On Cuddling

[rowyn]

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.

Comments

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

The thing that came immediately to mind as I was reading this and thinking "YES!! I know exactly what she means." ... well feel free to delete this comment if it falls into the TMI range...

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.

[dour.livejournal.com]

Do you ask to be touched? Like in detail? Do you explain what it is you like, and they still don't do it? In that case, you're just unlucky. But very few people are such assholes that they won't try to please you if you're sleeping with them. Maybe they just didn't know what you like?

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.

[rowyn]

Third and fourth ones from the top.

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.

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

heh... actually I just wrote a very long article on this yesterday. Talking about dating in the new millenia.... that boiled down to:

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*

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

Peace talks will be what ends the war. :)

[rowyn]

All of my SOs have been people who enjoyed cuddling: curling up with me and watching a movie, or just talking, or whatever. An act of touching and being in contact with one other that's entirely independent of sexual activity. I know that there are people who don't like this sort of thing. I would not last long in a relationship with one of them.

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*

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

"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."

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. :)

[rowyn]

And that comic had me wondering, too. ("Oh, no. They couldn't be. Could they? Oh, phew, they're not.") :)

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. :)

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

I notice your reaction is different from what I saw typically:

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. :)

[rowyn]

I would've been disappointed if they had been, largely because they had just revealed their feelings to one another. To have them go from "we're friends" to "we're lovers" in a handful of strips would've felt wrong to me.

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. :)

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

Good! That's the reaction I was hoping for.

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. :)

[rowyn]

You're quite right, you know. The "we just need more pwactice" conjured up fond memories for me. :)

[level-head.livejournal.com]

There is more than one kind of touch. At the beginning of your comment, I thought you were referring to something else, in fact, and that Dour's comment was not quite on the target. But later in your own post, you seem to have wandered back toward sex alone. (Well, not "alone" -- that's sad ... but back to that topic, anyway.)

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

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

Yeah I was referring to sex in my comment.... not so much as a separate topic.... but as an extension to my impressions to what Rowyn said. That it's difficult when one can't find that simple tender, caring, touch outside the realm of sex in one's life, but it's even stranger when even sex doesn't include that kind of touch.

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.

[rowyn]

Yeah. I wanted to talk about non-sexual cuddling specifically here, in part because it is so often considered a subset of sex. As if "cuddling" was synonymous with "foreplay", and it certainly isn't.

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.