Talk:Cuddle party

2004

I have permission to post the cuddle party entry. Please contact reid@cuddleparty.com or marcia@cuddleparty.com for verification. They know me by nick Jade (short for Jadxia) Patten. User:138.88.63.122 12:58, 1 November 2004‎

non-sexual

To state that cuddle parties are non-sexual is, in my opinion, POV. I'm slightly modifying the first few sentences in an attempt to make them NPOV without sacrificing information. --Allen 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-sexual is the rule, therefore I put "non-sexual" after "encouraged to"; this allows for the possibilty that participants and others view the interactions as sexual.--Patrick 11:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right; that's best. Thanks. --Allen 14:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah yeah original intents may be non-sexual and the real RULE maybe "no pressure to sexual participation" -- but reality is that sexual reactions are just as likely as any party where attractive people relax and feel safe interacting...now add physical proximity. Of course good manners is to take it out the puppy pile room if things are too urgent to wait. Again the original original intent is non-sexual. 69.23.121.234 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

REiD?

"REiD Mihalko and Marcia Baczynski founded the organization..."

Is this just a typo, or is REiD some acronym I'm not familiar with? --x-Flare-x 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I gained on their website, his real name is Reid Mihalko, but he (or the web designer) likes to type it as "REiD". --Entoaggie09 03:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Puppy Pile" and other discussions

A Puppy Pile is a derogatory term. if there is to be a merger, it should be based on the elimination of reference or association between cuddle party and puppy pile. people arent dogs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VForVendetta (talk • contribs) 08:06, 2006 March 21 (UTC)

Hi V - thanks for discussing here. I'm not completely familiar with any association between the two terms - I need to do a little research, which will probably take me about 2 days or so to get around to. I will also look into why the Merge template was added, as I'm not familiar with all the history. Welcome to Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 16:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Hi V - I've looked into it and I disagree. If you Google "cuddle party"+"puppy pile", the very first link is cuddleparty.com and they use the term puppy pile in a non-derogatory manner to refer to something that may happen at a cuddle party. Johntex\^talk 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I find both terms fairly descriptive myself, although "cuddy party" does have mild flavor/connotation of focusing on existing bonds (exclusive membership, renewals). "Puppy pile" seems maybe a bit more open to new friendships (inclusive, formative as well as renewal).

Hmmm...maybe you PC people should rename the event a "Contact Comfort Gathering". The dirty truth is some women associate puppies with penises (because of the old nurse rhyme "boys are made of...snails and puppy dog tails...") and conservative males associate cuddle parties with secretive adolescent bonding among girls and are offended by its most extreme forms: bisexuality and gayness.

Thus "Cuddle Party" is ALSO a derogatory term to some. In part this is because the term Cuddle is more often taken in its romantic aspect when there is no generational difference between participating members. In reality "puppy pile" is considered more authentically descriptive in that it is a both more sexless term and specifies the contact comfort or non-romantic side of cuddle. 69.23.121.234 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing Neutrality Tag

No one has made any explanation here of why the Neutrality tag was added. Therefore, I am removing it. Before adding again, please discuss here. Johntex\^talk 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Merger

If no one has any objections, I am going to merge the puppy pile stuff over to here and create a redirect there. It seems that the two words mean the same thing, but that "cuddle party" is the preferred (standard) term. Turly-burly 11:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. Suggest a small note be added to the article pointing out what a 'puppy pile' is, once puppy pile is merged into this one. See cuddleparty.com definition & User:Johntex's comment that it's a sub-event of a cuddle party.

no mention whatsoever of a puppy pile anywhere in the article now... Mathmo ^Talk 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup some one played the PC card and had "puppy pile" removed...even though IMHO "Cuddle party" is almost as offensive and less accurate in inherent description. But then "Puppy Pile" offends a minority with a more vocal activist group. 69.23.121.234 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Jersey Shore

I don't know how notable this is, but I have heard the term 'cuddling' used on this show a lot and girls like Snooki in particular seem to enjoy cuddling with male roommates and potential dates as an alternative (though sometimes prelude) to sexual things. At first I thought it was a euphemism or code term but it seems that's what they actually do. I don't at all think the show is the origin of this usage, but it seems like a relevant example in popular culture. I am not sure where it originated but would it be worth mentioning? Bonechamber (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to find Cuddle Party events

The section of the article is not a collection of links, but it is a list of cities. It might is well be titled 'Where to find Evidence of Human Habitation', as that would be as useful. I will delete this section soon, if no one protests. 159.83.54.2 (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

COI edit request WP:RS, WP:SOCK, WP:COI, and self promotion of a business

• What I think should be changed:

This edit should be reverted.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuddle_party&diff=1056415051&oldid=1030395334

• Why it should be changed:

WP:SOCK: Erez Ben-Ari was using sock puppets to promote himself and his business, please see investigation archived here ^[2] which concluded in blocking all his accounts. BillShearim, NCSFreedom, and BenAriAtMicrosoft all belong to Erez as recorded here ^[3].

WP:COI, WP:RS: Erez has added his own businesses ("Spoonz" and "Hugz & Cuddles" to this article (as BillSeharim). This is self-promotion, COI, and the source cited is based on an interview with him. He is citing himself as the source. I believe this is not a reliable source. Erez Ben-Ari's page and his self-authored Hugz & Cuddles page ware recently deleted ^[4] due to some of the same violations as well lack of notability.

PressSourceCheck (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

‘’‘Request for cleanup and sourcing overhaul’’’

Hi all — the current version is very thin and has several sourcing/structure problems. Specific issues:

Lead fails verification / conflates terms (see the ^{[failed verification]} tag). The New York Magazine piece cited in the definition is about a high-school “’‘cuddle puddle’’” (an informal group snuggle), not the structured, consent-based branded events called “’‘Cuddle Party’’.” Treating these as synonyms is WP:SYNTH and misleads readers. We should distinguish the branded program (capitalized) from the colloquial festival/teen term. (See WP:V, WP:NPOV.) Over-reliance on primary/promotional sources. The history section leans on “according to their website” and early press blurbs. Per WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY, the core claims should rest on independent secondary coverage. Missing essential sections / scope. There’s no neutral description of the typical format (consent exercises, clothing-on rules, facilitation), no reception/criticism, no clear note that these events are distinct from ‘’‘professional cuddling’’’, and no safety/consent context. The article currently reads like a stub bordering on promotion, contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Dead/outdated links and incomplete citations. Several links need archive URLs and full bibliographic details. The lead also uses vague phrasing (“designed with the intention”), which is WP:WEASEL.

‘’‘Proposed fix (high level):’’’

Rewrite the lead to neutrally summarize what independent sources say: that “cuddle party” refers to a structured, nonsexual, clothing-on social event with explicit consent agreements and a trained facilitator; note the separate colloquial use of “cuddle puddle.”

‘‘Draft lead (for discussion):’’ A ‘’‘cuddle party’’’ (sometimes called a ‘’‘snuggle party’’’; not to be confused with the colloquial “’‘cuddle puddle’’”) is a structured, nonsexual social event in which participants engage in clothing-on physical intimacy such as cuddling under explicit consent agreements and the guidance of a trained facilitator. Academic and journalistic accounts describe welcome circles, consent/boundary exercises, and a nonsexual code of conduct.

Add sections:

‘‘Format and rules’’ (secondary descriptions; treat the nonprofit’s “Agreements” as primary and attribute) ‘‘History’’ (early NYC coverage; training/certification expansion) ‘‘Reception and media coverage’’ (balance: interest vs. cultural ambivalence; legal/liability questions raised in reporting) ‘‘Research on touch (not specific to cuddle parties)’’ (very brief, with secondary reviews; avoid health claims per WP:MEDRS-style caution) ‘‘Criticism and safety’’ (don’t conflate with psychotherapy; consent/competent facilitation)

Source upgrade (independent, secondary): examples we can use

Cornelia Mayr (2023). “’‘Touch Me if You Can: Intimate Bodies at Cuddle Parties’’.” ‘‘Journal of Contemporary Ethnography’’ — peer-reviewed ethnography of the format. Jon Fortenbury (2014). “’‘Fighting loneliness with cuddle parties’’.” ‘‘The Atlantic’’ — secondary overview of the phenomenon and rules. Katie Canales (2020). “’‘I cuddled with strangers at a San Francisco cuddle party…’’” ‘‘Business Insider’’ — first-person reportage that details facilitation, consent protocols. Libby Copeland (2004). “’‘A Touchy Subject’’.” ‘‘The Washington Post’’ — early independent coverage of the NYC launch. C. Sue Carter (2021). “’‘Oxytocin and love: Myths, metaphors and mysteries’’.” ‘‘Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology’’ — caution against simplistic “love hormone” narratives (helps keep any mechanism talk neutral). WHYY (2025). “’‘Feeling lonely from lack of touch? ‘Cuddle Parties’ might help’’.” — recent local public-media segment situating the practice (reception). ‘‘Cuddle Party Inc.’’ pages (’‘About’’, ‘‘Agreements’’) — primary; cite only for what the org itself states (rules, trademark, nonprofit status), not for efficacy claims.

Housekeeping:

Replace dead links with archived versions; fill in author/date/outlet. Add a brief hatnote or sentence distinguishing from ‘’’Professional cuddler’’’. Remove the “designed with the intention” wording and any unsourced health claims.

If there’s no objection, I can draft the overhaul in a sandbox and then bring the proposed text here for review and consensus before replacing the live page. Damirinho95 (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Although I am a new editor on Wikipedia, it's clear this page is in desperate need of a revision and this sounds much better. I would wholeheartledly approve. Xtrakruntch (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Xtrakruntch!

I’ll draft a sandbox rewrite that (1) separates the branded Cuddle Party from the colloquial “cuddle puddle”, (2) adds a neutral Format and rules section (consent circle, clothing-on, facilitation) with independent sources, (3) expands History and Reception/criticism, (4) removes/rewrites health claims per WP:MED-LEVEL sourcing, and (5) fixes dead links/archives and adds a hatnote to Professional cuddler. I’ll lean on Mayr (JCE, 2022/23), early WaPo/NY coverage, The Atlantic, and similar secondary sources, with the org’s site used only for self-descriptions.

If anyone has additional independent reviews or ethnographies (esp. distinguishing “cuddle puddle”), please drop them here—I’ll incorporate. I’ll post the sandbox link for review before proposing changes to the live page. Damirinho95 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

So I didn't see any "sandbox rewrite" to be discussed, but your recent large edit introduced numerous problems:

1. We don't need a "terminology" section simply because one outlet happened to capitalize this differently. This isn't a huge term with a huge debate over how to express it in print.
2. We don't need "format and rules" as a section - again, this isn't some significant activity with lots of coverage and complexity. A simple, sourced, sentence about the structure of the activity is sufficient. It also is problemat to add vague "typical" elements and then add an unsourced tag yourself.
3. Same with "reception & criticism" -- nothing suggests we need a whole section when a single sentence suffices
4. Trying to connect this with "Research and touch" is textbook WP:SYNTH.

In short, this is really a minor topic and I'm not sure even satisfies our WP:GNG guidelines. I doesn't justify these edits that seem to try to puff it up. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert and for spelling out the issues.

Just to clarify what I was trying to do — and where I agree I went too far:

On “terminology”. Fair point. For a topic of this size we don’t need a separate section just because some outlets capitalize “Cuddle Party” and others don’t. What I was aiming at was to distinguish the 2004 branded/facilitated format (“Cuddle Party” by Mihalko/Baczynski) from the looser “cuddle puddle” usage in festival/party coverage, since both meanings appear in sources. But if this can be handled in 1–2 sentences in the lead (“the term is also used by the media for informal group cuddling…”), I’m fine with that.

On “format/rules”. Also agreed. I wasn’t trying to invent structure — early 2004–2006 coverage (WaPo, People, ABC, Seattle Times) actually lists the same core elements: facilitator, opening circle, explanation of consent/boundaries, clothes-on. But if all we need in the article is one sourced sentence like “Events are typically facilitated and begin with a short consent/boundary briefing,” that’s better than a full section with

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Cuddle party" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

on it.

On “reception/criticism”. My intent wasn’t to “puff up” the topic but to put in one place the two angles that show up in coverage:

“response to touch deprivation/urban isolation,” and

“highly formalized/commercialized way of managing intimacy.”

That can absolutely live as a single, sourced paragraph without its own heading — I don’t insist on a big section.

On WP:SYNTH / “research and touch”. This is the most valid criticism. I wanted to explain why media sometimes mention oxytocin or “benefits of touch,” but we don’t actually have high-quality secondary medical/psych sources about cuddle parties specifically — only about touch in general. In that form it does look like “media mention hormones” + “there are touch studies” ⇒ “therefore cuddle parties are beneficial,” which is textbook SYNTH. The better version is to say something like: “Some media attribute possible benefits to touch/oxytocin, but high-quality medical sources on this specific practice are limited,” and leave ^{[unreliable medical source?]} there — without importing general touch literature.

On notability. I see the concern re: WP:GNG — the topic is mostly US-centric, clustered around 2004–2006, with occasional local revivals. My thinking was: since we do have several independent national outlets (WaPo, ABC, People, Seattle Times) + later local features repeating the same frame (“unusual/structured hugging events”), it’s more useful to organize what we have than to leave it as a stubby news-style note.

So what I’m happy to do:

trim it back to lead + History + a short sourced paragraph on media coverage/reception;

in the lead, note the dual media use (structured events vs informal “cuddle puddles”) so we don’t need a whole “terminology” section;

drop anything that reads like SYNTH with general touch/oxytocin research;

leave a single ^{[unreliable medical source?]} where the article reflects press claims without medical backing.

If you prefer, I can post the compact version here first so we don’t ping the page with another large diff. Damirinho95 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I've done more cleanup for encyclopedic tone and brevity. And again, we should not include content when we know we don't have a reliable source to back it up. Find the source first. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)