On Cuddling
Jun. 6th, 2004 12:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowyn![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
kelloggs2066 put up another in his collection of cute fox pictures, and gave it the caption of "It's Nice to Have Friends".For those of you who don't feel like clicking that link, it's a picture of four foxes cuddled into a pile.
People have a lot of different reasons for being interested in furries. This one is mine.
Snapshot:
I'm perhaps fourteen, watching a syndicated sitcom, "Alice", about a waitress in a diner. Even now, I can't tell you much about this show or why I watched it: becuase it was there, I suppose. I watched a lot of TV when I was younger.
On this particular episode, the cook is involved in a romance with a brash, gregarious woman who wears loud clothes, and loves life, and hugs everyone. The character is transitory; by the end of the episode, she will be gone.
But I watched her and I thought, That. That's what I want to be like when I grow up. The sort of person who introduces herself with a hug, and who doesn't care how strange other people think she is.
The first person I dated, when I was seventeen, I felt no attraction to. I dated him because I wanted someone to cuddle, someone to hold and be held by, and it seemed like the only way you got this was by having a Relationship with a member of the opposite sex. I stopped dating him after a very short time because he wanted a Relationship: love, and romance, and making-out, and all I wanted was to snuggle.
There's a rule somewhere -- an unspoken Rule and not shared by everyone -- that romance/making out/love/cuddling/sex are all the same thing. If you want to do one of those things with a given other person, then you must want the whole rest of the package, or at least be seriously considering it. I hate that rule. I've never believed in it and I've never been able to follow it. I understand that it works for some other people, and that's fine. I've got no problems with people who don't like to be touched or hugged, or who set different boundaries over what's appropriate.
What frustrates me is that it's hard to find out who belongs to which camp. The assumption is that everyone follows the Rule, and some times even asking, "Hey, do you mind if I hug you?" is considered a violation of the Rule by its followers. ("You weirdo! I'm not gay!")
Furry, as a subculture, tends to go too far in the opposite direction. The Rule in furry is almost, "Everyone likes to be touched and it's always okay", which isn't true, either.
But what I like about the fandom is that it made the topic something I could talk about. It was all right to ask. And all right to cuddle with people who were friends but would never be lovers. Cuddling could be just about cuddling, and not about anything else. For me, anyway. I doubt that was or is everyone else's experience.
I always associated this very much with the appeal of being furry -- the tactile pleasure of touching fur. Most people are much more physically affectionate with pets than they are with other humans. When I meet a strange cat or dog, I greet it by offering my hand and, if the animal and owner appear to approve, petting it. (With owners, I ask in words.) Imagine if we greeted other people on a daily basis with, "Oh! What a good person you are!" *petpetpet, scritch behind ears* "Would you like to sit in my lap?"
And if you didn't want to be petted, you could growl and hiss and the other person would back off. Would that be so bad? :)
Oh, granted, even I might find that somewhat wearying. Much as I like to cuddle my friends, I've gone through phases where I've been burnt out on it and withdrawn. And I don't feel the same way about all people, or even all my friends. Some people are just more cuddly than others.
But I do find myself wishing this was a conversation I could have with more people. Something safe to talk about, without so much awkwardness and risk of misunderstanding.
Even as I write this, I find myself wondering how well I'll be understood.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 10:41 am (UTC)If you look at my list of interests.... you'll see, "being petted", and "being brushed".
Oo! Oo! Being brushed!
Date: 2004-06-06 10:50 am (UTC)Re: Oo! Oo! Being brushed!
Date: 2004-06-06 10:54 am (UTC)Re: Oo! Oo! Being brushed!
Date: 2004-06-06 12:32 pm (UTC)Re: Oo! Oo! Being brushed!
Date: 2004-06-06 01:23 pm (UTC)But for pure pleasure brushing there's nothing like boars hair bristles. Apparently they're better for your hair as well as the natural bristles distribute the oils in your hair more readily, and are less apt to break the hair.
Eep!
Date: 2004-06-06 02:24 pm (UTC)(I found one elsewhere for $35, which is a leetle more in my price range for overkill accessory. :)
Re: Eep!
Date: 2004-06-08 06:26 pm (UTC)I think my wife said she paid around $15 for hers.
Makes a huge difference in feel and glossiness.
Re: Oo! Oo! Being brushed!
Date: 2004-06-08 06:24 pm (UTC)Brushing:
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 11:08 am (UTC)Anyway... one of the greatest frustrations for me, has always been the number of lovers in my life who will take you to bed, have sex with you, sleep with you, but they won't actually TOUCH you. It boggles my mind, now maybe I'm just hellaciously unlucky in my choice of lovers, but I tend to think that that many men doing it so dreadfully badly.... there must be some kind of a trend here.
Maybe (and I'm only speculating here), we in North America are so culturally obsessed with the aquistion of sex, that we never learn about doing it well. We're working from a goal oriented mind set. *shrug* Or maybe I'm just unlucky.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 12:17 pm (UTC)The other problem in America is that we don't talk about sex. At all. It's a complete taboo, and even though pretty much nobody likes that, pretty much everybody has fallen prey to the mindset that you just shouldn't speak about what you like. This often leaves people wanting things that they don't get, because everyone gets turned on differently (and making matters worse, few people realize this because we never talk about it).
Hell, it could be said that you're lucky in that you really know what you enjoy. Lately the prohibition on physical thought has been so strong that people are browbeaten for investigating their own pleasures. There's no such thing as "sex education" in schools anymore; it's universally "abstinence education" now. The more progressive courses are "abstinence-plus," the implications of which are absolutely disgusting. But now I'm on a ranty topic in someone else's LJ, so I'll stop. :>
Ah, yes.
Date: 2004-06-06 12:59 pm (UTC)From my own experience, I think that you (and Bruno, in the strip) are entirely correct: the best approach is to say what you want. Which works, you know, quite a lot of the time in a whole variety of situations.
But, (again I'm agreeing with you!) this is so one of those taboo conversations. In some ways, it's worse than talking about cuddling, though in some ways it's better. Most everyone at least understands an interest in sex, even if they think it's impolite to talk about it. More people seem confused by the idea of snuggling up to people you are not romantically attached to. ("Why are you hugging my husband? Get away from him, you hussy!")
And I find that with both sex and foreplay, it's very difficult both (a) to know what I want and (b) to communicate what I want. Lut's worked hard at overcoming these handicaps on my part, with considerable success. For which I am grateful. :) But this is much trickier for me than with almost any other subject. I can tell someone giving a backrub what he's going right or wrong. But a lover? Uh ... not sure.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 01:28 pm (UTC)talk talk talk and more talk. Communication is the only way to survive dating .... in any century :)
And I'm with ya 100% on the education thing. Even when we do teach the mechanics of it.... then we say "don't do this", and we NEVER end up talking about the emotions involved, about love, about tenderness.
*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 01:31 pm (UTC)However, when it comes to the act of sex, I agree that men tend to be more goal-oriented than women. They're not as interested in touching and contact as a form of arousing sexual desire. It does seem like "making out" is something I stopped doing with partners, once I started "making love".
I'll agree as long as you put the emphsis on *Tend*
Emphisis mine.
I think it depends on the mood.
It also depends on how well communication is established. If both know what the other wants, it's a lot easier to figure out how things should go.
However, judging by the fact that I managed to completely pull the wool over most guys eyes here, I think you're right about the tendancy:
http://www.hirezfox.com/21cf/d/20040202.html
That "tend" was certainly in there for a reason. :)
Date: 2004-06-06 02:10 pm (UTC)But, yes, there are certainly goal-oriented women and men who prefer to meander along and savor the view. So to speak. :)
Re: That "tend" was certainly in there for a reason. :)
You say: "Oh no! They couldn't be. Could they? -- Oh, phew."
The guys said, "Oh HO!? Could they be? - Oh."
Which goes in line with your point.
But, I have to ask now: Were you disappointed when you thought they were? It sounds that way.
I'm curious about how women Tend. :)
Re: That "tend" was certainly in there for a reason. :)
Date: 2004-06-06 02:44 pm (UTC)That it's also the cheap movie clichê (in modern films, the protagonists are always falling in bed together on short notice) makes it even less appealing.
So I was pleased by the punchline, in more ways than one. :)
Re: That "tend" was certainly in there for a reason. :)
Smooching is fun, and sexier than a jaded audience would think. But I don't think everyone quite knows that.
Re: That "tend" was certainly in there for a reason. :)
Date: 2004-06-07 06:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 08:57 pm (UTC)I am extremely fortunate, in ways that I am often bemused and astounded by. Sometimes, just a touch, just a hand -- just a point of contact, and so much can be conveyed. It is a wonderful thing.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 11:54 pm (UTC)OTOH, her thoughts here, amongst other things instigated my own post.. which isn't really about sex... but about what she's talking about... human contact, a touch, a tenderness.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 06:19 am (UTC)But because of that, talking about the one does often result in talking about the other, which is quite understandable.
I must say, I'm unhappy to hear about your experiences with lovers who are never interested in touching. /O.O\ I don't know if you're unlucky or I'm lucky or both, but I haven't personally been involved with anyone of that sort. (Thank goodness!) But I have heard of the type. I don't know what causes or creates it. Kind of makes me think of certain religious sects that make the human body in general, and sex in particular, into a dirty, wrong, shameful act, performed furtively between even married couples and only for procreation. That sort of attitude (which is not in any way intrinsic to the Christian faith IMHO, even if some Christian sects have encouraged it) does create a culture of "all touch is bad."
Which is a very sad thing, I think.
But I'm sure that not all people who don't like being touched, under any circumstances, were influenced in that fashion.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 12:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 01:32 pm (UTC)On Hugs
Generally, I can say that I don't mind being hugged, provided I know what that hug means.
If it means, "You're a close friend and I want to hug you." that's fine. Provided the person Is in fact a close friend.
If I'm not sure what the hug means, then it depends.
As a strange example: Last fall, I met up with a very huggy friend: White Pony. He's a good guy, and his online persona is the most huggy person I know. (He was also in considerable pain at the time and really *needed* a hug.)
Another factor is going to make me sound like some monstrous sort of bigot: White Pony is heterosexual. A hug is just a hug, and I can be very certain that there's no other meaning to it. I honestly can't say I'd be comfortable enough to hug a gay guy unless I knew them well, and they knew me well enough to know where my boundries are. Yeah, I know. That makes me a freak in some corners, but, this isn't about me being a freak or not, it's about honesty, which is what communication and hugs are all about anyway.
When it comes to ladies, I don't mind hugging anybody who wants a hug. However, again, I like to know what the hug means.
If the hug means, "I'm interested in you." I want to know that. If the hug means, "I'm your friend and I only want to hug you." I want to know that too. And frankly, I want to know it as soon as possible before I make a fool out of myself.
Re: On Hugs
Date: 2004-06-06 02:04 pm (UTC)If I'm not romantically interested in someone, I don't want to encourage them to think that I am, or that I might be later on. If I get the vibe I get is "I want to hug you, but only because I want to have sex with you" -- then I'm inclined to avoid physical contact with that person altogether.
On the other hand, sometimes the impression I get is "I like cuddling. I'd be happy to have sex with you, too, but just cuddling is fine and I don't assume I'm going to get anything else out of this." And those are people that I'm usually happy to cuddle with.
Although I don't share your particular concerns about homosexuals vs heterosexuals, I do sympathize. I think there are even factors at work for men that don't apply to women. Because I know that women usually have a lower sex drive, and that their interest is likely to be on more of an emotional than physical level, I'm not going to think "She's a lesbian, so she must be attracted to me." By contrast, men have a higher libido that's much easier to arouse. So I think it's a lot easier both to provoke an undesired reaction from a man, and to feel like you're getting an undesired reaction from him. and I can certainly see how that would reduce your comfort level.
Re: On Hugs
Date: 2004-06-06 02:42 pm (UTC)You never know when people will get the wrong idea.
And some people go out of their way to get the wrong idea. :(
But once the frequency and wavelength are established, hugs are available at your discretion.
However, depending on the circumstances, there are times when one's libido is in a heightened state such that hugging is inadvised. Under such a circumstances, Not hugging shows better understanding and friendship than hugging does.
Yeah, I know, that probably sounds hoplessly stupid, or hoplessly lecherous. But communiction means sometimes being willing to appear stupid.
Re: On Hugs
Date: 2004-06-06 08:48 pm (UTC)Re: On Hugs
Date: 2004-06-07 06:47 am (UTC)Knowing when not to hug is an art form I've never mastered, though I can certainly appreciate that it's sometimes the best response.
Re: On Hugs
But, I think an awful lot of it comes down to there being enough communication between people to make certain that the right message is being conveyed.
People have a tendancy to not want to talk about things because putting things into words makes them more vulnerable than they would otherwise be. As Jenny observed, "If I tell you, (how I feel) it's not spontaneous, and (the responce) doesn't feel (genuine)."
That's why Jack is trying to assure her that he'll do his best to learn telepathy.
Actually, I think that's why a lot of people wish they Were telepathic, so that they could just peek at someone's mind to find out if it's okay to be friendly, so that their noses won't get bitten. ;)
Re: On Hugs
Date: 2004-06-07 07:15 pm (UTC)The Champions system had two forms of "mind reading". One of them was "telepathy", which let eneabled the telepath to read the thoughts of others even if they didn't want to be read. The other was "mindlink" which let two people share whatever thoughts they cared to.
I've always felt leery about telepathy. But mindlink ... now that'd be pretty cool. :)
Re: On Hugs
mindlink" which let two people share whatever thoughts they cared to.
I'm not sure. If you're not letting your guard down any farther than you would in conversation (Telling people what you care to) I'm not sure it has all that much advantage over a gentle conspiritorial whisper.
Thing about telepathy:
I always imagine that telepaths would be like someone walking around with X-ray glasses on that could see through everyone's clothes.
This sounds Horrifically Embarrasing at first, until you realize that the Telepath can see EVERYONE'S thoughts. Now, most folks will be afraid that all their emotional scars and ugliness might show to a telepath, but if Everyone has scars, then one person can't really be that much worse than another. It would be like walking through a nudist colony. Nobody's covered up, so no one looks better than anyone else, unless they're like a pedophile or something.
As a ludicrous example, suppose you could see my "Inner Benny Hill". Would you learn things that I'd rather not have anyone know? Probably. But would my Inner Benny Hill be any worse than anyone else's? I doubt it.
Re: On Hugs
Date: 2004-06-07 07:42 pm (UTC)It seems like direct mind-to-mind interface would be so much more effective. :)
Re: On Hugs
"No, that's not what I meant."
or
"It's hard for me to put into the right words, listen carefully."
or
"I'm not saying this very well. Do you understand what I'm trying to say, even if it comes out funny?"
Or when someone says "You know how I feel about you, so please don't take this the wrong way"... they don't take it the wrong way.
For what it's worth...
Date: 2004-06-06 08:47 pm (UTC)Re: For what it's worth...
Date: 2004-06-07 06:31 am (UTC)(And hey, I'm still sharing my bed with you ... and your husband, and children, if I understand correctly. :D )
Re: For what it's worth...
Date: 2004-06-08 09:26 pm (UTC)On Hugs!
Date: 2004-06-07 02:12 am (UTC)And on some terms knowing that the rest of the world has issues with the difference that I see between a good hug and time spent cuddling as opposed to intimate relations, foreplay and sexual gratification.
I suppose one could get all clinical and try to disect it down to some sort of behavioral habit that's passed down through one's upbringing as a result of whether or not one's parents made it clear that touching was taboo or touching was fine. I know my own parents (much to my grievance and childhood trauma) wouldn't hold me under any circumstance, so I find it very soothing indeed just to have someone nearby, I've almost no personal space whatsoever, and couldn't be happier than when I have someone (whether a stranger I know in passing, or someone I care for) curled up close against me, especially if I know it pleases them to be close.
I still remember when you were down May, and perhaps the best greeting I've ever recieved *smiles* hugs are always nice indeed, and I've never had one that felt so nice (then again, I dislike most of my relatives, which means my normal supply of non-mousie hugs is rather lack-lustre indeed) but it still warmed my heart just to get to hug for a moment.
I suppose a portion of it is wrapped up in the sexual issues of our time, we've started to make sexuality into a physical conquest. It used to be the emotional conquest of romance, the idea of treating the other person in that special manner to communicate to them your desire to be close, whether to have sex, to have children or to form the bond of marriage (and even in the past not necessarily all three at once). But these days the conquest has moved into the physical, romance dies more quickly in most cases, and what's developed is a sense for seduction, short skirts, makeup, muscular bodies, scents, confidence. Unfortunately its made us a society that's both shallow and carefully withdrawn, something in the wiring of our society says that touching is meant for three things: soothing someone's hurts, greeting family, and sexual intimacy. (I'll have to look into this at some point, it would be interesting to find out if there's been many studies on the history of touch, since animals seem to be far less uptight about it, it seems to be something that has developed along with higher brain function, which suggests that there is probably a history of where we decided that touch was a bad thing, and left exceptions for certain circumstances. I've a feeling it's probably something caste oriented, a dividing point in the worth of others and whom someone shouldn't be touching... but, I digress)
I certainly agree as to your reason for being interested in furries though, I suppose on some level I share it, I've -always- loved the differences I feel between animals and humans and I cherish the times when I get to spend time with a pet who shares my lack of personal space (like, finding a friendly cat to scritch, spending time at a pet store petting random cute animals or spending lazy days curled up on the couch with a snugglable, happy companion)
Now if only the furry world at large could find its bearings and find a happy medium between touching nearly everyone and everything in its rebellion against human culture, and the upright, rather anal upbringing that has lead most humans to feel that one can't -just- touch and enjoy it for what it is.
Anyhow *hugs* take care sweet May
Re: On Hugs!
Date: 2004-06-07 01:17 pm (UTC)On pets -- I know what you mean about ones with "no sense of personal space". When I adopted mine, I checked over all twenty or so up for adoption at the vet's, looking for the most affectionate ones there. Some cats don't like constant attention -- I didn't want to wind up with one of those. :)
I think you have an interesting point re: caste differences. There may also be an evolutionary advantage to avoiding contact: close proximity promotes the spread of disease. Not as muchof a factor nowadays, but probably significant even a century ago. I don't think that's as big a factor as other taboos, but it probably contributed to the survival of cultures that had no-touching taboos.
Re: On Hugs!
Date: 2004-06-07 05:57 pm (UTC)This doesn't apply to families with money - but - in most homes the children slept 'many to a bed' - if the family could afford to segregate the boys and the girls, they were lucky.
In the rural areas (most of the country, at that time) the boys were sent to sleep in the barn when they got old enough to be a 'hazard'.
I think they had all the touching and closeness they could stand.
Re: On Hugs!
Date: 2004-06-07 06:20 pm (UTC)This might have contributed to the formation of a society which considered keeping one's distance a Good Thing(tm).
Or, I don't know. Perhaps as income levels rose and space was an affordable luxury, just that it was a luxury made it seem more desirable.
But I'm just randomly speculating. It does seem like American society has a very different notion of "personal space" and what constitutes "acceptable contact" from many other mammals. And other cultures have had much stronger taboos against touching other people, I think. But I really don't know what forces have shaped us to turn out the way we did. The pendulum seems to be swinging the other way now -- I think a lot more Americans are comfortable hugging and touching their friends today than was the case thirty years ago. Particularly among men.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 06:48 am (UTC)Hard to tell - a lot depends on 'where' the person you're talking to is - and what the current situation is when you're having the conversation.
Let's talk about this when we get together - I think a lot of factors come into play - others have already made comments about communication, clothing (the way we display ourselves), childhood experiences, hormones. I haven't seen any comments about high-level functioning autism, but I think it may come into play more often than we realize.
Meantime - give yourself a big hug - you're one of the nicest people you know.
All the best, The Lady, Anne
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 07:00 pm (UTC)(You know, these are the folks who email me nude pictures of buff men. Why am I worried about offending them? Yet I am.)
Let's talk about this when we get together - I think a lot of factors come into play
Sure! I do think there are a whole lot of factors at work. I think the degree to which sexual interest is involved plays a significant role, too. That women are more comfortable hugging their female friends than men are with male friends (or even friends of the opposite sex hugging each other) might be a result. Women may just not be as worried about provoking an undesired response -- it's not considered as likely a possibility.
And what Ocean's Edge said below, about her husband's hugs being usually a prelude to sex -- that really resonates. I think that if your mind becomes programmed to associate "touch" with something else, then you stop responding to the "touch" itself and start responding to that something else. Typical conditioned behavior. I remember hearing about a sex therapist treating a couple, and one of their problems was that the wife didn't want her husband even to touch her, because she always felt too tired to have sex, and always thought that was what he really wanted. So she didn't even want to get started on anything that could remotely lead to sex. (The therapist's response was to have them spend a couple of weeks with the husband giving the wife daily backrubs and other attention, while they were specifically instructed not to have sex during those weeks. The "forbidden" was kind of neat, because it alleviated the guilt the wife previously felt in denying her husband sex.)
Er. Long tangent, there.
Anyway, ultimately, I'm not so much concerned with why people feel the way they do, as with what they feel. Mostly, I just want a better way to figure out which people feel the same way I do and therefore it's OK to hug them. ;) On the reverse side -- sometimes that's something you can only find out by doing. It's like playing a game: sometimes you don't know if you'll like it or not until you've played it for a while. And sometimes a given game is more with certain players than with others.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 11:48 am (UTC)There is also a condition my friends and I used to playfully call "touchmeitis"... tends to happen to mothers of young children a fair bit, or those who do daycare. Children touch, they touch they grab, they paw, they climb, this is what children do. It's a good thing, and as a mom I was very receptive and tolerant of it. But I also had 3 children under the age of 5 at one point. By 5 or 6 in the evening, I was about ready to scream if "one more person touches me!", it was I suppose at the time just the simple lack of personal space for extended periods of time that eventually makes a person a little cranky.
My husband at the time had a hard time understanding that I didn't want him creeping up behind me while I was cooking dinner and giving me a great big ol bear hug. He took it as a very personal rejection, despite my explaining that it wasn't him, as much as it was me, needing to refind my personal space for a little while before I was ready for hugs and cuddles and physical contact of any kind. (Of course with him a hug usually was a prelude to sexual contact, so as you noted earlier, I also had less reason to trust it.)
Touch starvation
Date: 2004-06-18 01:46 pm (UTC)But we, at least in western society, don't do this. Well, at the very least, men don't. I've always envied women the ability to hug, hold hands, etc., without being seen as abnormal (however, judging from your post, this isn't exactly a universal experience). Somewhere along the line, we lost the notion of social touching. But many still feel that need to touch and be touched.
I agree that the association between touch and the issues of love, intimacy, sex, etc., problematic for many. It implies that we can only touch those that we pair bond with and, ergo, we must pair bond in order to engage in touch.
That bites.
Maybe it's time to start a new movement, like distributing t-shirts that read "open to casual cuddling" or somesuch. I've actually rolled the idea of wearing a "free hugs" t-shirt, but never actually had the nerve to go through with it. Perhaps that should change.
Anyhoo, enough musings for the mo'.