@DarrenWalker We all choose what we say and how we say it. We are not incapable of insight. Has nothing to do with an unpopular idea. The idea of not wanting children is fine as I have said. Calling someone reprehensible for it and that you lose respect for an individual for wanting children is, as I have stated, lacking tolerance. You can split hairs all you want about why the statements made are off putting to some, however fact remains that it is off putting due to the words and attitude expressed. And if you choose to word things a certain way and express a certain attitude then it is important to take ownership of it and expect some push back from it. Not just to sit back and act like you have no idea why it might be taken a certain way and that it is the fault of the other person for doing so. That is not taking ownership and is a rather passive aggressive thing to do. This is what I have taken away from this whole thing. And I am not even bothered or upset over it like some might be. However you cant just throw an egg at someones house and then say you are merely misunderstood and it is the fault of the homeowner for being upset about it.
I am through making this entire thread about the post of one person.
This thread is hilarious. It really made my day. But to the original question, I agree with OP that it's not a question I really see relevant when searching for a cuddling partner.
How did this veer off into chaos. I just asked a simple question! Is this cuddlers Facebook??? I have as this moment 33 responses and only a handful have been actual answers to my question. I don't think I will be asking any more questions on here
@ercjncpr i am.partly to blame for your thread being hijacked. My apologies. Re your question, ifor me it makes no difference nor serve a purpose apart from info sharing and commonalities. I am a parent so it might be a conversation topic. However this is something that can be shared in the persons summary and doesnt really need a stand alone question/answer box
@pmvines: We all choose what we say and how we say it based on how we see the world and what we believe about reality. Humans are (as a certain entity said on Star Trek once) ugly bags of mostly water. There's nothing strange in talking about them that way if that's what you believe. Rather, it would be difficult not to.
The words chosen and attitude expressed have everything to do with this unpopular opinion—the words you choose and the attitude you express are direct reflections of how you see life, the universe, and everything.
But, returning to the main point, I think asking whether someone wants children or not is a reasonable question for determining personality, though generally less useful for cuddles than asking what stories you like best. I wouldn't mind if the options on "kids" were reduced to "have them" and "don't have them." That's information it's immediately good to have, since the existence of kids can markedly alter a cuddle. Whether or not you want them... a bit less relevant, I agree. Though it may be very useful information for some, most of us don't need it.
okie dokie then. I still disagree but that is ok I will still respect you in the morning
@pmvines, I accept your deep regard and admiration for me.
Or your willingness to see me as a fellow sentient being. Or your avoidance of any harm or interference you might give me. Any combination of the above or all three at once; I'm happy to have them. For you, I have... hmm. Only the second one, I'm afraid. Oh well. Take it or leave it. It still counts as respect, yes?
@DarrenWalker I do have a fondness for you. We don't have to agree on everything to not be foes. You grow on me, much like a carnivorous bacteria...
@pmvines DarrenWalker likes this comment.
One pro not on this site, that I have had couple of sessions with at her place has child and times to meet her are based on child care times. This does limit amount of time together and no evenings
Considering as I am not a mother, more of an aunt figure to all my friends' kiddos, I can see the insight there on trying to schedule with someone who has children can be difficult to schedule sessions at certain times, ect. due to their duties as a parent. Kiddos get sick, can't find a sitter, all kinds of reasons. Obviously the parents need it the most sometimes, so I always be aware if they have family or responsibilities that may come up.
I think that although information is good to know not just as a basis of preference or personal taste, but additionally, I feel more importantly, as a courtesy to consider who/what this person has going on in their life and how it could effect you, even in a very minor way.
I’d want to know if there are children in the home to be certain arrangements are made for their supervision so as to not interfere with cuddle time. But someone’s future aspirations towards parenthood is none of my business
"Wants children" option?
I knew this was a dating site!
HOT DIGGITY DOG!
I thought it was like a standard question... but here it's whether you are OK with a single parent who has a kid in the house... so would you feel comfortable with the kid around or not?
Personally I wouldn't be comfortable. Most of the time they scream and cry... if it's a baby then it's more ok since he's not gonna remember me, but it's way too awkward with some 5 year old kid around, no thanks! After all, it's not easy to leave a small little child alone at home while the man/woman goes out to meet a stranger for whatever reason. It can be really quite difficult for single parents.
Makes sense?
Seems like lots of people never read the original question. It was about whether you want children, not whether you had children!
my two cents is you could be cuddling with someone and not seen them for several months and then they could get pregnant or be pregnant the next time you see them maybe its a forewarning ...
İ don't actually see a purpose in including "has/doesn't" "wants/doesn't". İf for example the person has children and this makes them less available to see them or something. Then that's for them to just let known when they are able to meet. İf they wish to provide the reason(s), that's also between the parties in contact. I don't care about someone's political beliefs, whether they want kids, etc.
Some things may bug me here and there. Though, if the person is decent to me and we can meet each other's need(s), that's enough.
I don't know if I'd go as far as saying creating a new life is reprehensible BUT I will say that we are over populated. There are kids dying on the streets and living lonely lives in shelters and orphanages and no one gives them a second look just because they want a child that's biologically theirs. So, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who is mentally and financially prepared having a kid BUT I do think it's pretty horrible when someone has 5+ kids when they can't mentally or financially afford to, and they leave the burden on other people, and don't even think twice about the children in the foster system that would give just about anything for a home of their own.
@Keira I agree with your sentiment, especially on orphans/adoptions and being prepared to be a parent. I would caution that raising your own child or adopting a baby requires a completely different skill set and mental preparation then fostering or adopting a child with “history “. Even though our first reaction might be that rescuing a lost child is noble and helpful, being able to show unconditional love and not quit on these children is critical. Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
Might be a culture thing. Where I live that’s a fairly normal thing to be very open about to anyone. I don’t really give that question much thought unless it’s at a job interview. (Trying to avoid the invisible mom wage tax lol) I would probably agree with those saying it’s a values thing. That’s certainly how people I grew up with use it. As a sort of litmus test. Are you more traditional? Or are you a free spirit? Both? But it might also be along the same lines as people who state they are married or in a relationship. If they want kids, there might be kids in the picture at some point and plans will have to accommodate them.
@DarrenWalker @hogboblin
I understand the explanation, but it falls a little flat to me. I think when someone knows they have a quirk about them that offends others, and they refuse to work on it, then the act itself becomes malicious, when in ignorance it wouldn’t be.
Etiquette verbal or not is a skill. Skill require practice for them to become natural. There might be considerable strain at first but that’s the case with any skill. In baseball if you can’t hit the ball or catch you practice those skills, because to not do so would render the game un-enjoyable to yourself and others. Polite ways of wording things in forums is pretty much the same as that. I don’t think we should tolerate non-civil discourse because rude ‘is the way someone is’. Ultimately it does hobgoblin a disservice in the long run. Since without the skill they cannot enjoy the “baseball game” of online discourse to its most meaningful extent.
In the past I’ve found politeness difficult for myself. I’m happy to say there ARE online and irl classes that can help anyone learn this skill set.
I want a pet carrot!
@chubbybunny: I think you misunderstand @hogboblin's basic premises. The way you talk is just as offensive to him as the way he talks is to you. All your sentimental, sweetness-and-light-dripping phrases about politeness and making things enjoyable for others... it's horribly offensive to him. It's disgusting.
But he doesn't expect you to phrase things the way he does, because he doesn't expect you to care about his feelings the way you expect him to care about yours.
It's certainly true that you can't play the game of social discourse if people are constantly getting offended and leaving—can't play if there's no one to play with. But why should rudeness make the game un-enjoyable? Why should anyone stop enjoying the game simply because someone isn't talking about humans the way we'd like them to? The first time I "met" hogboblin, he read my profile (this was on a different website, one I was using to store the results of a lot of different personality tests), he realized I was a Christian preacher's oldest kid, and he promptly struck up a debate, arguing that prostitution ought to be legalized.
It was plain that he didn't believe the same things about humans that I did. It isn't that he used foul language (he didn't) or was deliberately crude (he wasn't). But the way he phrased things was shockingly different from anything I was used to... and his argument was clearly immoral. It was offensive.
But it was also fascinating. I'd never met anyone whose basic views on life were so different from my own. Have you ever read Three Worlds Collide? It felt something like that.
We all have quirks that offend someone. And we all go out of our way to smooth our rough edges where they irritate those we care about... but if we happen to offend someone whom we find, frankly, pretty darn offensive, well, we don't try so hard. Why exercise the considerable strain of straightening out our comfortable quirks when those we love actually like them, and those who dislike them are offensive?
@chubbybunny , @DarrenWalker did an exceptional job of summing up my situation, and I thank them for it. Profusely.
As they state, I do find most people and what they say to be disagreeable in some manner. I’m also indifferent a lot of the time. As a misanthrope, I don’t feel especially inclined to alter how I express myself for the benefit of others. I rarely ever explicitly attack people, and that seems good enough to me.
OP, I too wondered about this question as well as the sexuality question. What difference does my sexuality make or the sexuality of the person I'm cuddling? The site doesn't ask about romantic preference which, for some, can be different from their sexual preference. I kind of thought, "is this a pre-dating site or a platonic cuddle site?" Anymore, however, a lot of sites grab an open source or cut and paste site, change it for their needs, and run with it. I just figured that the owners saw a dating site as the easiest to repurpose and weren't very detail oriented when editing some things in/out.
I think when it comes to wanting or not wanting kids it can go both ways for platonic or non-platonic. You want children? Want a platonic cuddle buddy? Find someone who doesn't want children, and then you don't need to worry about it developing further, and vice versa.
@daylightsdream When it comes to someone's sexual preference, I believe that is more for the comfort of those who want to cuddle both genders. If you are a woman, and like cuddling both males and females but you are straight, you may be uncomfortable with cuddling with a female who might want to take things further than you would like. Or it could be a lesbian who cuddles both, and wouldn't like the idea of cuddling with a straight male, because they might get attached. And this could be applied to guys as well.
Honestly, cuddling is something that can be platonic, but can also lead to non-platonic feelings, whether you seek that out or not. Being prepared for the case, or to prevent the case, in which it leads to non-platonic feelings is not a bad thing. Especially if you do not want anything non-platonic to develop.
Not sure if this has been mentioned or not - this thread is getting quite long. I chose to skip this question. As far as I know, it is always an option to not answer all the questions. Seemed easy enough to me!
@CuriousBear Hello over there. I understand what you're saying and I agree that what starts off as a platonic situation could lead toward more. It just felt off to me that the site itself would draw attention to this because it does cast an eye toward romance. From what I've seen in my very short time here, this site seems to have some very hard and fast rules toward keeping it strictly platonic. If it's an issue for someone to defend against such possibilities one could simply write this in their profile. It seems to me to be a boundary issue left to each person to state or defend and a little to close to the non-platonic for a keep-it-platonic! website to even mention.
Also, as I mentioned before, there's no question to speak to romantic leanings. One can be bi-romantic and pansexual, omniromantic and heterosexual, and so on in the permutations. One still needs to write in their profile, or have a conversation along the lines of, "if you're a [insert romantic leaning here] and think that you may become attracted to me then just move it along," if they want to defend against all possibilities of this nature.
@SJSpooner Hiya. While not trying to speak for the OP, I think the point of the thread is why the site itself leaves this up as an option when the very thing that most people do to make children is verboten to even hint at in one's profile. "Do you have children," I understand from a time and privacy perspective which, hopefully, leads one to ask more questions of their potential cuddle buddy. "Do you want children," is rarely asked out of the blue platonically and, if it is, usually by someone that you already have at least some level of familiarity. It's not really elevator conversation - "Man! That rain is brutal and I never want to have children ever." If someone's desire to have or not have children is that strong I would imagine that it's a question they're going to ask anyway near to the beginning of them thinking that they may develop romantic feelings for a person.
Personally, I'd hope that if I'd gotten to the point with someone where we're talking about individual desires for children we have a level of trust and familiarity that having that conversation face to face is a logical next step.
Thanks for the conversations, folks.
I think this question is irrelevant here.