Professional cuddler

[Eliza Thomason]

Waited for what? What additional value does waiting bring to an activity? I was probably a few years older than the average person before I snuggled with anyone. Do you think this means it was better for me than for the average person?.

Maybe!
How how could you possibly know it was better that you "waited", when you don't have any experience on what it would've been like if you hadn't done se? .[/QUOTE] Waited to share any kind of intimacy until I was sure it was the kind of love I wanted to keep for always. Til I felt that SLI was God's will for my life.

As to the value of waiting, well, waiting to pick the fruit until it is fully ripened is valuable, for example. Waiting to enjoy the flower in full bloom and not pulling the tight bud open because you cannot wait to see. Waiting until hearts grow, and love is sure, until intimacy also has value.

As to waiting when you know you are in love and are completely sure you are going to marry and still waiting to have sex I couldn't tell you, I never followed that one through yet, and I am only trying now and cannot tell you the reward in that. Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof. Other than a clear conscience, a very wonderful freeing thing just in itself, I can only think of relief on that day when it finally arrives? We will see if it means even more.

As to how would I know, well, since husband was pretty much done with contact pretty much as soon as he wedding was over, and it was a long marriage, followed by a long period of being alone-on-purpose, that's why I know about waiting. But before my husband, I was a lot more willing to be affectionate even if I was not in love, just feeling loving. And I was with my husband completely before I married. Although Christian (Evangelical, then) I felt justified since I intended to marry him, and I couldn't find it in the Bible that you need a "piece of paper" if you were already "married in your heart", as I put it. Now I am Catholic and we do have a clear distinction. Its just not a marriage until the Priest marries you. And its hard since I am married in my heart to my SLI... and patience it not innate with me, its something I have to put on. But this too shall pass...

Why do you think the experience would be the same for everyone else? .

I just do. Probably because I feel the lovely wonder of it had a lot to do with the long dry spell before it. And my SLI also, thankfully, had the same long dry spell for the same sort of reason. We are both so sure of each other, too. It makes it so easy, so compelling.

If you wait for too long you might die of malnutrition.

I actually was afraid of that. I had this fear also that my determination to avoid that way of thinking would make me unable to think that way. Like I would turn myself into some kind of freak. I just had to trust God with that fear. And instead, to my surprise, it made it stronger, clearer, more compelling. I guess that's why I think it would work that way for others. Just sharing my experience.

[FDG]

AFAIK in order to optimally taste awesome food you need to be both hungry and experienced, in order to benefit form both the abstinence and the comparison with other types of sensations. It's similar for wine tasting, for example.

[anndelise]

My answer is not politically or culturally acceptable

What matters here is whether your typing of the girl is socionically relevant.
That is completely different than being politically, culturally, or even religiously acceptable. (there are, after all, more religious beliefs than your own.)

IMO, the cuddler's behavior is unchaste. Yes, even though she is not having sex with them. Its a turn-off to me. Its unethical. And i like to think that IEEs are more ethical. We are an ethical type after all.

as Kim said, Socionics' "ethics" is not the same thing as (christian) morals.

Socionics ethics means information regarding the psychological and emotional impact on a person's psyche. In other words, how is an action, memory, thought, etc impacting the person psychologically.

In the OP's particular focus, how are people being psychologically impacted by not having access to basic human touch. The same touch that parents and children have. The same touch that close friends have. etc. To need that basic sense of physical connection, but being unable to meet it often leads to depression, suicidal thoughts/actions, social anxiety, anger, and other negative emotions/thoughts/actions. As well as how are people being psychologically impacted when they have access to that basic human touch? Those anxieties, depressions, anger, etc become transformed into feeling connected, higher self-esteem, sense of worth, more enjoyment out of life, and may lead to interacting in a more intimate manner (intimate does not mean sexual, here), etc.

Some people pay for psychologists to help them work through emotionally and psychologically negative issues. Some people seek out their priest in an enclosed box so they can bare their souls to someone they deem safe. What the girl in the OP is offering serves a similar purpose, and assists with similar needs...that of helping to psychologically and emotionally support another person.

This ends the portion that dealt with socionics ethics, and thus ends my post that was in response to Eliza's post.

-----
So, with that part taken care of, I'll look to see what else may be socionically related.

Fj (stereo)types ignore information regarding their counter F element, typically because that other element interferes with what they are trying to do. FeXi ignores/dismisses Fi related info. FiXe ignores/dismisses Fe related info. I think that it's safe to say that this girl's service makes use of both Fi & Fe info. So an ethical irrational type.

By similar token, Sp (stereo)types ignore/dismiss information regarding their counter S element. SiXe ignores Se, SeXi ignores Si. So, is this girl valuing Si while subduing Se? Or is she valuing Se while subduing Si? Is this girl's service providing Dynamic S (Si) or Static S (Se)? Does her service require the extensive use of info regarding the concrete aspects of the person, an object, an idea, etc? Or does it require extensive use of info regarding the interactional aspects between two or more people (herself and her client), objects, ideas, etc?

Imo, Her service requires the use of sensory based interactions and sensory dynamic information. The static concrete sensory aspects of the person, place, etc do not play much if any role in the service she provides. As such, I vote she is Si valuing with subdued Se. Though, I could accept arguments that this service may be linked with Si role.

This leads me to think NeFi, SiFe, and maybe NiFe.

To know more I'd have to spend time reading/watching anything this girl, herself, has written/done/said rather than what a sensationalist reporter decided to keep in the edited version of the 'report'.

[Aquagraph]

Marrying someone without having sex with them first is like buying a car without test driving it.

[willekeurig]

Marrying someone without having sex with them first is like buying a car without test driving it.

I don't really see the point in getting married (unless maybe for practical/legal reasons) if you're not religious, and if you are bad sex doesn't matter because it's God's will.

[anndelise]

I don't really see the point in getting married (unless maybe for practical/legal reasons) if you're not religious, and if you are bad sex doesn't matter because it's God's will.

I agree. Though I dont think it'd be because of God's will, but more like acceptance of what you get since you have nothing to compare it to. If your male lover orgasms before he can insert himself, or if he uses violence during sex, or if he performs for his own pleasure while ignoring yours...you don't know anything is 'wrong'. (And the man's ego is saved from feeling critiqued by someone with even a little knowledge/experience.)

Also, one of the inborn sins of the daughters of Eve is for inspiring sexual (base, animalistic) impulses and desires in Man. A woman who desires 'better' sex is a sinful woman. She's distracting Man from his heavenly goals, rather than supporting him in them.

Regarding marriage, it's kinda funny to me how some people view it. Many people approach it as if they make the commitment once, and it's done and binding. I rarely run into people who view their committed relationships (married or not) as something that is committed to every day, in every action that can influence the relationship. It's almost like they no longer want to have to think of the other person's needs, goals, or developments; or that they are now ONE and thus have the same needs, beliefs, goals, etc. (But then, when I was younger and more naive, I'm pretty sure I thought of marriage/commitment as a one time thing and it was done and binding. )

[willekeurig]

The "god's will" was supposed to be a humorous way to put my point, and I agree with what you say about not having anything to compare their marital life to.
There's also the aspect that even if a person does realise they are being treated badly by their companion, the belief system/community puts certain pressure on them to try to deal with it and trust that their god sure sees and cares and helps and comforts and "makes humanly impossible things possible", like Eliza put it. This kind of moral rules really creep me out, and I imagine the end results aren't always very beautiful. I bet there are a lot of people who feel guilt for not being patient/noble/good enough as believers when the promised help doesn't seem to arrive and leaving the holy covenant is out of the question.

[Aquagraph]

Also, one of the inborn sins of the daughters of Eve is for inspiring sexual (base, animalistic) impulses and desires in Man. A woman who desires 'better' sex is a sinful woman. She's distracting Man from his heavenly goals, rather than supporting him in them.

I want to tell you about my favourite character from the Abrahamic folk stories, Lilith.
Adam's first wife Lilith was made from clay like Adam and they were hence equal. Lilith refused to submit to the man and she had to run away from Eden. On behalf of God, three angels asked him to return to Eden but she refused. Now she is bringing disease to infants.

Here's some Type O Negative lyrics (An Ode To Locksmiths) I found interesting:
"Woe to thee all woman of land, air, sea
Adam was the serpent apple tween his knees
Deduced by a snake worshiped by nations
Banished forth from eden it’s the male who is satan

From the tree of knowledge (a metaphor for sex)
Plucked a ripened globs of fruit that of her innocence
Since forbidden resisted forcing her to taste
Now I know why girls hate boys cause eve was in fact raped"

[Aquagraph]

I bet there are a lot of people who feel guilt for not being patient/noble/good enough as believers when the promised help doesn't seem to arrive and leaving the holy covenant is out of the question.

When a Christian fails to follow God's ways, it's because he is flesh and the flesh is weak. When he succeeds, it's because he is divine as God lives in his heart. In other words, A Christian never succeeds on his own, but fails on his own (the devil might hinder him though). Then to muddle up this cop out even further, there is free will and you are free to do as God knew you would have when he created you.

[Eliza Thomason]

The "god's will" was supposed to be a humorous way to put my point, and I agree with what you say about not having anything to compare their marital life to.
There's also the aspect that even if a person does realise they are being treated badly by their companion, the belief system/community puts certain pressure on them to try to dealt with it and trust that their god sure sees and cares and helps and comforts and "makes humanly impossible things possible", like Eliza put it. This kind of moral rules really creep me out, and I imagine the end results aren't always very beautiful. I bet there are a lot of people who feel guilt for not being patient/noble/good enough as believers when the promised help doesn't seem to arrive and leaving the holy covenant is out of the question.

You have a very good point, and I just want to say I said what I said in a different context entirely. I meant the seemingly impossible things God asks of us, like remaining chaste in the face of temptation, are not impossible because He gives us the miraculous graces we need to do what He asks. I know this is true from my own repeated experiences. Jesus says if we ask, we will receive. Every time I ask for help, I get help.

Also one cannot outgive God. When you give him faith and obedience, especially about hard things like chastity, or like choosing poverty over making easy money dishonestly, He gives you more than you give Him. And supernatural peace and comfort.

But the way you put it makes perfect sense. What I think what you are referring to is if a person is in a marraige where they are begin treated badly, their religious community - you are probably referring to Evangelical Christian here, and that is the one I have the most years in, so I agree with what follows -- the community would "put certain pressure"/encourage her (usually its her) to stay and rely on God's comfort.

This is true, that's what happens. This is exactly what happened to me, too, and between that and my determination to keep my vow, I did stay in a very bad situation way, way too long. And to live up to the ideals of my Christian community, there seemed no other option.

I admire the goal of "stay in marriage even when its tough", particularly when there are children involved. But there are plenty of times when the this not the best advice, when its bad advice. And that kind of advice can make a person feel needless shame - insult on top of injury.

While unbeknowst to me my ex was engaging in an affair that later ended the marriage, I took a silent retreat because I was in despair at facing my life of emptiness ahead with my then husband. A monk-priest there said "that is not a marriage" and that God did not expect me to stay in it. I was a new Catholic and this did not sit well with my Christian thinking of so many years. I told him I was quite sure God wanted me to stay. He said that if God is telling your conscience that, then He will give you the grace you need to do that, one day at a time. And the monk-priest was right, God did give me the grace to stay on, and the peace, one day at a time.

I feel that God did not want me to stay, but took my offering of obedience to His will - even though it wasn't; He know I thought it was - and rewarded it with the peace I needed. I know for sure, we cannot out-give God. He always rewards faith. I have never known him not to! Yes, even my misplaced faith - for so many years that God would make my marriage right. (I feel my SLI is my reward for all those years of that faith. I always knew He would reward me, I though it would be some other reward, like peace, but never thought it would be the perfect match for me).

Some months after my retreat the affair came to surface, and I tried to find a lawyer that would help me legally refuse my ex's bid for divorce. But then because custody was involved, I was advised to consult with the best, who told me I needed to sue him back for divorce, or risk losing my child.

So I took this legal advice to the priest with the strictest, most pious reputation for many miles around. For so many years, I had hung on so tight to my vow, sure it was God's will - even though also the priest at my conversion also said, "That is not a marriage". I thought maybe I had only met soft priests, so picked this hard-as-nails one.

And it didn't go like I thought. He listened to me and then had only a very few, very wise things to say.

He told me I was trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

I told him that taking tgis lawyers advice felt like I was "giving up on God" because I had waited so many years for Him to do a miracle in my marriage (I knew it would take a miracle; I had already tried everything humanly possible). He told me God does miracles, but He never tells us to expect one. He also added that God rarely, if ever violates the will, and if my husband didn't want to change, God wouldn't make him. And I knew my husband thought he was quite fantastic as he was, and Narcissist that he was, he always would.

I told him I wished God would just tell me what to do, because I would do it! And He said God only rarely does that. Normally we are to use what He gave us, the brain we have, the teachings of the Church and scripture about His ways, and the circumstances of our lives, for example, in my case, this competent lawyer's advice. And I certainly did not want to risk losing custody. I saw my course now.

He added that the other woman did me a favor. And this has turned out to be quite true!

This priest was perfectly wise. Piety does that. And knowledge - he knows very deeply the true teachings of the Catholic Church, which are, I fully believe, the most completely and fully true beliefs on earth.

[Hays]

She's a type who must have difficulties understanding all of the consequences/outcomes of this snuggling.

[InvisibleJim]

I'm favor of legalizing prostitution because I believe it would do more good than harm. Therefore paying for cuddles seems a perfectly moral course of action.

If god has an opinion opposite to mine then he has a problem.