In your opinion, not in mine.
“Creepy” is not something that can be objectively appraised. You’ve made some gestures along the lines of “here are reasons why more people than not might find these things creepy”. You didn’t do a bad job of that, it’s just not relevant.
This is IMHO, not Great Debates. In my opinion there’s nothing creepy about cuddling up with people you don’t know particularly well. Instead, in my opinion there’s something kind of creepy about the degree to which some people in this thread have found it disturbing, as if it were indicative of characterological shortcomings or emotional pathologies — ha! More the other way around.
Yes, in my opinion you’re uptight and threatened by it and you’re lashing out with hostility.
There is no “prove” to be had here, though. It’s a matter of opinion. If you wish to sway me, you’re going to have to appeal to whatever part of me makes opinions.
When you stomp your little feet and insist you’ve absolutely nailed this one to the door and that I must, I must acknowledge this, and rail about how awful and infuriating I’ve been, it’s your anger and frustration that have the bigger impact, not the perspectives that you bring and treat as empirical facts… and the effect of them is to convince me all the more that you’ve got a deep-seated emotional visceral reaction to the idea of casual cuddling that’s best described as prudish.
Once more: there’s no objective to be had here. Creepy is in the eye of the beholder. You’re trying to convince me that I am wrong when I say I find the idea appealing, that actually I, too, find it creepy? How silly is that?
Prude.
Ahh, but I supported my opinion with reasoning, while you supported it by simply asserting it again and again. That’s the essential difference here, whether or not you can grasp it.
Sadly, this may well be the most insightful thing you’ve said in this thread.
I’ve more than “made some gestures.” I’ve made several posts, all supported by specific reasoning. You, in contrast, have not. I’m not sure why you think reasoning is “irrelevant”, but I can certainly see how that attitude has informed your style in this argument.
Yes, you’ve made that clear. You view having the opposite opinion from you as indicative of “pathology”. That’s mighty funny, given your opposition to psychiatry. Interesting that you’re borrowing their terminology.
See, and this is something that makes it very hard to have reasoned debate. You’re using the phrase “in my opinion” to protect yourself from having to back your assertions; in this case, while neither your claim nor its opposite can be proven (at least on an internet message board), you’re making a specific claim about a specific thing, and one you ultimately can’t back at all. I’m not “threatened” by anything, I’m certainly not “uptight”, and I have not “lashed out” at anything except muddled thinking. I’m going to continue “lashing out” against muddled thinking; hopefully, I will do so all my life. It’s not legitimately within the realm of “opinion” to speculate on other people’s mental states, since how I’m feeling is not a matter of opinion. If your “opinion” of my mental state differs from mine, you are by definition wrong. It’s not an uncommon tactic to try to hide from having to support one’s assertions by calling them “opinions”, but that doesn’t make it a valid argument tactic. As a matter of fact, you keep implying here that your opinions don’t need the support of logic or reason. You don’t see that as a problem? I like to know that my opinions - though they are still opinions - are ones that I come to through reasoning and thought. I have to wonder what went wrong in the mind of someone who is content to let their opinions rest on nothing but irrationality.
Except the overemotional, irrational arguments you’ve been using, all based on questioning everyone else’s mental states, demonstrate that no appeal to anything will “sway” you (really, again, doesn’t that fly right in the face of your opinions on psychiatry? If psychiatrists are unable to examine and evaluate the human mind, what in the world makes you think you are, particularly over the internet?) You could only be swayed if there was some sort of reasoning underlying your opinion. I think the fact that, over and over, you have refused to offer any is indicative of the fact that there isn’t anything there.
Fortunately, I didn’t come in here to sway anyone. I came in to share my opinion. It was you who began to denigrate those who don’t share your opinions, and you continue to do so. It was you who started arguing this subject, and it was you who repeatedly resorted to making ridiculous ad hominem attacks on everyone who disagrees with you, because you can’t come up with any reasoning to support your opinions, and you can’t come up with any responses to those of us who do. That’s probably because you recognize the pathology inherent in your interest in such an absurd, troubling activity and you’re lashing out with hostility at the rest of us to avoid confronting your own sickness and out of resentment that we don’t share whatever emotional damage is informing your opinion.
See? Two can play at that game!
I have not presented my perspectives as “empirical facts”. Again, the fact that you can’t see the difference between fact and opinion is probably a large part of why you can’t examine this subject with even the remotest degree of rationality. It’s interesting that you characterize my arguments in emotional terms, because you’re the only one who has actually argued that way; you’re the one sitting here and continually attacking others for having the wrong opinions, while I’m the one who, from the beginning, has calmly made a case supported by reasoning.
Again, we come to the beginning. Your only argument is that anyone who disagrees with you is “prudish”. You say it over and over, as though it will magically become true if you say it enough times. I’m sorry, but reality doesn’t work that way. Before you continue in making statements about everyone else’s mental states, you should consider the fact that you are the one who has not been able to come up with logic or reasoning, but instead hostility and the age-old tack of ignoring or misstating the things your opponents have been saying. Isn’t that a pretty solid sign that it’s you, and not me, who is basing their argument on a screwed up emotional reaction?
Do you actually believe I said anything of the sort? If so, there is literally something confused in your perceptions; if you honestly, truly believe that I’ve argued any of this, you are not perceiving what’s actually happening in the world but instead replacing it with something you’ve cooked up in your own imagination.
If, on the other hand, you’re saying this because you believe you can put me on the defensive simply by trying to force me to defend something I didn’t say, then you need to understand that I’m not stupid, and I’m not about to defend the ridiculous statements you’re imputing to me.
It’s up to you, AHunter3. It’s up to you to come up with any sort of reasoning to support your point. After all, you’re the one who felt the need to argue with those who disagree with you. You have some very strong need to validate your feelings by convincing everyone else to share them. I don’t need to do that, which is why I don’t need to engage in ridiculous ad hominem attacks. That’s one advantage of having the power of thought - when my opinions are based upon reasoning, I don’t need others to share them in order to make them valid.
If you can’t come up with any kind of reasoning, and you’ve seen that the rest of us can (since, obviously, we have done so) then perhaps you should back off and recognize that the rest of us are not emotionally screwed up just because we disagree with you. After all, it’s you who can’t come up with anything but “I think it sounds nice!” to support your opinion. I have given dozens of reasons for my opinion, none of which boil down to me being “prudish”. It’s simply ridiculous for you to claim that it actually comes down to “prudery” (particularly when it’s already been explained to you why prudery doesn’t even apply to this situation.) I have explained my opinion. It’s not based on prudery, and only someone so weak-minded that they can’t tolerate anyone disagreeing with them would continue to make that claim after I’ve proven so well that my opinion is grounded in specific reasoning.
You have not explained your opinion. You just think cuddle parties sound nice. I have explained my opinion. I have given the reasons for it. If anyone is entitled to claim that their opponent is speaking out of emotional pathology, it’s me, since I have demonstrated that my opinion is founded on something other than an immediate emotional reaction. Yours is not.
That is a good ways towards being sufficient explanation. People should be free to do things that are harmless and which they enjoy. Cuddle parties sound nice. I’d go to one if invited. This is controversial? Oh please!
But whatever. A Vindication of the OKness and Noncreepiness of Casual Hugging.
You can’t love people you don’t know with a fully cognizant love borne of deep understanding, but you can love people simply because they are people. You can harbor affection towards people simply because they are people. Cuddling is both an expression of affection and a facilitator of those feelings. It’s hard to be on guard, reserved against, untrusting towards, etc, someone with whom you are cuddling, and vice versa. So it is a brave risk with warm tradeoffs.
The risks are actually pretty minor. If you can’t easily bring yourself into that state, you just aren’t going to be there, or stay there. You’ll squirm and get up and leave. And we’re talking consenting adults here. In the world of risky behaviors available to 21st century adults, this is one that ranks pretty low on the scary-meter, or so I would think. But if it ain’t for you, don’t do it.
There should be more awareness of and fostering of our generic unconditional love for each other. There hasn’t been enough expression of it since the days when “groovy” was a trendy new adjective and people gathered in public to favor a more loving and less uptight & hostile world.
To describe an activity as “creepy” you need a decently compelling argument for there being something wrong or amiss. To say something is “creepy” may not be the same as to say it should be banned, made illegal, stopped by force, but it’s still a lesser form of condemnation of it. In contrast, you don’t need a powerful compelling reason for finding an activity “noncreepy”. Like innocence, it’s the default consideration. OK until proven creepy. I don’t have to make a strong case for why a cuddle party isn’t creepy. You do have to make a strong case for why it would be. You haven’t done so to my satisfaction / in my opinion.
Are we back to being “done with this” yet? Shall we move on to other major topics of great concern like whether it’s creepy or not to swing on swing sets?
Ahh. So you’re implying that I’ve suggested cuddle parties be outlawed.
Well, at least I now know that you don’t place any particular value on the truth.
I know it bothers you that not everyone shares your opinions. You should get over that. You should refrain from the urge to make up ridiculous lies about the things the rest of us say. That just goes further to support my thought that there’s something wrong with anyone who’d like to attend a cuddle party.
Again, you totally distort the topic of discussion. You’re simply unable to discuss this in any sort of honest way, aren’t you? What does that say to you? Doesn’t it seem important to you that you find yourself continuously lying about what I’m saying? Doesn’t that tell you something about your place in this argument? Why can’t you discuss this issue without continuously lying, AHunter3?
No, it’s a failure to develop normal interpersonal boundaries, just like telling your life story to the person next to you on the bus. The fact that you feel the need to “let down your guard” in that way around total strangers shows how empty your life is and how desperate you must be for companionship. You seem content to claim the rest of us are “prudes” because of society’s rules - and that’s how I know you don’t know whereof you speak. Before you start chalking up this, that, and the other thing to society, you should study some anthropology. Because as Americans, we’re so unguarded and so open with others, in comparison to most societies ancient and modern, as to make it obvious that we’re discussing anything but social boundaries.
The fact that you’ve failed to develop the normal interpersonal boundaries present not only in people from our society but in people from every society is demonstration - as though your own behavior in this thread weren’t sufficient proof - that you’re arguing out of some sort of deep-seated pathology. How sad that you feel such a need to denigrate those of us who are more together than you.
And then be called names by you. Because you aren’t capable of acknowledging that people have differing opinions without insulting them; this is no doubt also the result of the failure of normal human emotional development that you’ve already demonstrated so thoroughly.
I don’t know why you’re so dishonest. I don’t know why you’re unable to discuss issues in a rational manner. I don’t know why you’re so desperate for companionship that you want to curl up with random strangers under the watchful eyes of facilitators. I don’t know why you have such a difficult time dealing with the fact that not everyone shares your pathology. But I’m pretty sure none of these things are good signs, AHunter3.
:rolleyes: It’s countercultural! That means it’s correct! If you disagree, there’s something wrong with you! Down with the man!
In other words, to have a different opinion from you, I need to justify it to your satisfaction.
Well, I’ve already justified it far beyond your capacity to justify any of your opinions; I’ve justified it so thoroughly that you haven’t managed to come up with a compelling response to any single point I’ve made. I’ve justified it over and over again, here, explaining in different words in case you simply honestly didn’t understand me.
Well, it’s gotten to the point where I’ve proven beyond a doubt that you are simply intractable on this issue; you are unable to deal with the idea that people disagree with you because there’s something wrong with you. That doesn’t change the fact that I have provided far more than a “decently compelling argument.” Your failure to even come up with responses to it shows how fragile your position is.
People who disagree with you have the right to their opinions, hippie boy. Where’s your all-consuming love now? This is the essential pathology of the hippie movement, of course. It’s a deeply egotistical drive to force others to agree with you. All the silliness about universal love is just a smokescreen; that love is not a genuine emotion. People like you don’t even have the capacity for the respect to allow others to disagree without condemning them for it (as evidenced by your continual, ridiculous lies and your blanket assertions about the mental state of anyone who disagrees with you.) You’re not even capable of interacting with others like an adult; you’re unable to show basic respect for people who don’t share all of your opinions. But you’re full of unconditional love for everyone else?
If you define love as something narrow and utterly insignificant that can be demonstrated by holding a teddy bear and curling up with a stranger, sure. But that’s not actual love. It doesn’t even approach actual love. If you don’t even respect others, you certainly don’t love them.
In other words, you don’t need any reasoning as long as your views are the same as AHunter3’s, right?
Except I’ve provided compelling reasons - dozens of them. And you have not. You can ignore the reasons put forth by everyone who disagrees with you if you want. That won’t change the fact that you have clung to views that you’ve come to based upon nothing but your own pathology and defended in the most childish way possible, by simply insulting everyone who disagrees with you.
If you had a bit of self-insight, you’d recognize the fact that you’ve resorted to lies and slander as a sign that your view is not an innocent perspective. But you fundamentally lack any ability to honestly examine yourself. Which is why the only tool you have when others disagree with you is lashing out at them.
So much for your universal love, huh?
It’s been “proven creepy” a dozen times over.
That’s because you are unwilling to be convinced by reasoning. You haven’t managed to come up with a response to any single point I’ve made. You still think you’re right. At this point, that’s evidence of how confused and muddled your thinking is.
I will remember this, AHunter3. I will remember that you are incapable of rationally arguing, that you are incapable of dealing with the concept that others disagree with you, that you falsely couch your views in nice-sounding ideals that you don’t remotely possess, and that you mkae up imaginary reasons to insult anyone who doesn’t share your views. I hope one day you grow up a little bit, AHunter3. For your sake, I hope you learn to deal with whatever is wrong with you.
p. 413 Jane Gallop. “The Father’s Seduction”. In Robyn R. Warhol and Diane Price Herndl, Eds., Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism . New Brusnwick, NJ: Rutgers University Press 1991, pp. 413-431
That’s what you’re doing. Ripping at my posts line by line, doing “close reading” as a tactic, not trying to develop your own perspective for me to understand but rather trying to “win the debate” as if there were judges awarding points for each ripped line. And you’re so busy doing it you didn’t bother reading the whole post before starting in on me.
What I said was:
You aren’t saying “I, Excalibre, find it creepy, but whatever floats your boat”. Your ad hominems coupled with your Bill O’Reilly imitation constitute a condemnation.
No you haven’t. You’ve only failed to demonstrate to me that there’s something inherently creepy about cuddle parties.
If your opinion constitutes a judgment on the behavior of others? Damn right, if you want me to either shut up or say “Excalibre, you’re right”. If you want to assert that (for example) two ten-year-olds having a mutually consensual sexual relationship with each other is sick and wrong, or that (second example) people of the same sex having a mutually consensual relationship with each other are psychoanalytically trapped in a pre-mature state of development and are to be pitied and if possible cured, or that (third example) people who participate in open non-exclusive non-monogamous relationships are immature and are using inferior forms of structured intimacy to accomodate the inability to commit brought on by their fragile ego states, well, then, you have to defend that kind of thing. We’re not on an equal footing in such a discussion: the burden of demonstrating validity falls on you.
You’re welcome to try to develop the general case (“Situations where X are a problem because of Y”) and then develop your specific case for why cuddle parties are an example of X because Y is taking place, but I get to disagree with either your general-case argument or your application of it to the specific case of cuddle parties (or of casual cuddling as it might exist apart from cuddle parties, since I don’t really know much about the actual structuring of them, etc).
Pick one:
• No it’s not
• I disagree with what I believe to be assumptions you’ve made about “normal interpersonal boundaries” and/or the desirability of them in contrast to more fluid interpersonal boundaries that may exist in the context of casual cuddling, although it’s hard to tell because I’m not a mind reader, I can only guess what you meant by “normal interpersonal boundaries”, so you have to unpack that phrase and explain what you mean by it before I can address it to any meaningful degree. Oh, and let us not forget to take notice of the word “failure”. Are you prepared to develop a rationale for preferring the construct “failure to develop normal interpersonal boundaries” to “successfully avoiding getting caught up in normatively pathological barriers to intimacy”? “Failure” is a value judgment. You can’t just trot in one value judgment to bolster another as if it weren’t equally in need of explication. Yes, I know I do the same thing, neither of us have any choice, there is no objective set of axioms either of us just gets to start with. But I’m not going around posting that “There, I have proven you wrong, and you haven’t answered my points which have pinned your argument to the ground, indefensible”; instead, I’m repeatedly posting “I still don’t agree with you, I think I’m right and you’re not”, and there’s a difference.
You haven’t. I may not have either but the burden of developing compelling reasons is on you. You’re the disapproving one.
If you feel that way about it, why are you arguing with a fool?
If you were to post to the effect that you disagree with me but do not find yourself able to communicate with me and are going to cease the attempt, and do so without asserting that you have attained some kind of empirical debate-victory prior to leaving the field, I promise I will not post further except in reply to other people who may wish to further discuss these matters.
This is really making me miss a group of friends I only get to see once, maybe twice a year.
We all got accquainted online through a MUD we all play. From the first time we all met at a convention we found that we were a very huggy, cuddly group. Almost anytime we’re all together, people are sitting on each others laps, leaning on each other, laying their head in someones lap, hugging and so on. There is nothing sexual about it and it really reinforces our friendships.
That being said, I’m not sure I’d go to a cuddle party but I can certainly see the appeal.
I think you’re kind of underscoring the opposite point here: this is cool to you (and sounds cool to me), because you already have an emotional attachment to these people. While it may be unusual that you were so comfortable with each other right away upon meeting IRL, the impulse to be cozy with each other is not IMO. The thing that’s weirding most of us out about Cuddle Parties is that these are expressly strangers in an environment of planned, supervised cuddling.
BTW, among this circle of friends of yours, is the cuddling done irrespective of gender and/or sexual preference?
True, we were not complete strangers on our first IRL meeting, but that group was the first example that came to mind of anything even close to this sort of thing.
Gender and sexual preference are completely irrelevent. We’re just a very friendly, very affectionate group. Another little anecdote, one of the guys is very well known for being physically affectionate. (and among our group that is quite the designation to get!) After the first several times I had met him, he pulled me aside from the group for a moment and said “You know, someone just mentioned that you were gay. I didn’t know that.” We talked for a moment about how cool it was that no one in our group cared about sexual interest as it related to our group cuddles and it really highlighed for me how much I appreciate knowing them all.
