic_life

[MODERATOR edited: removed per request. - Sid]