Quote
Acid Reindeer

Quote
MarkusWelch
Does one need to experience the event as a participant in order to properly criticize it? The logic you are using here, Acid Reindeer, is that the entire event is new to one's experience and cannot be criticized by someone who has not participated.

not really. just asking you all, if you would, to hold out for more evidence to support your conclusions before you leap to them.

Can you not see then a contradiction with your previous statement:

"Yeah you're right. None of us have actually been, so it's impossible to say if it is manipulative and controlling."

Either the evidence required is participation, or the evidence required is not limited to participation. Might it be possible to determine if an organization is manipulative and controlling without direct experience?

What further evidence could be provided short of participation given your statement?

Quote
MarkusWelch
Can you not see then a contradiction with your previous statement:

"Yeah you're right. None of us have actually been, so it's impossible to say if it is manipulative and controlling."

please don't put words in my mouth.

Quote
Acid Reindeer

Quote
MarkusWelch
Can you not see then a contradiction with your previous statement:

"Yeah you're right. None of us have actually been, so it's impossible to say if it is manipulative and controlling."

please don't put words in my mouth.

Fair enough.

Let me clarify my previous statement:

None of us have actually [taken this course], so it's impossible to say if it is manipulative and controlling without either participating in the course ourselves, or closely monitoring a participant of the course from a 3rd person perspective.

I'd feel more comfortable with the second option, as I am certain that no one is immune to manipulation of the Landmark kind.

Until someone comes in with some first hand experience, this discussion will never arrive at a conclusion.

And to clarify on the media bias, I believe it also works the other way around, just as the journalist is biased by sensationalism, the average participant is equally biased by the facade presented by their recruiter.

A well stated blog on Cuddle Parties at [angermanagement.mu.nu] :

===================
CUDDLE CORRUPTION

This gave me pause:

Quote

It's not about sex and all about the touchy-feely experience of snuggling up to perfect strangers wearing pajamas. The grab fests are called cuddle parties, and since they started in New York in February, hundreds of people have paid $30 each to touch and embrace others in intimate gatherings. Everyone needs to be cuddled, especially in lonely New York, say creators Reid Mihalko and Marcia Baczynski who say it's a good way to meet new and interesting people. But the rules are clear. The PJs stay on the whole time and participants are reminded of Rule No. 7: "No dry humping!"

I know what you’re thinking: “An orgy with training wheels.” But that aside, how would you evaluate gatherings such as these? After all, touching and being touched are legitimate human needs.

Quote

A repeat customer who called herself a born-again Christian said it was good to cuddle up to another person, albeit a perfect stranger, after a hectic week. "I felt good. I had a particularly stressful week," said the woman, who did not wish to be named. Friends had warned her that the parties would be nothing more than thinly disguised preludes to sex, but she dismissed those worries as alarmist and unfounded, saying, "It's not about sex."

And now we get to the importance of this article. Notice the implication of the above paragraph: there is nothing with indiscriminately obtaining pleasure from the body of another person so long as it is not sexual pleasure. And you thought libertines couldn’t also be Puritans? Consider: If there is nothing wrong with sex, then the only thing wrong with a cuddle party being a prelude to sex is the indiscriminate nature of such sex. But since being indiscriminate is obviously not a problem for these people, the only conclusion is – it’s sex as such that is dirty.

Now, you could argue that there is a difference between indiscriminate sex and indiscriminate cuddling. But what is that difference? Neither cuddling nor sex are primarily physical pleasures. After all, a pillow or a pet can be even more comfortable to snuggle with than a human being, and more than a few girls have told me that, on a purely physical level, they prefer masturbation to being with a man (of course, none of these girls had slept with me, so I suppose they weren’t fully informed).

No, the major value of physical contact with another person lies chiefly in the meaning that contact implicitly conveys: you matter to me. The problem with indiscriminate sex, then, is not that sex is bad, it’s that faking is bad – to express in action that which is not so is dishonest, empty, and self-destructive. And if that’s why indiscriminate sex is bad, then the same has to go for any other form of physical contact, when the person one is touching is a complete stranger.

But this is even worse than not knowing the character of those with whom one is cuddling – these cuddling parties are attacks on making any such discriminations.

Of course, this particular phenomenon is not very important. What is important is that it highlights how utterly confused most people are when it comes to sex.

Last night I got into a short discussion with a girl who was shocked when I told her I thought it was, in a normal context, immoral for two people who are romantically involved to not have sex. She expressed disbelief, saying she didn’t think sex was essential to a romantic relationship, that sex was not the highest expression of love, that there was no important difference between friendship and romantic love.

Now, I’m not going to go into why all that is not just wrong, but horrifically so. The important thing is that this girl was not all that unordinary in her views.

America has for a long time (at least since the twenties), been torn between two views of sex: the libertine and Puritan. But those are only two sides of the same error – they are forms of the mind-body dichotomy. That’s why it’s not surprising that, in this particular case, we see both sides integrated into a single perspective.
===================

Quote
Dynamix
Let me clarify my previous statement:

None of us have actually [taken this course], so it's impossible to say if it is manipulative and controlling without either participating in the course ourselves, or closely monitoring a participant of the course from a 3rd person perspective.

I'd feel more comfortable with the second option, as I am certain that no one is immune to manipulation of the Landmark kind.

Until someone comes in with some first hand experience, this discussion will never arrive at a conclusion.

And to clarify on the media bias, I believe it also works the other way around, just as the journalist is biased by sensationalism, the average participant is equally biased by the facade presented by their recruiter.

Your requirement for first hand experience is not logical. Why do you think experience is required? (Which is exactly what 'they' think, btw.)

Quote
MarkusWelch
Your requirement for first hand experience is not logical. Why do you think experience is required? (Which is exactly what 'they' think, btw.)

Because when you aren't speaking from experience, you're speaking from the superficial, from rumour, gossip and conjecture, fed by fear of that superficial appearance. It is human nature to make assumptions and act by them. Often, we feel like we have no choice.

History has proven that it is very dangerous though.

I'm not defending cuddleparty make no mistake. The limited evidence that I have assures me that is an abusive, dangerous group. But I also acknowledge that I don't have all the evidence. So therefore any conclusions I draw on the subject mean nothing.

Dyanamix:

You make little if any sense.

Research, press reports and various sources of information are quite reliable and first hand experience is not necessary to make a decision about smoking, driving drunk, having sex without protection or egagining in other risky behavior.

Various groups that stage LGATs (large group awarenewss trainings) want people to pay first and find out later. They often use your argument to sell their product. They want people to essentially ignore existing research, bad press and lawsuits they have been involved in.

But rather than waste money and time on such programs anyone can and should review that information and see why such programs are risky and a poor investment.

They don't need to have a first hand experience to make a judgment.

Your premise is historically and logically untrue and does not really reflect critical thinking.

You're right. Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut. And my gut says that cuddleparty is EVIL :twisted:

Still. It would have been nice to see some first hand accounts of the experience. Does anyone know any participants?

Oh . . . my . . . . god . . . .

I'm going to THROW UP.

Does this still go on? I know there's a lot of "swinging" with Landmark -- the guy who stabbed his wife to death in Reno, they were swingers, and of course it fits with the whole scene.

But holy S*%#T, the thought of my ex going to a Landmark cuddle party makes me nauseous down to my toes. How absolutely repulsive this entire scene is.

Thank god I'm finally moving on and starting to feel less pain over losing him. Soon I'll just be nauseated. And this too,m shall pass.