People make a lot of claims about cuddling but I’ve never seen any actual research cited. I’d like to see links to research on cuddling to support the claims being made. I did a brief search on Google Scholar and come up with essentially nothing.
@Babichev
https://cuddlist.com/for-therapists/
https://www.thehealthy.com/mental-health/how-to-cuddle/
https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/live-well/2015/02/cuddle-and-hug-your-way-to-better-health/#:~:text=When we touch – cuddle, hug,and lower levels of depression.
That was after a quick search. Lack of research isn't the same thing as "we researched it definitively and have proven for certain not true". But in this case there actually IS some research and so that, to me, should mean even more studies and research.
@cuddleholic71 - Thanks, I will check those out.
I was specifically looking for research articles. I’m well aware there are articles in the popular press making claims about the benefits of cuddling. If you look in research databases, though, you come up with next to nothing and what does come up is hardly about the cuddling we’re talking about. Research on kangaroo care with neonates is hardly evidence for the benefits of an adult cuddling with a stranger.
Just a quick perusal - a lot of what is claimed about cuddling appears to be based on extrapolation from research on something that is not the kind of cuddling we’re talking about. Being hugged by a friend or one’s partner is not the same thing. Single case studies are low quality evidence and subject to a high risk of bias. I notice quotes from Dr. Tiffany Field. I’ve been familiar with her research since she opened the Touch Research Institute in 1992 and met her in 1994. While she is held in high regard by massage therapists, her work is not taken seriously by other scientists. There’s a systemic problem with her research that she’s been confronted about but refuses to address. As a result, it leads to articles like “If massage is so good, why is the research so bad?” published in the the Journal of Neonatology.
I’ll give a specific example: you may have heard that massage lowers the levels of the stress hormone cortisol. This claim is based on research done by Field and it turns out to be false. Massage makes people feel good but the mechanism by which that happens is not cortisol yet you will still hear people make that claim.
Sometimes all we have is extrapolation but extrapolation does not always lead us to correct conclusions. For years, a lot of assumptions about bicycling - how to train, how injuries occurred, etc. - were extrapolated from research on running. When there finally began to be research specific to bicycling it was found that some of the assumptions made based on research from running were not just wrong but in some cases opposite of what the research specific to cycling found.
Good cuddling makes people feel good. We know that. (And bad cuddling - like cuddling with someone who is pushing boundaries - makes people feel awful.) What makes me cringe is when people make specific claims. Specific claims should be able to be supported with evidence.
I’m aware that an absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. I’m also aware that articles in the popular press are usually written by people who do not understand science and can be embarrassingly sloppy.
I’ll take a look at the research cited in the articles. I thank you for providing them.
Okay, I’m looking at the articles and here are the problems.
I’ll start with the last link since it initially appeared to provide better sources but, in fact, didn’t.
First reference: link to a synopsis (not the abstract, which would be easily searchable) of some research that surveyed women in relationships. They were asked to complete surveys regarding how often they exchanged physical affection with their partners and then measured hormone levels. No link to the actual research and to continue reading the article requires a paid subscription. Since this does not appear to be high quality evidence on cuddling I don’t think it’s worth the time it would take to try to track down this research, it’s not specific to cuddling, it includes things like holding hands, etc.
Second reference: Claims cuddling boosts the immune system and links to a piece of research on the effects of serotonin on the immune system, not anything directly on cuddling.
Third reference: links to research on oxytocin and the effect of direct skin contact between new mothers and their babies immediately after giving birth. Not even close to adults cuddling with people not their partners.
Two other points made: cuddling reduces stress (a rather vague claim) and a reference to the book about love languages. Both rather broad and vague.
So this article provides no evidence about specific claims made about adults cuddling other adults who are not their partners. See the problem?
Anyway, it was not my intention to go off topic and derail this thread, it was just a response to claims being made.
By the way, we have the same problem in massage therapy and there’s a much larger body of evidence to draw on. I finally, at a point, decided to drop making any claims outside of two very modest ones: massage feels good and some people with pain, we seem to be able to help them have less pain. That’s it.
I think we can agree that under the right circumstances cuddling feels good, makes us feel calm and refreshed. That’s good enough.
@cuddleholic71
To kind of echo Babichev, those are not research articles, and ultimately don't amount to much more than people saying "Yeah cuddling makes me feel better." Which is great... it makes me feel better too. Not everything has to have some firm scientific foundation; we enjoy cuddling, so let's do it. Just don't pretend it's something it's not.
"we enjoy cuddling, so let's do it. Just don't pretend it's something it's not".
Fair enough, then let's not pretend it is a service worth value and make this a free cuddling only site. I mean, if there is no actual science to back it up, and it isn't anything but platonic cuddling for fun and enjoyment, that's a hobby and NOT a service. And certainly not a service worth paying what literally ANYONE on this or any other site are charging minus maybe cuddlist.com. You see the problem there?
If there's no science to back up the therapeutic claims then there is zero justification for untrained cuddlers charging ridiculous sums of money for something there really isn't any training for. And for those who did pay for training. There IS NO training. How can their be? What is it based on then?
So there you have it. If you are charging people money for cuddling, you're a fraud. If you are paying people for cuddling, you're getting ripped off.
Warning: you can decide that pro cuddling has no value to you but if you are going to trash talk our professional members you will be put in time out. If you persist in doing it then that time out will be permanent. Your choice. - Babichev
@cuddleholic71 “so there ya go” as if you proved something phenomenal and meaningful. You didn’t. You don’t find any use for pro cuddling, good for you, but the way you’re being incredibly disrespectful to those who are pro cuddlers and those who pay for the services, it’s not going to win you any cuddles…. FYI: just because a pro cuddler is enjoying their job, doesn’t mean it’s a hobby and that we shouldn’t be charging.
Why do you feel you have to go out of your way to spit on everyone in the pro cuddling world? Is it because you aren’t getting any enthusiasts? 🤔
There are plenty of jobs out there where people have zero training and are making money. I do cuddling full time and have been doing so for 3 years. It’s a job. A very fun, rewarding and fulfilling job. We aren’t forcing you to pay me or anyone else, so find somewhere else to be miserable. It’s not wanted here.
Fair enough, then let's not pretend it is a service worth value and make this a free cuddling only site. I mean, if there is no actual science to back it up, and it isn't anything but platonic cuddling for fun and enjoyment, that's a hobby and NOT a service. And certainly not a service worth paying what literally ANYONE on this or any other site are charging minus maybe cuddlist.com. You see the problem there? If there's no science to back up the therapeutic claims then there is zero justification for untrained cuddlers charging ridiculous sums of money for something there really isn't any training for. And for those who did pay for training. There IS NO training. How can their be? What is it based on then? So there you have it. If you are charging people money for cuddling, you're a fraud. If you are paying people for cuddling, you're getting ripped off
You're not necessarily paying for a pros training. You're paying for our time away from our other responsibilities, jobs, friends, family, etc. We are not running a charity service here. Don't want to hire a pro? Don't. You're not obligated to hire a pro just as we are not obligated to cuddle you for free. Beautiful how it works both ways. 😉
If paying a pro is beneath you then go find an enthusiast with that pleasing personality of yours. /s
This was a free site once upon a time. Guess what happened? Men found it hard to find available women to cuddle for free. They still do.
At least with having the OPTION to pay a pro, men here can have their touch needs met.
@cuddleholic71 - They are not a fraud unless they are claiming to be something they're not (like a doctor with a fake degree). Most clients here knows exactly what they are paying for. If it's not for you, that's fine, but belittling the profession isn't a good look.
The value of a service is determined by the person paying for the service. Pros can charge whatever they want. Clients can hire them or not. Free market. It has nothing to do with science. It has to do with that there are people who want to be able to cuddle with other folks and don’t have someone to cuddle with. Some find other enthusiasts, some hire pros. This should not be difficult to understand, it’s not complicated. Don’t want to pay for cuddling? Then don’t. Your choice.
Pros are a part of our community. You don’t have to patronize them but if you’re going to participate in the forums you have to accept they are part of our community. Period. Just like men, women, trans people, gay folks, straight folks, married folks, single folks, poly folks, fat folks, skinny folks, old folks, young folks, religious folks, non-religious folks, etc. are all a part of our community. You don’t have to cuddle with any of them, you don’t have to interact with any of them, you don’t have to like any of them, but you do have to accept they are part of this community if you want to participate in the forums. We do not allow trashing of pros or any other members of our community.
No one is required to hire pros. You are free to hide pros from your searches.
One of the values of the forums is that we can get a sense of what a person is like. Are they kind? Are they thoughtful? Do they pay attention? Do they seem like the kind of person I’d want to cuddle with? Or do they create the kind of impression that makes me want to run in the other direction? Potential cuddle buddies read our words and are forming opinions about us.
Cuddling only makes us feel good if we feel good about the person with whom we are cuddling. If they are pushing our boundaries or they are just a disagreeable person it’s not going to be a good experience for us. In a context like this where our first communication is online, people’s impression of us starts from our very first words. Choose your words carefully because they may make a difference between finding a good cuddle buddy or not.
@Babichev I believe you dropped your mic 🎤
@Sheena123 😂
@Babichev Amazing post. Should be on home page I think 🤔
@OhioMike The post by Babichev IS very well-written. I was just thinking that.
@Sheena123 @Rezz @Babichev All well said!
Aw, shucks, thanks.
@CuddleDuncan To your original question, I recently heard this is a thing with massage therapists. They display this simple badge to turn away the creepers:
~ Sunset Snuggles
Yes, that graphic has been around for a few years but not many MTs seem use it. I’ve never cared for it because it’s not about respecting massage, it’s about respecting massage therapists.
However, I can visualize a similar graphic with “Strictly Platonic Cuddling,” the word “platonic” in the middle to emphasize it. Short, sweet, to the point, just reinforcing what should already be obvious.
Thank you everybody.
I quite like that Respect Cuddle Therapists Zero Tolerance logo, but it's beyond my skills to make it.
Recently I discovered a professional who had the monthly pop-up in her photo set, which seemed like a nice idea.
On the science point, it's very difficult to do science on humans because we don't really understand how they work. We understand lots of parts, but there are entire departments we don't know anything about. I mean somebody discovered a whole new organ (in the skin) a couple of years ago.
Furthermore, science on people always looks at people in general, and the differences individuals are so significant that it's very hard to do science on groups. For example, in the medical field a placebo may cure 50% of the cases. A good medicine might cure 70%. (I can't remember the exact numbers.)
Does massage work? In certain ways, for certain people, yes. Can we prove that it works, scientifically? Not really, no. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't work.
Science is only one way of looking at things. It has limitations.
Declaration of interest: I consider myself to be a sort of low-level scientist.
Every time I see this subject and threads dedicated to non-platonic offenders I can’t help but wonder what the level of exuberance the predators feel in getting an education on how to work around protections, ideas and obstacles. Someone pondered that they may not know how to read. I say quite the contrary—predators and criminals are usually the first to manipulate new ideas and technologies. Yeah there are knuckleheads but I would bet my bottom dollar there are several highly intelligent predators that learn from such information as you see on here. It is stupidity to underestimate those types because their deviant pathology drives them to overcome obstacles. For them it is like big game hunting.
I guess what I am saying is this subject should probably be found on the pros only boards. Otherwise it is like a bank telling the bank robbers where the silent alarms are.