I think Cuddle Enthusiasts should become their own identity group or sexual orientation

StructuredQueryLanguageStructuredQueryLanguage
edited April 2023 in General

I think a person who enjoys platonic cuddling significantly or even prefers cuddling to sex is different enough from the "norm" that they should have the right to call themselves their own identity group or sexual orientation.

So many people out there are either touch-negative or only believe in romantic cuddling, so it would be good to be able to have a vocabulary to differentiate the preferences of cuddling enthusiasts. It would have so many practical benefits, including allowing cuddle enthusiasm to enter the mainstream as a selection on dating websites for instance.

Furthermore, I think an expanded sexual orientation based on preferring platonic cuddling could fix some of the issues out there with the fact that the asexual umbrella has been defined so broadly that it includes many mutually exclusive preferences, there being many folks who are touch-negative in a tent with folks who are touch-positive, not to mention sex-positive (yes, so many asexuals are "sex-positive") versus sex-neutral or sex-negative folks. Many touch-positive folks who are sex-neutral / sex-negative in the asexual umbrella by default could move to the cuddle enthusiasm umbrella more comfortably if it existed.

I also think there could be opportunities for social activism too, trying to get more acceptance of platonic cuddling or touch in our society, if cuddle enthusiasts were a full-on identity group or sexual orientation.

What do folks think of this idea? I think it could work if people get behind it!

«1

Comments

  • KarmicKuddles20KarmicKuddles20

    @StructuredQueryLanguage I see where you're coming from... I wouldn't have thought of it myself, but you explained your point clearly and it has given me something to think about

  • OhioMikeOhioMike

    Thinking thinking 🤔. This is all I got !

  • RezzRezz

  • Midnight01Midnight01

    No, this is terrible

  • [Deleted User]CharlesInWI (deleted user)

    Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

  • tedthebeartedthebear

    Make sure you wear a hefty bag when you cuddle this guy……

  • BearBear

    I really don’t think it’s necessary or worthwhile. I guess you’ll find out depending on how many people back you.

    I also don’t understand the sexual orientation part if it’s platonic Cuddling. Which is different than sexual or intimate, cuddling.

  • nonamenopenonamenope

    I don't have time for the white washing that I just witnessed right now and the mansplaning 😂

    You erased so much work that a lot of a sexual activists have done it's disturbing

  • [Deleted User]RaveHeart (deleted user)

    I'm not feeling this idea. This sounds like a slap in the face of LGBTQ+ people who struggle with facing real adversity for just existing and living their lives as their true selves. Nobody faces the same struggles that warrant a community of sexual identity acceptance and appreciation just from being a cuddle enthusiast.

  • pmvinespmvines

    I am however all for making a group identity club for people who enjoy Andes mints at dawn , but not a second before nor after .

  • Mr_Cuddle_BearMr_Cuddle_Bear

    @pmvines "Andeans of the Dawn"?

  • [Deleted User]Mman (deleted user)

    This ranks pretty high on the bad idea list imo.

  • pmvinespmvines

    @Mr_Cuddle_Bear I like it ! All we need are 2 more members and we can officially start our religion

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    So people over 50 would be called a Boomer Spooner? I think people would get us confused with Oklahomans who are Boomer Sooners.

  • Serena46Serena46

    @FunCartel Boomer Spooner??!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I can't!

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    @Serena46 I might change my user name to that.

  • PeopleLikeUsPeopleLikeUs
    edited April 2023

    I can think of two types of touch identities. One is a learning style (Kinesthetic or tactile) and the other is a love language. I would suspect that someone touch oriented would be smart to consider a potential partner where that orientation was mutual. But sexual orientation always assumes gender. Touch may be a sexual preference but not a sexual orientation.

  • JubalJubal

    @FunCartel I'm just past the half century mark and am most emphatically in Generation X - Billy Idol and all!! 😁

  • dave31415dave31415

    That’s better than the guy who wanted to call it a fetish.

  • StructuredQueryLanguageStructuredQueryLanguage
    edited April 2023

    @RaveHeart People who enjoy platonic touch do face some degree of adversity, though certainly not anywhere near the degree others have faced in the past or still face in some regions. People often assume that physical touch has to be romantic or sexual, or they assume it's always inappropriate, and this leads to plenty of people having issues on account of touch starvation.

    @RaveHeart Your same argument would apply to asexuality in general since folks not interested in sex wouldn't face adversity like those interested in sex in a way society shuns or prohibits. It's okay to have an identity group / orientation around a preference that is simply "quirky" as opposed to outright "taboo".

  • StructuredQueryLanguageStructuredQueryLanguage

    I'm surprised more people aren't at the least intrigued by this idea...

  • pmvinespmvines

    It's not intriguing.

  • john5555john5555

    Boomer Spooner. Best thing I have come across on these forums.

  • TxTomTxTom

    I was more intrigued with your "Jump To Conclusions" mat.

    Although I.would agree with making folks who mix Hi-C with Dr. Pepper at the soda machine their own group identity.

  • CuddleWhoCuddleWho

    I'm surprised more people aren't at the least intrigued by this idea...

    Accumulating more and more labels to apply to oneself doesn't really accomplish anything. You say you want a vocabulary to differentiate the preferences of cuddling enthusiasts. That vocabulary already exists; it's the English language. For instance, I'm mainly interested in cuddling women, mostly pros, I like to spoon, and I like cuddles that are casual and chatty. Isn't that description sufficient? Would inventing the term "hetero-pro-chat-spooner" accomplish anything?

  • PrettyLuvPrettyLuv

    No, but Boomer Spooner would

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    Absolutely!

  • PrettyLuvPrettyLuv

    Idk, I kind of like the idea. More to the point of what @PeopleLikeUs pointed out, idk if I would call it a sexual orientation but I could see it getting it’s own label as a “non-sexual” preference. It would definitely help in sorting out those looking for a relationship, versus those simply looking for sex, nsa, fwb, or just “cuddles” on the dating apps. I think it would need its own acronym though.

    Since it is your idea @StructuredQueryLanguage, you want to do the honors?

    Lol Boomer Spooner @FunCartel classic

  • cuddlefaerycuddlefaery
    edited April 2023

    This is a big bag of nope, and I believe most asexual people would agree. I say this as a demisexual person (demi is on the asexual spectrum) and active member within the LGBTQIA+ community locally and online. And while no one community is a monolith, you're going to get a LOT of pushback on this for a number of reasons.

    First, platonic cuddling is in no way, shape or form a sexual or even romantic orientation, so don't lump it in with them or imply that it is. Period. People of all sexualities can enjoy cuddling - their sexual orientation and gender have exactly zero to do with whether or not they enjoy it or are "attracted" to it. The closest comparable thing would be if it pushed to the level of a paraphilia or fetish, where someone has to have cuddling in order to get sexually aroused - but that still isn't sexual orientation.

    Just because a group has a strong identity does not mean it is discriminated against, and even if it faces some discrimination it does not mean that that discrimination is systemically built into the power structures that run our society. Likewise, just because a group with a niche identity is sex-adjacent does not mean they are inherently queer. For instance, there's been huge debate for years over whether romantic orientations and identities based off of romantic relationships structure should fall under LGBTQIA+ (polyamory, ethical non-monogamy, swingers, relationship anarchy, etc.). While everyone has their own personal views, the general community consensus is a resounding NO, because these relationship structures do not face the same level of hardship, systemic discrimination, and threats to health and life that being queer does. Does that mean being polyam/ENM/swingers/etc. is any less a part of their identity? No. Does that mean they don't face discrimination? No, they absolutely still can face it. But in general, in our society, it is just not going to be to the same degree as those in the LGBTQIA+ community, both historically and currently, statistically for most individuals and the community as a whole. And I say this as someone who is polyamorous, views it as my innate relationship orientation which is unchangeable and a large part of identity as a whole - just as much as me being demisexual and bi/pansexual.

    You cannot equate being a member of ANY niche identity with being a member of ALL niche identities or all adjacent identities. To do so is insulting/offensive to the other community and invalidating of their experience. It is saying "I know your group's experience just as well as you even though I haven't experienced it". It's an echo of colonialism and largely only done by white cisgendered people. While I'm sure there are exceptions, you don't generally see transpeople telling the Black community "we are Black because our struggles are similar"...even though the LGBTQIA+ movement (namely Pride) was started by Black transwomen. Instead they will say they are allies and they will walk and fight alongside - not claim membership with them. Similarly you won't generally see Black people claiming to be part of the AAPI community just because they have faced similar racism in our society, or members of either of those communities claiming to be members of the Indigenous American community just because they are all identities based off of minority race and cultures that have faced extreme discrimination (note: speaking of the communities as a whole here and not multiracial individuals, who absolutely can claim membership to multiple as their lived experience).

    What this post is showing is that you don't actually understand what sexual orientation, gender identity, gender discrimination, and the whole point of the LGBTQIA+ movement are - so please before you make any more posts like this, you need to go educate yourself and interact with the community you claim to be a part of before you do some serious damage by propagating false definitions and your own personal views as that of the whole community.

    LGBTQIA+ need to be allowed to define their own safe spaces, and just throwing in every adjacent identity makes that impossible. Instead, what we can do (and has already been happening) is make collaborative spaces for including multiple adjacent identity communities to interact and support each other. Queer
    /LGBTQIA+ focused platonic cuddle groups exist (that's actually how I got started in platonic cuddling, and is the primary focus of my professional cuddling practice), just like queer polyamory groups, or LGBTQ + BIPOC, or aro+ace (aromantic + asexual), etc. Instead of thinking to force the addition of extra identities into a group that already gets forced to conform by our allocishet society, why not create collaboration and invitation?

    I generally enjoy your thought-provoking posts and discussions, but for me this one crosses the line between being a bit socially oblivious into offensively ignorant. This is why learning about identity and intersectionality are so, so important - so that we don't get posts like this that equate a platonic physical act and the community that enjoys it with a community that historically and continuously has faced extreme discrimination for simply existing.

  • cuddlefaerycuddlefaery
    edited April 2023

    @StructuredQueryLanguage you are conflating stigma and just general lack of understanding towards an activity with discrimination towards an identity. Two completely different concepts. You can advocate for the former without needing to tag the latter onto the LGBTQIA+ identity.

    For a long time ballet was considered taboo in "polite society" and akin to prostitution. There is still a lot of social stigma against men in ballet - that it's an activity for girls and any boys who do ballet must be gay/sissies/etc. Does that mean that ballet dancers and activists like myself who want to get more people active in ballet and remove the social stigma should advocate for getting ballet added to the LGBTQIA+ umbrella? After all, it's a platonic activity, involves touch and intimacy, has pros and enthusiasts, and for some can be very tied to their sense of identity or not at all and just be a hobby - all like platonic cuddling. And like platonic cuddling, it can be practiced by people of any gender or sexual orientation, including asexual people who are touch and/or sex-adverse.

    You can substitute just about any platonic activity in here to see the flaw in this argument.

Sign In or Register to comment.