Asymmetric risk

geoff1000geoff1000
in General

I think we all agree that the female cuddlers put themselves at risk of physical harm, to a much greater degree than the male cuddlers.
However, I hope we aren't forgetting that the male cuddlers ( at least the emotionally sensitive ones ) put themselves at risk of emotional harm. Male boundary-pushers are properly criticised ; but what about the female cuddler who says they are so needing of the experience, and want more commitment, even if it is just much more platonic cuddling ? The male cuddler could not be too restrictive or harsh to a female with such strong emotional needs, without losing the very quality, which makes them valuable.
When male cuddlers pick female cuddlers that they might choose as dates ; are they perhaps insuring against that situation, by choosing those that they would be happy to date, if the female cuddler decided they wanted that ? When cuddlers choose cuddle partners who match their date-gender preference, they are already at least one step in this direction.
If I'm right, cuddling is emotionally rewarding, because physical contact is a necessary element of the "biological imperative", and the brain is fooled into thinking it has "ticked a box" ; and those who play the lottery, know it is enjoyable to have, at least for a time, the feeling that one has at least the possibility, of a jackpot win. To properly meet that need, doesn't there have to be at least the perception of the possibility of such an outcome ; so the ideal male cuddle partner, not only absolutely refrains from any boundary pushing, but seems to be someone who would step up to a responsibility if it occurred ?
I'm drawing a parallel with the ideal shop for browsing : it has items you might want to buy, so being in the shop lets you enjoy the emotional reward of imagining owning them ( or something similar) ; and you can visit whenever you want, to enjoy a chat with the sales staff ; but there is absolutely never any obligation to buy. The sales staff meantime get the emotional reward of knowing that there are potential customers, who are showing enough interest in the stock to at least spend their time around it, even if they never buy anything.
Geoff

Comments

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    Maybe remember that the female cuddlers (at least the emotionally sensitive ones) are also putting themselves at risk of emotional harm.

    In addition to the risk of physical harm we all already know so much about.

    There are people of all genders who push emotional boundaries, and making sure you only pick people you'd be more or less okay with having those boundaries broken by is not a healthy way of maintaining boundaries—emotional or physical.

    If cuddling is emotionally rewarding because physical contact is a necessary element of the Biological (supposed) Imperative Whose Name We Do Not Type, then everyone should stop cuddling their kids immediately, because dude: that's gross. Fortunately, cuddling is emotionally rewarding not because most humans like sex, but because all humans need physical contact in order to be healthy, starting at babyhood.

    You don't need to trick any part of your brain into thinking "cuddling = being in the sex shop but not buying anything!"

    No one needs to be thinking that.

  • GrouchoGroucho

    Very interesting positions, both.

  • littermatelittermate

    It sometimes stuns me how narrow a band some fellows have for being close without it being sexualized. It explains a lot of our confusion with each other.

  • geoff1000geoff1000

    Isn't cuddling your kids, a reminder that you have achieved the biological imperative, given that you probably wouldn't ( at least as a man) be allowed to cuddle a stranger's kids that way ?
    I'm happy to agree that cuddling by partners, is different to parents cuddling offspring ; but the first is a suggestion that the biological imperative is possible, while the second is proof that it has been met, so they are similar but different.
    When childless couples adopt, or a childless adult becomes a step-parent, they aren't meeting the biological need to reproduce by gene-sharing, but are meeting the (perhaps stronger) need to raise children. Isn't it true that partners sometimes effectively take on at least temporarily, what is normally a parent-child relationship ; where one is utterly committed to the welfare of the other, gaining from the act of giving, and with 'the act of which we do not speak' not being in the mind of either ?
    If it isn't that, I don't understand how platonic cuddling a date-gender aligned person, feels so much better psychologically than cuddling a pillow or a hot-water bottle.
    Is it perhaps that cuddling requires a great deal of trust exchange, and the biological imperative also needs a great deal of that ; so cuddling is evidence that one is trusted by, and / or can trust, others, in a situation where abuse of trust can be catastrophic ? I remember once crossing the road with a friend, and realising that we had each only looked for traffic coming from our direction, instead of both looking in both directions. Mountaineers roped together, is a more extreme example of two people acting as one ; or even the friendships born out of shared military service.
    Back to where I started, male and female partners face asymmetric risk ; and is that risk element part of the reward, that one feels better having done something that might have gone bad, but didn't, because it gives one more confidence for the next scary challenge ?
    Geoff

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    If it isn't [the biological imperative], I don't understand how platonic cuddling a date-gender aligned person feels so much better psychologically than cuddling a pillow or a hot-water bottle.

    ...Seriously? Okey-dokey, then.

    Humans need physical touch from other humans. Therefore, cuddling with ANOTHER HUMAN BEING (whether or not your sexual orientation gives them a thumbs up) will feel much better than cuddling with a non-human object.

    Back to where I started, male and female partners face asymmetric risk

    Yeeees. Males risk emotional harm. Females risk emotional and physical harm. Does the danger of cuddling make it more rewarding? ...Hoo boy. You know, I think I'm gonna leave that one alone.

  • TheFunCartelTheFunCartel

    This is one of those threads that makes me taste vomit in my mouth because it turns common sense into mental masturbation.

  • snuggleme123snuggleme123

    turns common sense into mental masturbation.

    I offer no opinion on this thread. Just appreciation for this turn of phrase.

  • CuriousBearCuriousBear

    I understand men can be more physically threatening, and how that could be an issue, but in today's age where guns and knives are a thing, women can be just as dangerous as men. Especially in such an intimate position as cuddling.

    As an interesting history note, one of the most likely places to get assassinated was the barbers shop, especially in less lawful places. This is due to the fact that you are letting someone with sharp objects near your head and neck, with little to protect you from them killing you.

  • geoff1000geoff1000

    "Humans need physical touch from other humans"
    I'll buy that idea, based on experience and observation, but why ?

    We need air, water, food, shelter etc. else we are dead ; and other things, else our death is the end of our gene line.
    Where does human touch fit in ? What "end need" is it fulfilling, what is genetically beneficial about wanting human touch, which has driven evolution to make us seek it ?
    The non-pros on this site ( and probably most of the pros ) feel that need, and feel rewarded by obtaining it ; I'm just struggling to make sense of it.
    Physical contact uniquely allows the person one is with, to be sensed : continously, and with no effort by either party ( unlike looking at them, or conversing with them ) ; so is it just the most effortless way of being reassured that one is with someone ?

    Is there, or should there be, a "cuddle-less comfort" site, for those who consider any sort of touch as boundary-crossing, but are emotionally rewarded by simply being with another person ?
    I don't think we should deny people the "need" for human "contact", by insisting on a physical element ; any more than people should be denied physical contact, by insisting there must be a sexual element. My question is rather like asking vegetarians, not why they aren't carnivores, but why they aren't vegans.
    Geoff

  • littermatelittermate
    edited November 2019

    I like your curiosity and inquiry.

    One thing I can offer from my studies of human trauma is this: the immature nervous system needs physical contact with a mature one in order to settle down into coherence. Most of us didn't get that as young ones. Thus, we seek it as adults. My user name implies something -- baby kittens and puppies sleep all over each other and all over their mamas. Baby kittens and puppies are not attempting to procreate when they do that. I imagine, if we want to talk Darwin, that species that are proximal to each other procreate more often, so the ones in the tribe that are most likely to seek the warmth of others were more likely to survive than the ones who weren't likely to. I notice there is something about being snuggled with someone that allows a kind of subtle body-held vigilance to relax (mine is subtle -- others' might not be so subtle). So perhaps also the organism knows that it's safer to be in a pack, and there's nothing that says "pack" so much as proximity. And maybe not only are we safer and thus more likely to survive to procreate, but we might also purely enjoy that feeling of safety because without it, there is likely to be a subtle tension in the body that isn't as yummy as pure sensational relaxation.

    My cats like to sleep on my body. As far as I can tell, they don't have sex on their minds. They do it with each other too, and sometimes animals do it cross-species (cat and dog, etc.). It is yummy somehow to be curled up against another warm, living animal and when our survival needs are taken care of, the next thing we seem to look for is enjoyment. At least my cats seem to.

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    Well said, @littermate. All of that. The human need for physical contact might come from the "when the entire tribe's in a pile, sex is more likely to happen" thing, but it's definitely free from that now—and frankly, the "when you're in the middle of a huge pile of people, any outside predator is way less likely to target you specifically" thing seems like a big deal too. Procreation wouldn't be the main driving force here even in ancient times.

    Also, as a sex-repulsed ace who regularly snuggles up with a bunch of siblings, I find the idea that I enjoy being close to them because of sex an exceedingly ick idea.

  • littermatelittermate

    @DarrenWalker I find the auto-linking of sex and physical closeness whacked. I understand through conditioning we can end up that way, but I don't think it's inherent. I am increasingly uninterested in being close to people for whom there's no bandwidth outside of it or people don't recognize that it's something to actually recover from and expand outside of. (I think men in particular, as well as sexual abuse survivors of all sorts, are particular conditioned in this way. Closeness=sex.)

    As a mama it was a sweet thing to have my child so interested in being ON me and certainly neither of us were getting all sexy over it. I have a switch inside where I can open to things going sexy if the right conditions are met, but my default when snuggly is not-sexy. Still sensual, still open, but not sexy. And at this point in my life, I'm way more interested in exploring the wide band of possibilities in not-sexy-land.

    The funny thing about humans is we aren't ONLY beasts. We are also spirits (at least in my experience). I don't buy the arguments that reduce love simply to a product of evolution. There is a way that the love that I am reaches out to touch the love that you are with my paws in an exceedingly non-beasty unselfish way. That's what I have a kick exploring these days.

    I enjoy the crap out of your mind and way of expression.

  • snuggleme123snuggleme123

    @DarrenWalker and @littermate everything was perfectly said. I dont think I have ever felt more loved and fulfilled then in the quiet intimacy of a long still embrace.

  • littermatelittermate

    @snuggleme123 <3

  • geoff1000geoff1000

    I think we are getting somewhere, and thanks for all the contributions.

    So if someone on this site said they wanted a "cuddle" which was not only platonic, but non-physical contact ; would we understand and respect that ? Would we let them set a boundary even more 'tight' than we do, or do we insist that they can only have our "intimacy", by letting someone invade their physical space ?
    Do those who say "all humans need physical contact" recognise that they are effectively saying that is a definition of human, and those who don't seek it, aren't human ? Wouldn't that make us as proscriptive and zealous as those who say contact = sex ?

    Many people like a social drink, and criticise those who overstep the boundary into drunkeness ; but abstainers are not banned from pubs, or rejected by society as weird. Struggling alcoholics wouldn't want to feel they must have at least one drink, as a condition of being invited to a party.
    Perhaps one way to accommodate the boundary pushers, and those who are wary of boundary pushers, is to let them enjoy our company, under even stricter rules. Could we give them a safe space where they can learn to walk, and accept they may be happy only ever doing that ; instead of insisting immediately that they run with the pack, then laughing when they fall, or criticising them when they blunder into others ?
    Geoff

  • littermatelittermate
    edited November 2019

    Hmmmm, interesting.

    The definition of cuddling implies physical contact ("hold close in one's arms as a way of showing love or affection.")
    I'll bet you the number of folks interested in what you're describing may not be large on this site because people have gathered here to participate in cuddling. I personally probably wouldn't be interested because I have many buddies and clients who I hang with holding space for wherever they're at with no cuddling. I'm here for the cuddling! (And for voluminous forum entries apparently.)

    I imagine many a pro would be happy to hang with you (or others) for $$ with no physical contact while they learn to walk. I totally see the need for places where the boundary pushers can have a safe space to learn how to have nonsexual platonic touch without being laughed at. I'm not sure they would opt into that though - if they are already pushing boundaries, I'm not sure they'd go for it if a pro said, "You don't seem to be able to respect my boundaries, How about you pay me to not touch at all while you learn to enjoy my company on your way to learning how to make nonsexual contact?" And most non pros on here are probably looking for cuddling and may not be interested in being therapeutic for someone learning the ropes with boundary issues. However, who knows? There are lots of folks on here and some may be into just that very thing.

    I like the way you are having compassion for the boundary pushers and implying that they may need safe space to catch up with the established nonsexual platonic cuddlers, and calling for safe space where they can learn how to "run with the pack" without being laughed at or criticized. Not sure how it would work though.

  • [Deleted User]Bles (deleted user)

    @Geoff1000 I'm Looking at your original post. So the asymmetric risk in a Cuddle is the degree of physical and emotional harm to women as opposed to men. Is the degree of risk of emotional harm to men greater or the same if he wants less than the female cuddler is willing to give ? The biological imperative is the need for touch: physical or emotional. If both parties can have that conversation about what each need from each other then one can indeed have a cuddle connection without physical touch. And using your window shopping parallel, explore the person without the obligation of ever physically touching. You can touch someone in an emotional way. If the guy is emotionally sensitive and matches well with an emotionally sensitive person. Since touch can be both physical as well as verbal. Hence the emotional reward can be both as well.If you will it can be viewed on a spectrum based on what two people want and need at different times. Or the emotional reward can be from only one or the other. An asymmetric risk of emotional harm is assumed if one person wants less or more. Hence the female cuddler who wants committed platonic friendship versus the male cuddler who wants less. So would the female cuddler who wanted more commitment emotionally be seen as a boundary pusher also? Or even so if she demanded more from the cuddle than the male cuddler is feeling or offering?
    As I read your original post I asked myself: do we assign degree of risk of emotional harm based on cultural/social value judgements:
    Men are less emotional and wild more power? Even so the emotionally sensitive male is a minority so is not a significant consideration in assessing harm?
    Of physical harm on sexist premises: men are generally bigger and more dangerous than women so therefore the risk is greater?
    And can touch only be physical ? Is it impossible to feel connected to someone without physically touching them? What if I'm Asexual (in) cel and on the spectrum I'm averse to any kind of physical touching? Does that totally exclude me from experiencing emotional reward in a non physical cuddle?

  • BillBeanBillBean

    Hope the men on here don’t get their feelings hurt. 😢

  • geoff1000geoff1000

    Let me be the first to declare that if I arranged a cuddle session, and my partner decided at any time that they didn't want physical contact, that wouldn't automatically get them bad karma. I would much rather let them enjoy as much of my non-physical comfort as they want, than bailing out completely.
    If the #MeToo movement has taught me anything, it's that physical contact of any kind, is a hard threshold, and insisting on it, can be as emotionally harmful as insisting on anything else which might have been promised.
    I hope I'm not the only one who feels that, and maybe it's a given, but it might be worth spelling it out.
    Geoff

  • [Deleted User]rheaah (deleted user)
    edited November 2019

    Just because men are bigger doesn't mean that they are less susceptible to physical harm. If our society wasn't so messed up in training people from childhood to think that if one is in a male body with amputated emotions it makes one stronger physically and one is in a female body with seeming no strength at all is stronger emotionally, it's all wrong.

    Being harmed emotionally or physically in any gender combination, etc., is equally not okay for anyone. How about we not expect to be harmed, learn to be more selective and discerning on whom we choose to cuddle with in both directions.

    Why touch is sexualized for people? This didn't happen all by itself, there are multiple causes.
    I think that the person grew up in a abusive dysfunctional family or one that enabled lack of touch to say, 'it's just not done' , unhealthy social and religious propaganda teaching that it's wrong, or any type of physical, or emotional boundary violation at any time when the child could not protest and get away, top it off with going into puberty and no adult to be relied upon for guidance to decipher the thoughts, feelings and new bodily signals, other things to look out for in the world and how to conduct oneself properly, to feel safe and secure.

    It's hard for people to connect nowadays, people will have to take steps to heal, to unlearn and relearn what it means to be human without needing a sexual reward at every turn by way of awareness or a bunch of people pointing out the social disconnect.

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    @geoff1000 asks, "So if someone on this site said they wanted a "cuddle" which was not only platonic, but non-physical contact ; would we understand and respect that ?"

    I've heard of people on here scheduling long-distance, Skype "cuddles." It's not what I'd usually think of as a cuddle, but apparently it can do for the emotions what in-person cuddling does for body and emotions. So, since that's a thing people are already doing long-distance... why not do it in person if actual physical contact bothers you?

    Actually, the pre-cuddle coffee meetups some people do might sort of count as this already.

    Geoff also asks:

    And can touch only be physical ? Is it impossible to feel connected to someone without physically touching them? What if I'm Asexual (in) cel and on the spectrum I'm averse to any kind of physical touching? Does that totally exclude me from experiencing emotional reward in a non physical cuddle?

    This one gets a little long.

    "Can touch only be physical?"
    People say things are "touching" when nobody's touching them physically, so no—"touch" isn't restricted to the physical.

    "It is impossible to feel connected to someone without physically touching them?"
    Since my mom and dad fell in love via letters, I'm gonna have to say it's definitely not impossible.

    "What if I'm Asexual (in) cel and on the spectrum I'm averse to any kind of physical touching?"
    ・ Your sexual orientation isn't a factor in whether you do or don't enjoy platonic human contact.

    ・ If you're an incel, you're probably so far from being averse to any kind of physical touching that you're a danger to anyone you meet in person (at least if they have the body type you prefer).

    ・ Being celibate for whatever reason (religious vows, saving yourself for marriage, no personal interest in sex and haven't found anybody you'd do it for if they asked, etc.), isn't a factor in whether you do or don't enjoy platonic human contact.

    ・ Being autistic may make you touch-averse. Sometimes autism comes with that feature. If you're lucky (like me), you can still enjoy a nice bit of platonic human contact once you've gotten psychologically comfortable with your buddy and the current situation (so long as there's not too much skin-to-skin).

    "Does that totally exclude me from experiencing emotional reward in a non physical cuddle?"
    Being asexual doesn't keep you from emotionally connecting with people. Being celibate doesn't keep you from emotionally connecting with people. Being autistic doesn't keep you from emotionally connecting with people.

    Being an incel might.

  • [Deleted User]Bles (deleted user)

    @DarrenWalker In the last paragraph of your recent post on this thread you assigned a comment to @ Geoff he didn't make. That comment was a response @ Bles made to his original post.

  • geoff1000geoff1000

    @Bles
    Thanks for correcting.
    Geoff

  • [Deleted User]DarrenWalker (deleted user)

    @Bles: So I did. Whoops! I knew I was tired, but I didn't think I was that tired....

    Too late to edit now, or I'd change the name. Oh well.

Sign In or Register to comment.