@pmvines Well I've always thought it was nice when people are really clear about how they are and they weed themselves out. I'm not being sarcastic or trying to make a pointed remark. I just really do like when people do that. But unless a person has given up on ever meeting another friend or anything, I just think it's weird when they make disparaging remarks, especially in public that can never be taken back after the 24 edit time is over. It just doesn't make sense. It really would be better if people just filed their nails, exercised or ran the vacuum cleaner again.
@pmvines As expected. Just understand that some view you in the same way you view him.
Some people are just trolls and don't intend to ever meet anyone on here.
@Midas45 Good thing that I don't care about what others think
I have had many many female and male cuddles friends , for me personally it was never about money , it was and is for the love and passion of cuddling. Plus I had a job that supported my family.
@Midas45 you challenged me to consider an alternate view, and I’ll oblige. For this, I’ll quote the statement which was made:
It’s only the women who exploit the loneliness of men for cash.
Perhaps the poster isn’t lonely, but clearly quite ignorant of the facts. Even the most trivial search of the web will turn up countless videos of men purportedly giving advice to other men on how to be more successful in attracting women, with some of these so called “pick up artists” offering to coach men on this for thousands of dollars. These are men exploiting the loneliness of other men for cash. If that isn’t enough, just look at the various dating sites and apps, and who founded them. With maybe the exception of bumble, all founded, and for the most part, run by men. If there is one thing all these sites do very well, they exploit the loneliness of men for cash. The notion that women are the only ones exploiting the loneliness of men for cash is ludicrous and falls flat on its face.
Convoluted attempts to turn prejudice into victimhood. The soapboxes are structurally unsound people. When you claim to be accepting then undermine yourself in the same sentence. That’s living in a glass house and seeing brick.
This is one thread where I have appreciated the input from everyone. It teaches me things about people in general, and people are fascinating, warts and all. It's just odd to be seeking the company of other human beings while saying things that most people know sound alienating. Maybe there is some high psychology there that is beyond me. That is entirely possible; I'm pretty different from most people.
@RadiantHugs I thought you were right the first time but that's a well-presented alternate view.
Gonna skip this comment.
Much later edit: by that I mean delete what I said. It has nothing to do with the comment above.
As a woman, I have never paid for cuddles BUT as a Cuddle Enthusiast (whom doesn't look for payment nor is payment required for cuddling with me😊), I have been "offered money as a pro" after rejecting men messaging me to cuddle. 😏
If my rejecting men (and their selfish insensitive "I'll just offer her money cuz that'll work" notions🙄) who can't and WON'T respect my NO is "exploiting of the lonely" then clearly I'm doing it wrong.😆
This circles back to the age-old question as to whether it's exploitation for a girl to offer to cuddle men for cash. For those interested, there's a rather large mega thread that touches on this general topic: https://www.cuddlecomfort.com/forum/discussion/4600/why-is-there-such-a-disparity-in-price-price-mega-thread/
The basic argument goes like this:
She cuddles me. I cuddle her back. She gets oxytocin. I get oxytocin. She gives of her time and energy. I give of mine.
So if it's a mutually beneficial exchange of services, why is the money a one-way exchange (I pay it and she gets it)? And is it "exploitation"?
Honestly, it probably depends on the situation and your perspective.
For example, let's say a girl spends her time, energy, and money getting trained and certified on professional cuddling. She learns skills like emotional empathy and intelligence, various cuddle positions and comforting touch techniques, active listening skills, etc. Doesn't she deserve to be compensated? After all, there's difference between a professional masseuse and a random person trying to give a massage. With a pro massage, you pay for quality. Same concept with cuddling.
But on the flip side, maybe you have a girl who calls herself a pro but hasn't put any effort into learning pro skills and charges $150-200 per hour. And when you book them, they put little or no energy, care, or effort into cuddling with you, and the moment the hour is up, they bolt out the door like the house is on fire. We've all probably heard stories that go like that. In cases like that, I can certainly understand the argument that such an exchange feels unfair and lopsided.
But keep in mind, that's true of other professions. You may go to a restaurant and get lousy food. Or book a photographer whose pictures are no better than an amateur. Ideally, anyone who's a "pro" cuddler will have put some time and thought into how to provide service that's above and beyond that of an enthusiast. If they haven't, then you have a right to feel dissatisfied. But did you ask her what her skill set was before booking the session? Did you take the time to learn about her and whether you might be cuddle compatible with her? If I book a lousy photographer, part of that falls on me if I didn't take the time to vet them first.
Ultimately, each person has to decide whether or not whether it's worth it to him or her to pay money to fill a need for platonic comfort. The economy is based on supply and demand. Platonic female affection is in higher demand than platonic male affection. The average woman will cuddle with both men and women. The average man will only cuddle women. Should affection be free? Sure, in an ideal world. But life isn't ideal. Or fair. And some people are in situations where they have nobody to hold them or to listen to them vent or to help them feel less lonely. Dating sites offer to fill the void for a price. Is that exploitation? Product manufacturers offer to make you more attractive with this cologne and that pair of shoes and such and such program designed to teach you how to be more appealing. Is that exploitation? We could have the same discussion about other topics: is education exploitative? After all, shouldn't knowledge be free? Or at least less expensive? Why should I pay tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to attend a university? What about healthcare? Isn't charging all that money taking advantage of someone's poor health?
It's a complex and multi-layered topic and while I don't think cuddling for cash is exploitative, I respect the opinion of those who have a different perspective whether I agree with them or not.
I acknowledge that they have a derogatory opinion that differs from mine. I don’t respect it. Playing devils advocate only appeases the devil. Degrading views don’t deserve sympathy. Would you agree if the word woman was replaced? When does it become bad? When it’s racism? When it’s someone you see as worthy of being viewed as a human being put in that light. Do you even see women as fully equal human beings? If so why is this lip service being paid to heinous comments?
Translation from AI. I’d hate for a turn of phrase to be seen as a personal attack.
The comment you've shared reflects a strong stance against tolerating derogatory opinions, especially those that dehumanize or diminish a group of people. The writer is challenging the notion of playing "devil's advocate" in situations involving such opinions, suggesting that it legitimizes harmful perspectives. The rhetorical questions at the end of the comment are meant to provoke thought about the inconsistency in attitudes towards different groups, such as women, and to question the reader's views on equality and human dignity.
In essence, the comment argues that certain views, particularly those that are degrading or discriminatory, should not be entertained or given a platform under the guise of intellectual debate or freedom of speech. The mention of replacing "woman" with another word (implying a different group) is used to highlight how societal reactions often vary depending on which group is being targeted, thereby questioning the audience's underlying biases and perceptions of equality.
@RedFox16
It's akin to straight out name-calling since you are basically saying that those who charge for their time are always exploiting people....
I agree with you about that comment being the equivalent of name calling.
@pmvines
So in a way, we owe the angry incels a bit of gratitude?
Way to keep it classy. I don’t think inflammatory / derogatory name calling is ever helpful or appropriate in these threads, regardless of whether it is in the initial comment or in response to a comment. You could have expressed disagreement with the earlier comment without stooping to that level.
Good thing that I don't care about what others think
Obviously.
@RadiantHugs Very well said, sir. And much more appreciated, as well as adding value. Thank you.
@stormydaycuddle I get the impression that your latest comment is directed at me. To address a couple of points:
Playing devil's advocate only appeases the devil after a point. Perhaps the originator of the comment was a known misogynist. However, all I saw was a single comment. It is obvious why people are unhappy with it; but it is not immediately obvious why it was made.
It could also be that he had an extremely bad experience. Maybe multiple. Perhaps he saw a friend manipulated for years and is now highly resentful. I see few willing to consider such possibilities, even while preaching nuance.
And yes, my reply would be the same regardless of the subject of the message. Anything less would be hypocritical of me.
@Midas45 actually the last one wasn’t. It was for a general audience. If I had one person in mind during any of what I said it wasn’t you. Oddly. If anything I’m being a little sassy in one line toward a person I usually think has only the best ideas but even then it really is a critique on playing devils advocate which I do understand you’re doing. Adding context for someone who’s said something like that isn’t my favorite way of going about things. But strangely nope not you Im talking to. It’s the idea as a whole Im arguing against.
I will comment that I did make my original comment with your view taken into consideration before you made it I think. We don’t agree on how we see the reaction to his possible life experience.
@JohnR1972 Owie ! Hold on wait a sec.... Nope, still don't care
Also @Midas45 @everyone sympathy for an individual as a person doesn’t have to relate to sympathy, tolerance or niceties toward the opinion. If my way of thinking about someone’s opinion is hurtful personally once again as in another post I mentioned mindful detachment. I will passionately hate things people say and even think and call those comments disgusting because to me they are. One comment does not a demon make. I mean if it’s compounding we might not be friends. Which is why I’ve decided to add AI translation to my the comments I make heavy with metaphors and turns of phrase. As a kid I grew up in an environment where that level thinking/association was encouraged. I understand it’s weird. So I’ll provide AI translations since my tendency is to not explain my thinking even when it doesn’t land.
one comment does not a demon make.
One comment doesn’t make you evil.
Will I see the idea as evil? Yes, ideas being nouns means they can stand on their own.
Speaking to another comment lost in the abyss… Green is heavily associated with a negative trait. So the concept of wearing green relates to that AND not physical clothing. Was it the nicest thing I’ve ever said, probably not. Was it the meanest not by a long shot. So to clarify I’m not picking on people who like to physically wear green. It’s a common phrase to tell people that green doesn’t look good on them when they are expressing the negative trait. Not nice. Neither is the expression of the trait but I’ll refrain from saying it.
The problem I have, and people can disagree I don't mind really. Is that people are borderline (and well over the border) hateful and then expect a bunch of there theres, pat pats , and oh I'm so sorry for the way that you feels . It's not even a discussion, just words thrown out there and then when people react to clearly spelled out negative words by calling a spade a spade instead of hypothesized philosophical rhetoric else they be called insensitive or unempathetic, I'm sorry I call hijinks and shenanigans on that. Go get help if you must, but no matter how many wannabe pseudo arm chair intellectuals and people who listen to a couple of new agey self help books on YouTube and think they are now qualified therapists that there are on here , this is not a mental health site, despite the high number of emotionally imbalanced people that it attracts . And as long as I see poop being smeared on the wall I'm gonna call it stinky .
@pmvines 👍👍👍
@pmvines that's exactly what E just said when I repeated a comment made. E said, sounds like some backwards hippie dippy intolerance.
Because I can't tell who @stormydaycuddle's comments (particularly her question about "Do you even see women as fully equal human beings") is directed at, I'll skip over that under the assumption that it's not directed at me. Although it may be in which case I'll clarify my thoughts on the topic...
@BoomerSpooner @stormydaycuddle See what i did there with the poops comment at the end there ? All roads lead to poops 😄
@stormydaycuddle
If I had one person in mind during any of what I said it wasn’t you. Oddly. If anything I’m being a little sassy in one line toward a person I usually think has only the best ideas but even then it really is a critique on playing devils advocate which I do understand you’re doing.
I get this little feeling I’m being summoned here. I’ll oblige…for now.
Offering respect of another’s viewpoint does NOT mean you agree with it, you’re legitimizing it, you’re defending it, your acceptant of it, you’re aligned with it. It does not equate to any of those things. It simply enables one to critically evaluate what’s happening on the other side.
Is a news reporter sympathizing with a mass shooter when they tell his part of the story, is a lawyer defending his opponent when he analyzes everything his opponent has ever done leading up to the crime, is an author agreeing with an extremist when he details their perspectives in his book, is an investigator siding with a person of interest when he escorts him to his office for interrogation - not guilty until proven otherwise. If no one had respect, or regard or a consideration for the other side, there would be no way to essentially figure out the true cause of the crime, and thus, no way of resolving it. You’d just keep fighting and fighting and fighting until violence breaks out with no end in sight and more people get thrown into the mix.
I’ll never forget the story behind the inventors of the battery. These 2 men were fighting tooth and nail against each other with such vehemence and lethality. One said the flow of energy went in only one direction, the other said it went in the other. It wasn’t until years later it was found they were arguing over essentially the same thing, as the flow energy was in a loop. If they had stopped and paid attention to the other’s argument or respected each other’s perspective even if for a moment, one of them would probably have made a breakthrough that didn’t cost them both their lives in frustration and bitter resentment.
Offering respect of someone else’s views is a fundamental means of communication, consideration, evaluation and critical analysis of their opinion against your own without automatically assuming “yours” is better or a tier above.
It’s easy to assume your opinion is better above someone like Hitler, or a racist, or a misogynist because all the legwork on figuring them out has mostly been done for you. So you can prance around on your high horse when it comes to them. But it’s not so easy to assume your opinion is better in cases where one perspective is constantly being doubled down on, on this site or where one gender is constantly being attacked for their opinions in cases where someone doesn’t agree with the concept behind paying for a cuddle. You might think your opinion is better because you have no respect for their opinion or because of some other reason unknown but that doesn’t necessarily make you right. Nor does it mean everyone else shares in your opinion and even when we do, it doesn’t mean we share in the disrespectful process you took in getting there, a.k.a not everyone is living in the same “glass house” you are.
Some people prefer to critically think about the subject at hand like I suspect @KingsportCuddle @Midas45 and @Joshua_72 tried to and would prefer to evaluate it on its merits before racing to make a judgment over it or poke fun at it or double down on it. Just because you’re quick to judge and dole out a litany of disrespectful verbiage because you don’t respect another’s opinion or perspective on something, now using bots as your tool of choice, doesn’t mean you can start attacking everyone else that doesn’t share your rash opinion or agree with you on it and it doesn’t mean everyone else has rushed to the same opinions you have.
If you want to disrespect everyone else’s opinion on a matter that’s not in agreement with yours, don’t be surprised when people decide it’s high time to start disrespecting and disregarding yours.
@teddybear888
In regards to your comment, as a woman, and as an enthusiast here, I too don’t agree with the premise behind paying for cuddles either. That said, I don’t know if I would go as far as to say that “women are exploiting male loneliness for cash,” simply on account of the term “exploit” as it implies an innocent ignorance or lack of choice in the matter on account of the men who are in essence backing it. Men do have a choice of whether to pay for it or not to and they should be held accountable for their part in the transaction. So I don’t think I’d use the term “exploit” in this context. Nor would I group all “women” as operating under the same guise.
@KingsportCuddle as the AI broke down in the 2nd half it was a rhetorical question. I'm speaking to the subject/manner of thinking. '
No one was being summoned. The argument above expresses a fundamental disrespect for not only opinion but person. @PrettyLuv then critically evaluate and stop defending.
@PrettyLuv A beautifully written (albeit unsolicited) post concerning viewpoints.
But, alas, we live in an era today that seeks to mandate tolerance via censorship, bans, and cancellation. This only serves to eliminate context, cause confusion, and breed resentment.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the earlier exploitation comment, but it should not have been removed by the Mods.
@stormydaycuddle If you cared to read the comment before, no one is defending anything but the act of respecting another’s perspective outside of your own. Something you’ve already admitted to being against.
@TxTom thanks
Okay, we do see how we are undermining our own statements in the same breath... no?
Saying "respect a perspective outside of you’re own" implies that I need to give it credence. So which is it? Give it credence or critically examine?
There's a difference between respecting the right of a person to hold an opinion and respecting the opinion itself. Which I did acknowledge that they are allowed to have that opinion. I'm not giving it credence.