no . but its sad that women have made themselves so inaccessible or overpriced that a guys would even think this .
Catloaf- IMHO It is extremely platonically gay for two men to spoon.
That's a fun little persecution complex you got right there @Fairbutfirm 😝
Maybe if people were more secure in their manhood they wouldn't find others who doesn't conform to their idea of masculinity so personally objectionable.
The chat on this and other threads feels like being in grade school and kids being afraid of catching coodies. Two dudes leaning on each other while watching TV like in the example in the OP is hardly an intimate act.
MOD Edit: removed swear word [SoulcuddlerZ]
MOD: comment removed - personal attack [SoulcuddlerZ]
@emphaticrates I'm not even trying to argue what is or is not intimate (that is for each person to define for themselves) or what will or will not turn someone gay(stupid comment btw), I am merely pointing out for the umpteenth time......TO EACH HIS OWN for Christ's sake!! You come on here, say "I'm new here", and "idgaf", but that didn't stop you from trying to tell other people they are wrong for their personal choices. Great way to introdouche yourself !! And if you want to start talking about complexes and trying to get all intellectual, please learn how to use you're and your in the proper way. Thanks man!
@emphaticrates And it's a shame I have to point his out to you, but I have no objection to your idea of masculinity whatever it may be. What I find "objectionable" is how you clearly questioned other people's personal choices.
@Mark
Thought I’d suggest adding a “mute” feature for the forums...
@CharlesTwisted Think there is a suggestion thread for suggestions.
My two cents is that "platonically gay" is a thing in that a rose by any other name is still a rose. Orientations--sexual or romantic or quasi-romantic or even, ahem, platonic--aren't conscious decisions and aren't determined by behavior. They're determined by attraction, nevermind the plethora of types of attraction that may be playing into that particular orientation. Attraction can be intellectual, romantic, sensual, sexual, aesthetic, or a million other variations. Thus, a man can be platonically attracted to men, as in he feels more at ease in the company of male friends than female friends. Just as a woman can be platonically attracted to women, as in she feels more at ease in the company of her squad of girls than when out with male friends, even if she routinely hangs out with male friends on a more consistent basis.
PS: "Gay" isn't a perjorative term, guys and girls. Neither is "lesbian" or "queer" or any of the others dealing with orientation or sexuality. It's a descriptor used to identify a group of human beings that happens to have a different set of life experiences than the majority might, but it's not a perjorative. Some of you posters' fear of being wrongly identified by the words says more about you than it does about the group the words describe. Cut it out, wouldya?
@emphaticrates that's ridiculous. most guys don't like holding hands with guys. cuddling is more than holding hands so it shouldn't be a surprise that most straight guys won't cuddle with guys... It has nothing to do with things being platonic or not.
@Biblioromantic: The idea that platonic homosexuality might be a thing is... an odd idea.
Putting vocabulary aside for the moment, though, yes—it's possible to be platonically attracted to someone. Friendship attraction, for instance. Intellectual attraction. Aesthetic attraction. Cuddle attraction. All that.
Still, I wouldn't call it gay platonic attraction any more than I'd call a slightly different thing straight platonic attraction. Those are sexual-attraction-words. Not sure what I would call cuddle attraction between two men vs. between two women (or a man and a woman, or two agendered types, or a couple of genderfluid people, or any combination of the above, and so on).
I know lots of words. We may need new ones, if it's really important to define cuddle attraction between two men as being qualitatively different than cuddle attraction between two women (etc.).
At any rate we should leave the sex words out of it. The whole point is that it's platonic, after all.
I love how some of the arguments here ignore the very example given in the original question:
"An example: two of you are sitting watching TV and leaning on each other, slightly, shoulder to shoulder but not necessarily touching from shoulder to feet."
How vanilla is that? I don't think the OP or I ever talked about "Holding hands" like @melancholy intimated. What exactly are all of you expecting to happen in a "cuddle session" eh? It's certainly not what the OP defined it as above. Cause that's pretty tame...
But if it's something tantamount to "Platonically Gay", whatever that is. Then what exactly are you expecting to happen when you cuddle with others? I'm guessing something more than what most would define as "platonic".
I'm expecting the smell of perfume but not cologne. I'm expecting smooth cheeks with no stubble. I'm expecting to have conversation with a person with a higher voice, not a deeper one. So there are a few things for starters. Never really analyzed it before. Never really felt the need to. You like what you like.
I don't know how many times this is going to have to be addressed here. Discussion after discussion, we have seen endless infighting on whether it's okay for a man to cuddle another man.
Here's a bulletin! If you as a man would cuddle another man, that's perfectly okay and your stance is to be respected. If you as a man would not cuddle another man, that is also perfectly okay and your stance is to be respected. Attacking a man based on whether or not he would cuddle another man is getting old and unnecessary, to say the least.
Closed. 08 AUG 2019 10:37 EDT