Ok. I myself have mixed feelings on the issue. If you’re in a committed relationship, ideally, everything should be communicated and there should be no secrecy.
However, when you introduce legal elements such as marriage and shared property, and the element of duress comes into the picture, it’s not always so simple. It’s not always so simple as “just get out if you’re not happy.” I believe there are cases in which it is acceptable (albeit not ideal) to seek cuddles behind your spouses back. Particularly, an abuse or neglect situation.
If a man (or woman) feels the need to go behind his wife’s back to seek cuddles, then I think there’s a strong possibility that he is facing abuse and/or neglect, or he’s under significant duress. I believe there’s a strong possibility that HE is in the midst of a DV situation.
And it could indeed be that he is in the wrong, and that he is harming his wife. But I think it is problematic that the other possibility, that he’s the one being harmed by his wife, is far too often ignored.
So as to whether it’s acceptable to deceive your spouse in order to receive cuddles from other sources, I think it’s a case-by-case basis. I don’t think there’s one right answer.
@Adragayle
Yep, abuse goes far beyond physical, and psychological abuse can in some cases even be worse than physical abuse. And sometimes abuse looks like grooming your spouse to be content with a loveless, affection-less marriage, without the option of seeking affection from other sources, even though the latter never signed up for that.
@Curvynaps
I agree with the statement that anyone is entitled to decline a cuddle for any reason or no reason. I never said otherwise. You have the right to decline a cuddle with someone because you don’t like their hair color. You have the right to select or deselect cuddle buddies based on reasons that many view as distasteful. You have the right to discriminate based on religious or political views, race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, anything.
The word “deny” simply means to “refuse to give or grant access.” It does not necessarily imply any right to access. If I “deny” someone entry to my house, that does not imply that they had any right to enter. Perhaps you are confusing it with the word “withhold,” which does actually imply a right to something.
At the end of the day, you’re entitled to decline cuddles with married men solely based on the fact that they don’t have their wife’s permission. (I’m using the word “permission” rather than “consent,” because it’s very likely about control.) AND I’m entitled to my opinion that such an action is cruel.
With that being said, I don’t so much have a problem with not wanting to cuddle married men that are not open with their wives (or married men at all). If you’re not into that, you do you. What I have a problem with is the prejudgement against and demonization of men in this position. My heart goes out to men that don’t feel safe enough to communicate to their wives that they need cuddles. The prejudgment against men in such a position, the assumption that they are harming their wives, rather than the ones being harmed, is problematic.
Question. Would you cuddle a married woman that does not feel safe to disclose to her husband that she is seeking cuddles from other sources?
Lots of folks who are seeking affection from interwebs strangers behind their partners backs aren't necessarily doing it because they are in a touch free relationship where they aren't able to speak to their partner about it. You can't just assume that everybody is a victim of something. Truth is lots of folks do it because they get a thrill from it for the same reasons that they seek sex workers despite having a partner. Obviously not the case for all of them, but don't over empathize to where you assume they are all just victims of circumstance
Sunrise_Snuggle - I think your bias towards compassion towards men over women is a bit uneven but you seem to prefer to cuddle women over the men you have so much compassion for their touch needs. Seems like you are denying these men with your bias. But you do you, boo.
Your question is a nonquestion for me b/c I don't tend to cuddle women except who are experienced cuddlers and for the most part they are solidly anchored in their consent lives and live and negotiate the boundaries they need. The person you describe seems to not have that worked out for herself so I prob would not cuddle her.
I think this topic is very nuanced. There are many spectrums of relationships; ethically non-monogamous ones for example. If you are offering a platonic only service it should not bother you if someone is dating people in the world or they are a complete incel.
A service provider (which I am not) can decide for themselves what kind of integrity and energy they want to be around even when taking payment. Taking payment doesn't mean their personal standards have to accept everyone. This is not Walmart for cuddles. No one has a right to access a service provider. They are a human with their own needs and boundaries and values. Not oxytocin batteries.
@Sunrise_Snuggle Let’s be clear, because I think you’re making some assumptions that have nothing to do with what I actually said.
I don’t ask clients about their marital status. I’m not contacting anyone’s spouse, and I’m not out here policing people’s relationships. That’s not my business. But if someone makes it my business—by involving me in personal details I didn’t ask for—I get to decide whether I want to continue. That’s not judgment. That’s boundaries.
Yes, I’ve cuddled married men. I’ve also ended sessions or chosen not to rebook when things crossed a line for me. Like when a client books a session in a bed he shares with his wife, then tells me she’d be heartbroken if she found out. Or when someone says he wishes he were next to me every night instead of her. That’s not neutral energy—it’s emotional labor I never signed up for. And just because it’s platonic doesn’t mean it doesn’t weigh on my conscience. It does.
This would be the same no matter the gender. I said “men” because I’ve never had that kind of experience with a woman—on this site or in real life. But the principle stands either way.
This is about my well-being, not moralizing. I’m not here to shame anyone. I’m here to take care of myself and offer safe, healthy touch. That includes knowing when something isn’t right for me and saying no.
Other pros might navigate these dynamics differently, and that’s totally valid. I respect that and support it! But trying to twist my discernment into suspicion or judgment of others? That’s a reach—and it’s not okay.
@Curvynaps Haha, I could say say the same about you. Based on your comments, you sympathize with women more than men. But yet you generally don't prefer to cuddle women.
@Sunrise_Snuggle - I think you struggle with logic. You complain men are "denied." I suggest you cuddle them. I am suggesting you act in line with your values. I am not complaining that women are "denied." I complain that folks like you seem to think women cuddlers "owe" men who are untruthful to their wives cuddles because the men are otherwise denied. I defend autonomy to body and consent. Thus, I am acting in line with my values. See logic. Btw, don't worry, Sid, I've already blocked him.
Two things are true at the same time. 1) I’m not into cuddling men (and this is also true of most straight men). 2) Touch deprivation is a problem that men uniquely face.
If you think that bringing attention to the issue of male touch deprivation somehow means that I need to cuddle men myself in order to not be a hypocrite, then I’m not the one that struggles with logic.
Suggesting that I, one that does not find masculine cuddles to be therapeutic, should cuddle men, is like suggesting that I, who am straight, should enter into a romantic relationship with a man. It’s absurd, really.
I have never rejected a man for cuddles on the basis of his situation with his wife, because I don’t cuddle men in the first place.
“I complain that folks like you seem to think women cuddlers "owe" men who are untruthful to their wives cuddles because the men are otherwise denied.”
I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
@SunshineEmbrace
Consider the following scenario.
Say you had a client or cuddle buddy that made the following request: “If you were to randomly run into my wife in the grocery store, randomly strike up a conversation, and the fact that she is my wife is somehow divulged to you, please do not disclose any information regarding our cuddle relationship. And if you were to randomly run into the two of us together, please do not engage at all.”
I view this as a confidentiality issue, especially if it’s a client-professional relationship, but even if it’s a personal cuddle relationship. Not everyone is out as a cuddler. At every cuddle party I’ve been, they say if you randomly run into someone you’ve cuddled at the grocery store, you don’t out them as a cuddler unless you have their express permission.
Now, if you were to respond to the aforementioned request by ending things with said client or cuddle buddy, out of a feeling of protectiveness towards his wife, then yes, I do view that as moral policing. And yes, I do believe you treated him unfairly. And I have the right to my opinion.
You have the right to end a cuddle relationship for any reason, or no reason. If you chose to end a cuddle relationship because you discovered that they supported a certain political candidate, that’s your right. I find that detestable, but nevertheless that is your right. And I have the right to my opinion that to end a cuddle relationship based on the above request is overly judgmental, pathologically altruistic, and causes more harm than good.
You also claimed that I falsely accused you of judgment. Let me remind of this comment that you made earlier: "Depends on the man and if I feel they’re deceiving their partner. I fully believe that inflicting harm in people’s lives (intentionally or not) isn’t ok. Turning a blind eye to this is profits over humanity IMO."
You call it discernment, I call it judgment. What’s the difference? Potato, potato.
Touch deprivation is a problem that men uniquely face.
I think if you pay attention to threads and profiles on this site as well as what females say you will discover that touch deprivation is unique to all genders which means it is not unique at all. I have chatted with women who stated directly they are touch deprived. The difference is I have never seen them act as if they are the only ones with that cross to bear. That is unique to men generally speaking.
Thank you, @Curvynaps and @SunshineEmbrace for putting so much thought and emotional labor into engaging in this discussion. You both have eloquently expressed my own views on this.
As I'm low on spoons and have debated this topic in past threads ad nauseum, I can only hope that people actually sit with what has been said and go back and read some of the previous discussions as well.
And yes, as @TheFunCartel said "touch starvation" is not unique to men, and I worry that as a concept it tends to feed into the incel mythos far more often than it is discussed as an opportunity for us to shift how we meet our own needs.
Given that you understand that women do not owe men anything, including cuddlers (pro or otherwise), I'm satisfied. My message of body autonomy and consent has come across. Carry on.
You tagged SunsetSnuggles by mistake, but you meant to tag Sunrise_Snuggle. I don’t want to have to change my username yet again.
Yes, I agree that all genders experience touch deprivation. However, men experience the problem of touch deprivation in a unique way.
Generally speaking, it is a significantly greater challenge for men (except, perhaps, non-straight men) to alleviate touch deprivation than it is for women and nonbinary people to do the same.
@Sunrise_Snuggle I hear you—and I need you to hear this in return.
What you’ve described as a “confidentiality issue” is actually a control issue. You’re describing a dynamic where a client expects me to manage his secrecy, on his terms, and is asking for emotional compliance from me beyond the boundaries of our professional agreement. That’s not confidentiality. That’s an unequal power exchange—and it’s deeply inappropriate.
You’re framing this as if I’m somehow being unfair for ending a client relationship based on how it made me feel. You’re saying my boundaries are invalid if they stem from care, discomfort, or emotional unease about being complicit in someone’s deception. That’s not just dismissive—it’s dangerous. Because when you strip away my right to say “this feels wrong for me,” what you’re really saying is that my safety, intuition, and well-being are secondary to a man’s desire for secrecy. That is textbook misogyny.
Let’s be even clearer: I don’t owe anyone my silence or participation in their secrecy. I will always honor client confidentiality within professional norms—but the moment a dynamic begins to feel manipulative, emotionally burdensome, or ethically uncomfortable for me, I have the right to walk away. That’s not moral policing. That’s self-respect. That’s bodily autonomy. That’s a trauma-informed boundary.
It is not okay for you to imply that because I didn’t want to be part of someone’s secret—or because I felt uneasy about the impact of his choices on others—I was in the wrong. You’re using the language of neutrality and professionalism to gaslight a woman out of trusting her own instincts.
You’re entitled to your opinion. But I need you to understand: opinions that invalidate a woman’s right to say no are not harmless. They are harmful. They perpetuate the very dynamics that make spaces like this unsafe.
@Sunrise_Snuggle "easier" is a highly subjective term. All genders face a mountain of obstacles in meeting their touch needs, they're just different struggles.
And frankly, from what I have learned about gender differences in social-emotional skills and needs, most of the difficulties faced by men are not unique - they are self-imposed. Humans are really great at restricting themselves and creating problems where they need not be. It through the very act of viewing the touch deficit as a need that must be filled by others that people impose an artificial restriction on getting that need met - especially if they view that need as only being able to be fulfilled by a particular type of person.
The reason women appear to have an "easier" time getting their touch needs met in our culture is because they don't tend to restrict getting that need met by only people of the opposite gender. If more men worked on viewing the need as something they can fulfill themselves, via more different types of touch interactions with more different types of participants (including self-touch), then that artificial limit would be removed. The trade off for women and trans folks is that they often have to trade safety for getting their touch needs met by others - cisgendered men generally do not have that particular obstacle.
What you said may be true of cuddle friends. If you’re just cuddle friends, there is no binding confidentiality agreement.
However, if you’re a professional cuddler and you’re dealing with a client, you’re their therapist. And you’re bound by the same confidentiality agreement as a psychotherapist. Or at least, you should be.
There are very few exceptions to the confidentiality agreement between a therapist and their client — and cheating/deception is not one of them. One of the very few exceptions to confidentiality is communicating a plan to commit a violent crime.
A psychotherapist is, of course, free to end a client relationship at any time for any reason. Would a therapist end a relationship with a client because said client is a cheater? Most likely not. But they can. What they CAN’T do is expose said client as a cheater after dropping them as a client.
So if a client asked their therapist not expose the client for their cheating, that is NOT beyond the boundaries of the professional agreement. The client is simply reiterating what the therapist should be doing anyway. Because the therapist is not allowed to reveal ANYTHING about their client to the client’s spouse. And if the therapist were to meet said client in public or in any kind of social situation, the therapist is obliged to not engage!
And it’s the same (or should be the same) with a professional cuddler. You’re not supposed to “out” or “expose” the client PERIOD, to ANYONE under ANY circumstances, with the very few exceptions that also apply to a psychotherapist. Just like the relationship between a psychotherapist and client, the relationship between a professional cuddler and client is a dualistic relationship.
While the principle of confidentiality is the same, regardless of whether we’re talking about a professional cuddler or a psychotherapist, the nature of the work is very different. Whereas a psychotherapist would likely take on almost any client that is able to pay, provided that said client does not violate any professional agreement, the same is not the case for a professional cuddler. A professional cuddler may choose to not accept a certain client in the first place or drop said client down the road for reasons other than agreement violations. A professional cuddler needs to feel comfortable engaging with a client physically in order for the relationship to work. Whereas, a psychotherapist can easily accept a client that they would not feel comfortable engaging with physically.
So, if you had a client make such a request and you’re not comfortable with said request, the most you can do is say, “your secret is safe with me; however, I choose not to continue this relationship.” You can drop said client and leave it at that. However, you canNOT drop him and then go on to expose him to his wife. While perhaps not explicitly illegal as it would be with a psychotherapist, the principle is the same.
So the issue is not the request itself. The request is simply a reiteration of what should be part of the client-professional agreement (but perhaps is not explicitly stated in the agreement). All psychotherapists are fully aware of the confidentiality agreement. This is not the case for professional cuddlers. At least some professional cuddlers do not have the same standards when it comes to confidentiality as psychotherapists (but they should).
The issue is the information that was divulged as a result of the request, which likely would not be a problem for a psychotherapist, but could indeed be a problem for a professional cuddler due to the far greater requirement of feeling safe.
Side note, the more I think about it, the more I think cuddling outside of a relationship is NOT cheating by default — unless it was specifically discussed and agreed upon that cuddling outside the relationship was not permitted. Further, I believe there is no moral obligation to disclose to one’s spouse that you’re a cuddler. Ideally, you can safely disclose that to your spouse. However, platonic cuddling without one’s partner’s knowledge and consent is not cheating. And it’s not deception either because they never owed their partner such information in the first place. It’s not cheating to hug someone other than your spouse, therefore it’s not cheating to cuddle someone either. At what point does a hug become cheating? One minute? Two minutes? Five minutes? It’s completely arbitrary. So that’s why I don’t agree with ending a cuddle relationship, professional or otherwise, based on the decision to not disclose said relationship to one’s spouse.
@Sunrise_Snuggle
However, men experience the problem of touch deprivation in a unique way.
What is this unique way that men experience the problem of touch deprivation?
@Sunrise_Snuggle You’re continuing to build arguments based on hypotheticals and assumptions—about what I’ve said, what I’ve done, and what my role is.
Let’s set the record straight: no one here is talking about exposing anyone or retaliating against a client. That’s something you introduced into the conversation, and it’s never been my intent. The issue I raised is about whether or not I feel emotionally comfortable continuing with a client who involves me in a dynamic that feels dishonest or burdensome. That is not the same as violating confidentiality, and implying otherwise is misleading.
Also, let’s be clear: professional cuddlers are not therapists. I am not trained as a therapist. I do not operate under the same legal or ethical codes as one, nor should I. The relationship between a cuddler and a client is its own category—intimate in a unique way, built on consent, trust, and mutual emotional and physical safety. Trying to apply psychotherapeutic standards to a platonic touch practice is not only a category error—it actively erases the distinct emotional labor that goes into this work, especially for women.
You keep referring to what I “should” do, as if you’re in a position to define the professional standards of this field. But here’s the truth: my standards are mine. My comfort, my ethics, my sense of safety all matter—and I have the right to make choices based on them. That’s not unprofessional. That’s the heart of ethical touch work.
You’re entitled to your views on what is or isn’t “cheating,” but trying to universalize that view—and suggest that no one owes their partner transparency about intimate touch—is your opinion, not fact. What isn’t okay is dismissing the emotional impact this kind of secrecy can have on a practitioner, and implying that speaking up about it is somehow a breach of professionalism. It isn’t. It’s exactly what professionalism looks like: honesty, discernment, and boundaries.
Let’s stop pretending this conversation is about ethics. It’s about your discomfort with a woman asserting her right to say “this feels off, and I choose to walk away.” That’s the part you keep resisting—and that’s a problem.
Yes, some professional cuddlers are trained therapists, psychologists, or social workers—and that’s a valuable intersection for those who hold both roles. But that is not the default in this field, nor should it be assumed. The cuddling profession stands on its own, with its own set of ethics, dynamics, and boundaries. Not every practitioner is—or wants to be—equipped to hold space in the way a licensed therapist does. That doesn’t make the work less valid. It just makes it different
Side note, the more I think about it, the more I think cuddling outside of a relationship is NOT cheating by default — unless it was specifically discussed and agreed upon that cuddling outside the relationship was not permitted.
It's great that you agree that no means no. I take a stricter view of consent, that only yes means yes. To say that something is okay because someone was not able to consent or not consent, to rely on lack of communication, is a sign of an unhealthy relationship. To say that they can't object to something if they don't know about it sounds like a justification for cheating.
If I were you, I'd quit while you're behind. You're just digging yourself deeper.
I believe in "yes means yes," when it comes to something that affects your partner directly. For example, in a cuddle situation, trying a new position is something that affects your partner directly. That requires a "yes," not merely an absence of a "no."
Cuddling a third person does not affect your partner directly.
Well then, I guess you better to ask your spouse every time before you hug someone, or it's cheating.
@Sunrise_Snuggle how do you know that it doesn't affect your partner directly unless you discuss it? You're suggesting that people can either read the minds of their partners - or that people can decide on behalf of their partner what does and does not impact them. It's a very paternalistic view that by most definitions of consent violates personal autonomy. People can decide for themselves what impacts them or not - they cannot decide the same for others.
Your logic fails in that it assumes that your partner has the same views on platonic cuddling as you do. Relationships of any form always involve more than one person. And since none of us are exact clones of each other with the same histories and subjective experiences, by design all relationships have to have some form of negotiation between realities happening. Sometimes that negotiation happens non-verbally, sometimes it happens by default when one person makes a decision and the other just goes along with it, and sometimes that negotiation happens explicitly through verbal communication. If you do not verbally communicate how you view an event or action impacts you, then the other person is left guessing or assuming.
In your argument stating that platonic cuddling doesn't impact your partner, if you haven't actually had that conversation with them what you are saying in actuality is that you don't believe it should or will impact them...but you do not and cannot actually know, as you are not your partner.
If you believe that trust, honesty, and autonomy are important within relationships, the most ethical thing to do is have those conversations so that everyone has the option to decide for themselves what impacts them - to consent or opt out of further engagement as they see fit.
@Sunrise_Snuggle You seem to think only in extremes, so I'll try to simplify it for you.
Would you do it in front of your partner? If no, have you talked about it and gotten approval? If no, does your partner have a cognitive impairment that makes communication not possible? If no, then at best you are being dishonest, and I would consider that cheating.
I suppose it's possible you and your partner have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but I wouldn't assume it and I wouldn't believe someone who said that's the case.
Also, I'm still curious what is the unique way that men experience the problem of touch deprivation?
Can we still be having this conversation? For me, cuddling definitely falls under cheating. The litmus test is simple: would you feel comfortable saying to your spouse, "I'm off to cuddle someone in a hotel"? If not, it's infidelity. Everyone has their own circumstances, and in my case, my wife's illness has made me feel a little forgotten. My desire doesn't extend beyond some innocent physical comfort. I truly believe that straying isn't the answer. The motivations behind "cheating" are varied. Some individuals are simply dishonest, while others might be seeking a connection they feel is missing without intending to cause pain. It's a rather simple dynamic, in my opinion.
Lots of misogyny/misogyny adjacent, borderline incellish, and just general yuck being thrown around in nicely worded and packaged with a bow on top kind of fashion to give an illusion of thoughtfulness and insight
@Muffintop_1 - we might be saying the same thing. But, cuddling counts as cheating depending on the agreements between partners. Partners can have very varied agreements. Cheating for you is not cheating for me and my partner. So once again, we are challenged to have the capacity to see individuals and couples according to their values, agreements, and perspectives and not only through our own.