Agree with @eagle67.
First I thought I was dreaming.
Then I thought I misread the title.
Where the fudge am I???
Nonpros are the best nothing like when its natural
I think a more interesting question is should pros be allowed to create profiles. Because there are a few other sites that only have pros for them to use. Plus, there would be more non-pros using this site IMO. I think a lot of people find the site, and then decide to charge money when they see others charging money. There are some very homely professionals on here (as well as many attractive professionals). I just have a hard time believing someone homely decided out of the blue they are going to make extra money selling platonic cuddling.
As a non-pro, I've actually had pros message me first. If non-pro's couldn't create profiles, I wouldn't have been able to talk to some wonderful pros. Though I've not met them, and right now can't due to money being tight, I do appreciate their reaching out to me.
There are some very homely professionals on here (as well as many attractive professionals). I just have a hard time believing someone homely decided out of the blue they are going to make extra money selling platonic cuddling.
I don't think you understand the service being sold if you're making comments like that. Good thing you don't appear to be perusing them. Your assumption that more non-pros would use the site as a result is also another conjecture which isn't likely to come to fruition based on the trends. Remove pros and nothing is likely to change, things are likely to get worse. Non-pros would get flooded with even more messages than they already do, and in effect would still leave the site. All removing pros would probably do is shove more untagged pros into the site as well.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of the beef between these two camps and the constant back-and-forth. Just as limp as the boner threads. I don't think that the topic of this thread would be considered at this point since the change was made some years ago to curb problems that were rising to the surface with pros joining and making bank off the site, so use the site how it is, or don't use it and go to some other cuddle site. It's that simple.
Im not sure why you quoted me saying “platonic cuddling” and then write “I don’t think you understand the service being sold”? Regarding my belief that more non-pros would be on the site if there were no pros: It is common sense to me that many pros simply navigated to the site the same way amateurs did. They were looking for platonic cuddling. Then, they saw that they could make money doing it, so they became a pro. I don’t see this belief as being controversial. What percent of the current pros started in the preceding manner is where the conjecture comes in. But it clearly happens. Also, I don’t think that pros should be disallowed, but it is a more interesting debate to have than debating that non-pros shouldn’t be able to create a profile.
Didn't know comments would/could be brought to their own thread by the CC team for discussion.... I enjoyed posting discussion topics and getting a conversation going amongst members. However, it only took a couple of months of reading rude, obnoxious, and offensive comments to change my opinion of this site. There's only a few who do this, but in my opinion that's a few too many. It's not worth my time anymore because it's mentally draining and I only leave this website angry now. Does a "good" person really use the sensitive information written in another members profile to then go tease them? Does a "caring" person use another members mental illness as a verbal weapon to feel superior? Well, if you read the profiles of these few people, they're all quick to mention being "caring and a really good person."
Similar to another member last week, I'm done and leaving the site. There’s too much “Tony Soprano of CuddleComfort” wanna-bees who take advantage of this platform with their tough guy persona. This is supposed to be a community of people who represent comfort?
Hopefully, another site comes along soon with only pros who advertise their services and nothing else. I’d advise everyone to listen to @ubergigglefritz , as she along with the moderator @SoulcuddlerZ who seem to get it. Goodbye.
S'weird how people seem to think it wouldn't occur to homely [read: not sexually attractive] people to try making extra money by providing a platonic [read: not sexual] service.
"I just have a hard time believing someone homely decided out of the blue they are going to make extra money selling platonic cuddling," indeed.
In what dictionary is homely defined as “not sexually attractive” Darren? I will donate 100 dollars to a charity of your choice if you can provide a legitimate (not an urban dictionary def you created) dictionary to define it that way. A more important question is what psychological need are you trying to fill by fabricating that definition Darren?
@boomerang86: When "homely" is contrasted with "attractive" on a site where people habitually use the word to mean "sexually attractive," I think the assumption's understandable. After all, I'm not the only one who interpreted your words that way—am I, @Catloaf?
Edit: Or were you trying to say that it's difficult to believe that homely—that is, simple and unadorned, ordinary-looking, homey and welcoming—people might think they could make money cuddling?
Seems quite easy to believe to me.
You both may have incorrectly defined the word homely. It should not be “interpreted” as meaning not sexually attractive. That is not what the word means. However, I have seen you write. You write well. That is why I’m skeptical of you not knowing what homely meant. i think it is disingenuous to pretend that the attractiveness of a pro is not a factor in how much business they get. It doesn’t seem worth debating a point like that.
@boomerang86: Attractive pros, you say... attractive in what way? There are many different kinds of attraction. Well, let's see—you used "homely" as the opposite—that narrows things down a bit.
"Homely," in North American usage (and you are a North American) refers to physical unattractiveness: not necessarily ugliness, but certainly not ravishing beauty. Plain-looking people, ordinary-looking people, people you don't see photoshopped and airbrushed on magazines, these are homely people. Plain. Ordinary. Not exceptionally physically attractive. Not, you know... sexy.
Unless by "homely" you actually meant "butt-ugly"?
And even then, why do you have a hard time believing someone ill-favored in face or form might decide they have plenty to offer in the world of cuddling? After all, it's not as though cuddling is about finding a face/body so hot you just have to touch it... though of course, here as everywhere, sex does sell.
It shouldn't. Not here. But yes: the sexual attractiveness of a pro is absolutely a factor in how much business they get.
Do you really find it so difficult to believe that someone might look at a site where sexual attractiveness is declared not to matter, and decide "out of the blue" that they can make extra money cuddling people, chatting about this and that, watching a show or reading a book, listening to music, and not caring about how close to (or far away from) the societal ideal for physical perfection their body happens to be?
Very few people can appreciate the way a human body looks aesthetically without also seeing it in sexual terms. When you contrast "homely" with "attractive," you make it plain that you mean physical—visual—attractiveness.
It's obvious what you mean.
What you wrote above is not your best work, Darren.
@boomerang86: Well, that's a high bar.
You did the limbo. It was too scattered to rebut. I said nothing about sexual attractiveness, and I believe you’re in the wrong to infer I did. I also never said someone homely couldn’t offer anything to the community. You are too clever for your own good. Trying to read between lines that don’t exist! Goodnight
@boomerang86: Try this, then: It's obvious that "attractive" when contrasted with "homely" means "nice to look at"—and when a human body is nice to look at, most people also think it's nice to have sex with.
You can call a painting "attractive" without wanting to have sex with it, but a human body... usually not.
Edit: Also, the implications of your statement might show more clearly if we replace one platonic activity (cuddling) with another (say, therapy or cooking or massage).
"I just have a hard time believing someone homely decided out of the blue they are going to make extra money as a therapist."
What do their looks have to do with it?
Why is it so difficult to believe that an ugly person might decide they'd make a good therapist (or cuddler, or cook, or...)? Even if people consistently prefer physically attractive therapists, does this mean no ugly person in their right mind would ever think they might be good at therapy? Is it really so hard to believe?
Here we go. Definitions of "homely" as prescribed by Collins Dictionary (I think they're an alright authority when it comes to the meaning of words; I'm more of a Merriam-Webster girl, but whatever, it probably wouldn't be much different...) The first definition definitely sounds like somebody who'd be a great cuddler. The second? Eh, a select population of the site tends to make it pretty clear what they think of people who fall under that definition...and thereby making me wonder what the hell it is they're actually doing here if they're exclusively looking for physically attractive people to cuddle with.
The other two definitions (1, 2) speak about a room or a house so I won't be posting them here. Has anybody here got 50-foot-long arms to wrap around a house or living quarters?
Any takers?
No?
@Catloaf: Precisely. The British definition of "homely" goes hand in hand with "attractive" so far as I'm concerned—you can't set the two up as opposites. A warm, comforting manner? Yes, please: that's very cuddle-attractive.
So if someone's contrasting the two, setting "homely" up as the opposite of "attractive"—well, it's obvious which definition he's using.
And I think we all know how often "attractive" is used to mean "sexually attractive," and how often it's not used to mean anything else. If they're nice to look at....
You said it in your initial post, it's called FILTER.
Darren, it seems you are someone who strives to be intentionally argumentative. Also, you are determined to make any reference to someone’s appearance about sex. We already covered your acknowledgment that a pro’s attractiveness or lack thereof factors into how much business they get. You just want to go in circles apparently!
@boomerang86 Yup. Always has been, always will be. Best to just ignore.
@Catloaf - Congratulations on discovering that the word 'homely' has a completely different meaning in the UK compared to the USA. In the UK it is a positive adjective and considered complimentary; in the USA it is negative and considered derogatory. Similar differences in meaning apply to lots of other words.
@UKGuy And congratulations for further driving home the point. He's suggested that @DarrenWalker and I are misinterpreting his use of the word 'homely'. I honestly doubt that a US citizen has the very pleasant UK definitions in mind, especially when making these types of comments about the way that others look...don't you? I'm not sure how else he thought it could be interpreted, but there it is. Nobody in here is hugging a house, and he's definitely not talking about a warm and comforting woman. He's going on about somebody who isn't attractive to look at misguidedly deciding that they can make money (implying they're not attractive enough to pull adequate business) and tried to use the "you've misinterpreted the word I used' get-out-of-jail-free card. Where 'homely' is actually a positive/neutral adjective (pretty clearly this is what he was trying to advocate for with "misrepresentation"), it's still realised that it is an often derogatory term, especially in the western world.
I'd say we're well into debate status here, so I'm gonna plan my exit. I'm Audi. Vroom vroom.
It sounds like the professionals don’t want non-professionals here because if people can connect for free they don’t have to pay a pro. It’s my problem is non-professionals that want to charge for seasons. If you want to charge do it the right way. I have connected with four different professionals but I can’t afford to do that all the time and it’s nice just to find someone for some platonic cuddling.
And the Troll Feeding Frenzy continues...
@jason10 I have not ever gotten the feeling that there is a paid vs non paid cuddler thing here in terms of one not wanting the other around .
Even though my profile says NOTHING about being a pro I get asked all the time how much I charge an hour. When I answer FREE because I’m not a pro, some men don’t understand that there’s a difference. I’m here to cuddle with others and I think there’s some misinformation about how everything works on the site.
The only people that would be in favor of non-pros being prevented from making profiles are pros themselves... as it serves to limit what they see as "non-pros taking their business"... I know of this and 1 other website that serve as a place that allow non-pros to make profiles... there are probably dozens and dozens of sites for professional cuddlers... the simple fact is that I along with many others would not consider paying a pro for cuddles as I personally do not believe it would have the same feeling as merely two people agreeing to cuddle... I don't have anything against pros or people that pay them... you do you... but the fact is that there are much fewer cuddling related sites out there for non-pros to engage in the same thing pros do... just without an exchange of money.
If you go to the homepage on incognito... you will notice that this site is being marketed as mainly a site for non-pros... and that they merely have professionals as an option. This debate is really about pros being driven by money and wanting to monopolize cuddling as something to be paid for... since the fact is that there are so many options for pro cuddlers... many sites catering for that... since money is involved... non-pros aren't catered for as much. If this site went pro-only I would merely leave and go to the competition, i'm sorry but banning non-pros aren't going to make me pay for your services... and I think it would be a huge mistake for the owners of this site to give into the suggestion... much bigger gap in the market for a non-pro site than a pro site.
As far as men being confused about what this site is... if they don't take the time to clearly read what this site is about.... on the homepage... then there's no reason to cater to their laziness, it's clearly a non-pro site with some pro options: "We’ll find you a cuddle buddy so you can start a friendship based on cuddling without any expectations of more."... may it stay that way. If you're a pro or want the services of one... you're lucky in that there are plenty of options for you.
Catloaf, you are misrepresenting what happened. Homely does mean unattractive. I never said otherwise. My issue was with Darren contending you both read homely as “not sexually attractive”. That isn’t its definition. I find anyone who argues attractiveness is not a major factor in choosing a professional cuddler disingenuous or woefully naive. That doesn’t make it about sex. I will take Funcartel’s advice.
I promise, my final comment on this as I'm intrigued by your response... I think that you are also misinterpreting Darren's point, but that's just me. I don't feel that I'm "misrepresenting" anything, you quite literally are of the belief that we are misinterpreting the word you used, but I will reiterate what was made very clear in that post...
When "homely" is contrasted with "attractive" on a site where people habitually use the word to mean "sexually attractive," I think the assumption's understandable.
Obviously a homely person isn't automatically sexually unattractive, I'm very aware of that and am glad you're nuanced to the point where you realise something like that, but in this context, the definition of the word changes. Also, let's face it. The whole gravitation towards 'homely' equalling 'sexually unattractive' isn't even just something you'd find on CC. Go into a red-pill forum for instance, and the terms are basically interchangeable (not a place I recommend going, by the way, unless extreme outlooks on life is what you're into).
Since others are trying to bring this thread back on topic, I'll hide my long conclusion below:
In my experience having consulted with quite a few clients who didn't make it in the door over the last two years, often times when someone exclusively wants to cuddle with someone who they find even physically attractive (read: claiming not sexual), it still doesn't often spell good intentions. I've definitely let myself go over the last few years, not necessarily even out of choice, but because of crippling depression and a lack of motivation, which I'm still working on. None of the men who made it clear to me while I was fit and attractive they were looking for a P.Y.T. (God, I love that song...one of M.J.'s underrated hits, IMHO) to share body heat with ever respected my boundaries, and most ended up trying to goad me into sexual favours. On the flipside, when I used to put effort into my looks and was fit, there were also respectful men who let me know that they thought I was beautiful without coming off as someone looking to fill out some strange dance card of attractive women. The vibe these people give off is that they are someone who can see beyond the surface, as well. I can think of one formerly-prominent person on the site who gives off that former vibe of filling out a "cuddles with hot women" dance card I mentioned... won't name names (and they're not in this thread)...and he too messaged me not long ago commenting that I'm cute, which kind of creeped me out big-time. It's also known by some that despite tons of good karma, he isn't a stellar client by a long shot.
If the motivation isn't sensuous or sexual, what is it? Soothing to the eyes? Boosting to the ego? There is always a reason as to why we have the preferences we have. For those of us who do this seriously, our screening processes, our businesses, and even the image that we portray are all designed to weed out the P.Y.T. seekers... so we don't really go out of our way to interact with the portion of the community that you assume everyone belongs to (people who choose others based on physical attractiveness). We're not desperate for the business of these people so losing them is not an issue most of the time.
I think there is some denial on the end of intention when people say "It's nothing to do with sex, I just only want to cuddle with people who are conventionally nice to look at", just as you think there is some denial when people say they don't factor appearance in when choosing a cuddle partner. And yet I know that there are people out there who don't, because I've met them. They didn't choose me because they think I look like a model - I've let myself go, and there are many better-looking pros on other sites like CU, who are eager to book if that's what they're looking for. Typically the males in my city who join here thinking "Oh, wow, no hot people here that I want to meet" end up joining that site instead, and they stay there because it suits their tastes more...plus the selling of sex that's going on on that website could be a lure as well. For the clients who claim they don't choose over appearance, maybe something else attracted them to me. Those are the clients I really want and the clients I appreciate.
Perhaps on this one, we'll agree to disagree, accept that our realities and perceptions are different, and leave it be.