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

Re: On Hugs

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I just found that photo just too funny not to pass around again.

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

[rowyn]

Yes, I think Jenny's got a point. And -- it may be that people simply don't know what they want. We're reluctant to say "Do this, it'll make me feel good" -- because what if it doesn't? What if we thought it'd be fun but it's not? Then we feel bad for putting the other through the effort of trying to please and failing. And of course, we're not any happier for the failed attempt, either.

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

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

Well, if "Try this" doesn't work, I'd just hope you know the person well enough to chuckle disarmingly, and say, "Oops, my fault. That didn't work did it? How about this?"

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

[rowyn]

What I like about mindlink isn't just "faster communication" but that idea of being able to explain without fear of being misunderstood. There's a line from "Death: The High Cost of Living" that I was quoting elsewhere today: "When you know someone really well, it's hard to dislike them". I think that idea sticks with me -- the idea that if I could explain exactly what my intentions were, what I was feeling and what I meant -- well, it'd be OK. That the real risk isn't in what I'm trying to explain, but that I'll explain it poorly. Or that I won't explain enough; I'll leave out some crucial detail that changes the whole nature of what I am trying to convey.

It seems like direct mind-to-mind interface would be so much more effective. :)

Re: On Hugs

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

I think truely knowing someone well enough means being willing to understand when someone says:
"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.