Quote
glam
Was it here or somewhere else that I read the article about the core group of "disciples" that follow the creators from cuddle session to cuddle session? The whole thing just reeks of LGAT hypersexuality. To say "cultures all of the world have extreme ways of breaking down the ego and they have not only strengthened the person but strengthened the society" sounds very much like the kind of defense someone could posit when discussing any cult.

yes it does. cults often employ an element of truth to suck you in. so you use logic and evidence to evaluate both your hopes and, as on this thread, your fears. seeing a lot of irrational fear on this thread.

Quote
Acid Reindeer

Quote
caligari

Quote
Acid Reindeer
if you looked into the folkways of any culture on Earth you will find losing identity as a central human experience. you will a lot more freaky business than Cuddle Party on this planet of ours. try ritualistic scarification ceremonies, group sex, Appalachian snakebiting cults, those crazy Japanese phallus festivals. shocking I know.

If you consider falling off the top of a three story building you can look at situations of falling from greater heights like from the Eiffel Tower, a mountain cliff, an airplane, etc. None of those situations recommend falling off a three story building.

do these situations entail the kind of risks you say they do, though? no, I mean, cultures all of the world have extreme ways of breaking down the ego and they have not only strengthened the person but strengthened the society.

The view that the destruction of people's ego and individuality is good clarifies the principal for the defense of events like Cuddle Parties.

The plain answer to the proposition that violating people's individuality strengthens them is "Bullshit!" It is detrimental. To allow concepts that define the destructive as constructive to pass unchallenged is to give them silent assent.

Quote
Acid Reindeer
sure they entail risks, which makes them worth doing. not that I think that a couple of hours of cuddling entails that much risk. (though, again, I've not done it...)

Risk does not create value. It is the quality of the endeavor, irregardless of risk from which value is drawn.

-- Caligari

Quote
caligari
The view that the destruction of people's ego and individuality is good clarifies the principal for the defense of events like Cuddle Parties.

destroy? awful big word for an event that last two or three hours.

see I try not to generalize like that. I take what information I have and if I have enough, make a decision. haven't enough information and I (try not to) pretend that I know.

Quote

The plain answer to the proposition that violating people's individuality strengthens them is "Bullshit!" It is detrimental.

"violate" implies lack of consent. Cuddle Party specifices that if you do not want anyone to not touch you that you do not get touched and you certainly don't have to touch anyone if you don't want.

Quote

Risk does not create value. It is the quality of the endeavor, irregardless of risk from which value is drawn.

yes, and neither risk does not preclude value. not that I would consider... and I expect you all to disagree withme... that going to these events consitutes much of a risk.

Quote
Acid Reindeer
yes it does. cults often employ an element of truth to suck you in. so you use logic and evidence to evaluate both your hopes and, as on this thread, your fears. seeing a lot of irrational fear on this thread.

Where do you see irrational fear? I see group of people who are quite familiar with the tactics and language of a variety of cults and LGATs recognizing those things in the "Cuddle Party."

Are you suggesting that we must try the Cuddle Party for ourselves in order to determine whether it's creepy or LGAT-ish? If so, that's exactly what cult defenders come here to say about their respective cults.

did I say you had to experience Cuddle Party for yourself to understand it?

I never did and I don't believe that you do.

guess what? I know about cult and LGAT tactics and language too. as a reminder, my uncle worked from 1975 to 1996 in the company that later turned into Landmark. he has tried to use those techniques on me. I have seen the effect that those techniques had on my sister.

not unfamiliar with the thought reform experience myself, having experienced it in a mental institution.

so, yeah. acknowledge that I, who has some expeience in the area, does not have my alarm bell going off, particularly, here.

Quote
Acid Reindeer

Quote
caligari
The view that the destruction of people's ego and individuality is good clarifies the principal for the defense of events like Cuddle Parties.

destroy? awful big word for an event that last two or three hours.

A temporary destruction of ego or loss of identity is a partial destruction of identity.

Quote
Acid Reindeer
see I try not to generalize like that. I take what information I have and if I have enough, make a decision. haven't enough information and I (try not to) pretend that I know.

From understanding the nature of individual identity with sufficient depth one can predict the results of activities such as Cuddle Parties.

Quote
Acid Reindeer

Quote

The plain answer to the proposition that violating people's individuality strengthens them is "Bullshit!" It is detrimental.

"violate" implies lack of consent. Cuddle Party specifices that if you do not want anyone to not touch you that you do not get touched and you certainly don't have to touch anyone if you don't want.

People certainly have the choice to degrade their individuality. That does not give them a free pass from judging the nature of what they do and it's results.

Quote
Acid Reindeer

Quote

Risk does not create value. It is the quality of the endeavor, irregardless of risk from which value is drawn.

yes, and neither risk does not preclude value. not that I would consider... and I expect you all to disagree withme... that going to these events consitutes much of a risk.

Of course, that statement is implicit and a subset of the level of risk does not determine the value of an endeavor.

-- Caligari

AR: You've said, basically, we shouldn't question/make assumptions about something we haven't tried ourselves. That's very close to saying we must experience it to question it.

Perhaps your alarm bells aren't going off, but for some of us, they are. I don't believe anyone here has gotten hysterical or shown even an ounce of "fear": rather, we're questioning the encouragment of hypersexuality in a group started by an LGAT adherent, a group which uses much of the language of the LGAT and seems to also be based on the twisted "sexuality" training of Landmark.

And though their website may say you don't have to touch or be touched—that, basically, you make your own choices—that's almost word-for-word what LEC says about peeing, eating, and the choices you make within their training, without them admitting to any of the peer pressure or group dynamics that almost force you to go along with their "rules."

Think about it. If you don't want to touch someone, why would you sign up for a "Cuddle Party" in the first place? Think how easy it would be to make someone feel stupid for expressing such a reluctance in a group setting after they're already paid for the "experience."

glam,

I make a distinction beween assuming and questioning. assuming I do not like so much, questioning I do like.

never did I say that you must try Cuddle Party myself. I have not tried it, nor do I intend to do it. only saying you can hold off until you have more to go upon, like, I don't know, some proof that it causes harm?

I have observed, firsthand, the dynamics of similar events (sex parties, public kiss-in's and one happening that evolved spontaneously) and trust me, no one gets pressured in doing anyhing. and in those circumstances you did not even have the safeguard of "if you mean 'yes', say 'yes', if you mean 'maybe' say 'no', if you mean 'no' say 'no'". I have seen and experienced the harm of rejection, sadly, much more than anyone getting pressured into anything they do not want to do.

the comparision to Landmark (as far as eating and peeing) comes off as so apples and oranges that I have to say, that while you can never make one-to-one analogies this one misses the mark even more than most.

the very fact that you will have paid to touch and get touched to me shows that Cuddle Party creates a more consensual environment.

while on the subject of comparisions, think on the vagueness ("you really have to experience itself") and Landmark promotional materials as compared with the simple and explicit rules and guidelines supplied by Cuddle Party. you will know pretty much exactly what to expect if you go to the Cuddle Party website, if you go to the Landmark site, good luck, you will know less and less what to expect the more that you read.

I think I really will withdraw from this thread now. not worth my time to defend what I don't have personal stake in (other than, in general tersm, the freedom to make your own life choices).

I respectfully disagree. A website that tells people who go to these things that they have the choice of whether to be touched or not sounds very much like my Landmark friend insisting that the "peeing rules" "aren't like that any more," and also very much like the 'tweeners I've chatted with who insist you're free to pee whenever you like and then go into all the "rules" and signs and "agreements" you make to not leave the room to pee—including the subtle but powerful suggestion that you won't get the full value of the course if you take a break.

And though you yourself may not have felt pressure at the events you attended, I've heard accounts from women who have admitted they only went to events like those becaue they felt pressured by their significant other to go. How can you be sure of what anyone else in the room is actually feeling? There several articles written by LEC grads who admit they were uncomfortable or "didn't get it," but they went along with the group because it seemed like the thing to do.

Waiting until there's proof of harm? Is that what you recommend when hearing of a questionable group run by a cult adherent? How much do you wanna bet they'd pass off any feelings of discomfort or harm as being the victim's problem, rather than being cause by their involvement in the Cuddle Party?