@CuddleMeLater: I don't understand the desire to be physically close to someone not because their body's all pillowy and comfortable, but because they've got a specific set of private parts.
I keep seeing that desire expressed by people all over this site, though—so I can't tell myself it doesn't exist. And given some of the people I've seen express this desire, my first idea (that the desire is a non-platonic one) doesn't seem nearly as likely to me as it once did. So I'm baffled, and probably I'm going to stay baffled in this particular area... but hey. It's not like I actually need to understand why some people want things I don't, is it?
Those Indian men, though... I'd expect them to be less touch-starved than men who don't cuddle with one another. Less desperate. Less likely to come off like starving wolves when trying to make a female cuddle buddy, maybe?
Women on this site have also said they want to be close to men, specifically. Yet they don't seem nearly as desperate and touch-deprived as the guys on here saying the same thing. I'd guess that getting your touch hunger fed at least a little bit makes a big difference in how you come off when going for your main desire.
...And how much you're willing to pay.
I personally love cuddling both sides but still prefer cuddling with a male. With the right female, it can be absolute bliss. The smaller frame, the long, flowing hair, the fruity fresh smell of their body wash, their higher, calming voice. But no matter what, I still prefer men just a little more. To feel the vibration of their deep voice talking, falling into their arms and having them around me, to feel the absolute strength in their body that makes me feel cocooned and safe.
I can only think of it in a way that makes sense to me. Through food! It all comes down to preference. Let’s say hunger means the desire to cuddle. I am hungry. I want to eat. Technically, eating anything will satiate my hunger. (Cuddling anyone regardless of sex would technically eradicate that hunger). But I don’t want to eat just anything. Say I’m a man who only wants to cuddle women. I prefer women. Let’s go with this. A man is mushroom. A woman is broccoli. Either of these would satiate me. But I don’t want mushroom. I don’t like to eat mushroom. I only want the broccoli. The broccoli is my preference. Especially over mushroom.
Does that make sense?
@DarrenWalker There's a lot more to maleness and femaleness than what private parts you have. Of course, not everybody adheres to any given set of rules for their gender, and that's perfectly fine.
However, very often, women are small, they're soft, they're weak, they have long hair I can run my hands through, they're more likely to want to be protected than to be the protector, they're more likely to want me to take the lead, they have a personality that complements mine rather than clashes with it. @Sheena123 mentions that one reason she likes cuddling men is that it makes her feel safe; the other side to that is that I really love making women feel safe with me. Yes theoretically there are men who could feel safe with me, but... it's just not the same, at all. Anyway, I could go on and on.
Even more than that though, it's not necessarily a rational motivation that can be explained. It's just built in. Think about a heterosexual man. Firstly, he's not into women just because he likes vaginas. Straight men like women; all kinds of physical and other kinds of characteristics, not just genitals. But did this straight man sit down and think carefully about the characteristics of men and women and ultimately come to the conclusion that he'd rather have sex with women? No, it's just built into his mind and body to be turned on by women.
It's not really all that different with platonic cuddling. Women are what "turn me on" in a platonic cuddly way.
@DarrenWalker As for the last comment, about why women are less desperate. I'm not convinced women getting more platonic touch from other women is the reason why. Think again about sex. Even among women who never have sex with other women and who have very high sex drives, they're still rarely as needy for sex as most men.
I think I've stated this before, but I think the difference really comes down to women being more slow to feel affectionate towards someone. There absolutely are women who are touch starved and would really love a cuddle, but very few of them want to cuddle someone they just met. They want to form some kind of emotional attachment to someone, and in the course of forming that emotional attachment begin to express physical affection. Most men aren't really like that. They don't need a huge buildup before they're willing to express physical affection.
@CuddleMeLater I’m not a fan of it being described that women are weak. I’m sure you just meant that most women are “weaker” then men, but we don’t like being called weak. 😥
And I’d like to also say that 90% of my cuddlers (which are male) preferred me to take the lead. I don’t even mean as my clients. Just men that I cuddle in general. They’ve usually wanted me to take the lead. I along with a lot of other strong willed women totally would prefer to take the reins.
@Sheena123 and @CuddleMeLater: [helplessly] Look, I am not going to get it. I intrinsically do not see people as men or women, or even as male or female. I have tried. It doesn't work for me. I can't do it for more than a few seconds at a time and it gives me a headache. I look at humans and what I see are humans, each one with a completely unique set of characteristics.
So I try to intellectualize it, and form vague clumps of concepts that cling to words like "male" and "man" and "masculine", and I think I've done well enough with this to let me communicate in a general way—but I don't really get it and probably I never will, because my brain just doesn't work that way.
Every person I meet, I see as a person. Maybe they're a person with a beard. That's fine, but it doesn't mean anything to me other than "they've got a beard." I don't naturally assume that they're also gonna be tall, or broad-shouldered, or deep-voiced, or muscular, or interested in football, or anything. I've got to think to assign those kinds of probabilities, because naturally it just doesn't occur to me that it's more likely for someone with a beard to also have a deep voice, or an interest in cars, or a preference for musky-smelling shampoos, or whatever.
I spend a massive amount of time deliberately thinking about things that everyone else seems to take for granted, because so many things don't seem normal to me.
At this point I've pretty much just accepted that, no matter what I do, no matter how helpful anybody tries to be, no matter how I think about it, I'm never going to really be able to understand the whole man/woman thing. Not really. And so I thank you for trying to help me—truly, thank you for being so kind!—but it's just too weird for me.
Who the heck, I find myself thinking, honestly believes that the set of humans who've been assigned Box 1 based on a single physical thing observed at birth, have anything in common aside from that one thing and basic humanity?
I can't make sense of it; it doesn't make sense to me. But thank you for trying.
@Sheena123 OK, if "weaker" vs "weak" is an important distinction to you, so be it. It's funny, I never got the feeling that this was a point of contention for women before.
Very surprising to me most men preferring you take the lead; 100% different from my experience. But cool, if that works for you go for it.
@CuddleMeLater i think just outwardly saying women are weak sounds insulting. It’s not a very good trait people want to have or be lumped into. However, it’s starkly different understanding and agreeing that most women are weaker than most men. The first way just says “women are frail and weak” while the latter says “women may not be as strong as men but they are still strong and powerful too”. Huge difference in my mind.
@DarrenWalker I tried lol. Just comes down to preference. Preferring cuddling with a male or female could be the same distinction as preferring to cuddle with a human that had a beard as opposed to a human without one.
@DarrenWalker "Who the heck, I find myself thinking, honestly believes that the set of humans who've been assigned Box 1 based on a single physical thing observed at birth, have anything in common aside from that one thing and basic humanity?"
Most people easily observe that that's not even close to the only thing in common. What if I really liked being around taller people, say 6' or more? Well, I'm much more likely to get that from people with type of genitals than the other type. What if I really like people with higher pitched, sweet sounding voices? Again, I'm much more likely to get that from people with one type of genitals than the other type. Not everyone follows a given script for their sex, but there are characteristics that are overwhelmingly more common in one sex than the other.
@CuddleMeLater: And I get that, intellectually. People assigned Box 1 have, because of the single thing that got them stuck in Box 1, a higher likelihood of being tall (for instance) than people assigned Box 2. Or, because of the way people assigned each box are raised, those in Box 1 are more likely to listen when others talk than those in Box 2, or more likely to wear fabric cut a certain way, or to use a certain pronoun. I understand that, when I'm actively thinking about it.
But when I'm just getting on with my life, doing what comes naturally to me, I forget. Because it seems, to me, very very weird—and it seems that way to me because I am the way I am, so... whatcha gonna do? I just do the best I can to get along in this peculiar society that I can. But it still seems strange and unnatural to me, and probably it always will.
@Sheena123: It could be, but it isn't, is it? I know what it means to have a beard, I've seen plenty of people with beards, and some of them were in the Male box and some of them were in the Female box, and so I know preferring to cuddle someone with a beard is not the same thing as preferring to cuddle a male! Augh!
[embarrassed cough] Pardon my frustration. I've just... been struggling with this for a long time and you'd think I would know better than to keep trying at this point when I never get anywhere with it except the Land of AAAAARGH.
@cudddledleMeLater Yes! "Most men" but the men that do want to form an emotional attachment are accused of being gay and we are FAR from that! (I had to deal with those accusation all the time from my teenage years into my early forties) Men like me UNDERSTAND the mind of a lady in how she want to be seen for more that just "one thing" and we understand that connection begins in the mind, not in the pants.
That being said, our hormones get in the way and we get frustrated because those hormones then tell us lies when sex has nothing to do with appreciation! We understand how it came to be that some types of men in biblical times just cut off their own private parts! - They were frustrated that their hormones got in the way and thought that becoming a eunuch would love the problem.
I have had conversations with ladies before with discussing my feelings and have even shaken at times like a lost, scared puppy. I have talked about how it is confusing that my hormones are screaming out when all I want to do is TALK and the ladies response was, "What you feel is NORMAL."
That response has always blown my mind to see that a lady accepts my sensitivity and that she does not always was a "rough tough, macho, protector." - Believe me, in the right circumstances I can be someone that would make Freddy Kruger pee his pants if I had to! - But within that, it is tough for guys like me to turn that side of us off because we have been and continue to be rejected by society and have to teach ourselves that we must keep up the fight and SHOW others our soft side, even when we dont feel like it. - "Fake it, until you make it."
At times, (when I have found the right type of lady that is comfortable) I have opened up to talk about the physical changes that occur with my body when I am turned on (I am being courteous to everyone) in order to teach myself that all of that is OK and normal (since I never had anyone to talk to about "that" and learned EVERYTHING by "playing doctor") and to see her accept that in me is something that I dont understand because I was taught to be ashamed of my body, and even though I grew up to find ways to become promiscuous, and it SEEMED like I was confident, I was FAR from it, and still am!
I look forward to the day when I finally am able to overcome all of that and I have had to put myself into MENTAL (not physical) positions to to understand the emotional process that occurs long before it is manifested in a physical way. - Even when that does manifest itself, it is humbling to hear a lady tell me, "It's Ok! I feel the same way."
There is a mystery to all of that and to feel and see someone else eccept you in that realm, in is mind blowing.
Take a look at who has written some songs of deep emotion that some women sing, and see if the song was written by a man! A prime example is Tiffany's, "All this time." That is a very sad song about a break up and a MAN wrote it! That guy had his SENSITIVE, not macho, machismo heart ripped out!
I had that happen to me once and had a STROKE over it and almost died, and those that knew me at the time MOCKED ME. I had to kick them out of my life. That was seven years ago and have had to start all over in my life, and starting over takes time! One can not erect a building overnight when a foundation has to be broken up and a new one must be laid and be given time to dry before the real construction begins, and for me, that is where this site had come into play.
For when no one wanted to listen to be and only mock, I have to do what I have to do to keep my sanity.
@saxman "We understand how it came to be that some types of men in biblical times just cut off their own private parts!"
Can't relate to that one, sorry.
I'm going to say something that may sound insulting or condescending, but I absolutely don't mean it that way. Have you been to a therapist? It sounds like you have some pretty strong emotional issues around sex and women, and I think there are probably therapists who could help you. It seems to me very unusual for a 46 year old man to be uncomfortable with and have shame around the process of getting physically turned on.
There's one part of your comment I can empathize with:
"Take a look at who has written some songs of deep emotion that some women sing, and see if the song was written by a man!"
I actually think, contrary to stereotype, men are generally more romantic than women, feel love earlier in a relationship, and take breakups harder.
Sitting over here musing: I really don't see how women could be, on average, slower than men to feel affectionate towards someone.
Unless having a certain thingy somehow creates a greater capacity for rapid affection? Or maybe the way people are raised in the Male box encourages them to feel feelings of fondness and connection really fast while the way people are raised in the Female box discourages that? Frankly I haven't seen any evidence of any of this, but that's me. The people who say they're fond of me (online and in person) tend to reach that decision at a range of different points, none of them apparently dependent on which sex they got assigned at birth.
In any case, it doesn't seem like a very wise thing to do, slapping a "slow to feel affection" label on a whole group of people. Especially when you follow it up with labels like "less romantic," "slower to feel love," "takes breakups more easily" and so on. Are these really labels it's helpful for either group to be wearing?
Humans are humans. Surely assigned sex doesn't play a notable role in anyone's capacity to care.
The lead actress in Tenet is Elizabeth Debicki. She is 6 feet 3, and has short hair, but men who only cuddle women would probably prefer her, to a short man with long hair.
If someone is looking for a car, they might specify the brand ; because either they want the brand name, or they want a model which has characteristics common in that brand. Someone who buys a Mercedes A-class is likely to be someone who really wanted the brand. Maybe men who only cuddle women, want partners who resemble women, or want women who are very stereotypically female. Choices reduce with each filter level.
@Sheena123 beat me to it with the food analogy, but I'll pitch in anyway . . .
A couple are stranded in a lifeboat, far from land. The man uses his satellite phone to call the Red Cross, and explains they have plenty of dry food, but are dying of thirst. A ship would never reach them in time, and they are out of helicopter range. Cargo planes can't fly because of the weather.
Two hours later, a vapour trail appears in the sky, and a tiny black dot. A few moments after that, a small parachute appears, dangling a package about the size of a house brick. The couple paddle the lifeboat over, and the woman collects and opens the package. "We"re saved", she says. "It's a reverse-osmosis pump. We dangle this hose in the sea, then pull this lever to and fro, and it gets rid of the salt. We have as much fresh water as we need. Thank God." "What do you mean ?" says the man. "That's no good. I'm a man, so I want beer."
"Unless having a certain thingy somehow creates a greater capacity for rapid affection?"
You're looking at this the wrong way. No one is claiming that genitals lead to all these other characteristics. Hormones do (along with environment, of course). Hormones are what make our genitals different, make us have different body shapes, and have certain effects on our personalities. The most well known difference in hormones between men and women is that men have more testosterone and women have more estrogen. These hormones absolutely, 100% have a mental effect. Just ask men who take anabolic steroids (derived from testosterone) or transgender people who take supplemental hormones.
One aspect of environment that makes a difference in feeling love quickly is related to one of the recurring topics of this forum: the fact that women usually have more and easier options for affection and sex than men do. When a man and a woman get together, chances are high that the man put more time and effort into meeting her than the woman did, and also the woman would have an easier time finding someone else. They might not be consciously thinking about this, but their experiences naturally lead to a situation where the man may feel more invested in the relationship early on than the woman. If I could get on Tinder and effortlessly line up as many dates as I wanted at any time, what would it take for me to feel really invested in any one of them? I honestly don't know.
"Are these really labels it's helpful for either group to be wearing?"
Obviously there are certain dangers to making blanket assignments of traits to groups of people. But for most people, our sex is one of the most fundamental parts of our identity, and it's something that repeatedly plays a role in our interactions with others. We have to generalize to make sense of large social group dynamics. So, yes, it's important not to be prejudicial towards people, to avoid unwarranted essentializing, etc... but trying to talk about humans as social creatures and avoiding any generalizing based on sex is kind of like talking about music as a whole and never making the observation that there are different genres, that classical, pop, rock, rap, etc, all have different characteristics and sounds.
@geoff1000: Ha! I like the story. The explanation that goes before it... hmm.
I think I understand, but I'm gonna ask a couple questions just to make sure—men who list themselves as only cuddling women, do you think they'd prefer Elizabeth Debicki to me? I'm short. I've got a small frame. Kind of delicate features, in the right light. I've even got a nice, full behind. It's to the point where I list my body type as "female" on my profile; I could totally pass as a cis woman if I grew my hair out. I'm not a cis woman, mind you. But I could pass. (In fact I have....)
No insult intended (to either me or the actress), but I think I'm at least as cute as Elizabeth Debicki. So if a man who only cuddles women picks her over me, is that because they're looking not for a car that looks a certain way (metaphorically speaking), but one that carries a certain brand name?
@DarrenWalker There used to be a recurring question on Reddit. (Take this with a grain of salt, of course, it's just Reddit comments, but it is consistent with my personal experience.) The question was, for heterosexual men and women, how often, while going about your regular daily routine, do you see someone you find attractive?
Common answers from women were things like:
Pretty much never. I don't feel attraction unless I get to know someone. Maybe once a week. There's a really cute guy at my work, and I see him most days. So I guess one per day?
Pretty much never. I don't feel attraction unless I get to know someone.
Maybe once a week.
There's a really cute guy at my work, and I see him most days. So I guess one per day?
Not all the women's answers were like that of course, but the large majority were.
Meanwhile the large majority of men had answers like this:
Probably at least 10 on any given day. I live on a college campus, so I literally see hundreds of women I find attractive every day.
Probably at least 10 on any given day.
I live on a college campus, so I literally see hundreds of women I find attractive every day.
This is just one aspect of sex differences, and not necessarily a crucial one for every person. Still, can you see how for people for whom romantic relationships are important, differences between men and women may be very obvious and very important in their social lives?
@DarrenWalker That's just about what I'm saying.
Stereotypical people of the two binary genders, were inscribed on the "welcome disc" of the Voyager spacecraft, and people who only cuddle one gender, would know which to pick.
With non-binary people, or people who are more physically similar to the opposite-gender stereotype ; it gets more difficult for them.
My coffee preference is a latte with two sugars. Would I be happy with decaffeinated, or no milk, or no sugar ; and at what point would I instead choose tea, or water, or no drink at all ? ( One advantage of knowing someone well, is to be able to make the right choice for them, when stood in the queue, and finding out their ideal isn't available ).
My repeated point is that the narrower a person's filter, the longer they will have to wait, and that's their choice.
Maybe some men think we should find the "perfect" woman, and use their DNA to impregnate every woman from now on, until that's the only type of woman. ( I think most bananas are genetically identical ). However, the men would then have to accept they would also be DNA copied from now on to a 'perfect" standard, and "normal" men would have no tickets in the genetic lottery ; which is the complaint they currently have.
@CuddleMeLater: Yeah, the prevalence of one set of hormones over another in the womb at the 6–7 week mark definitely affects the way a baby's genitals develop. And then the doctors decide which box to stick the baby in depending on the way the genitals turned out (...or depending on the way the doctors decided to remake them...). And yeah, some genital types do tend to make more testosterone while other types tend to make more estrogen—though all types do make both, and everyone's private parts have their own individual ratios.
But I still don't see how this would make all, or even most, of the people in the Male box more emotionally active than those in the Female box. If having a certain thingy produces more of a certain hormone, and that certain hormone makes you bond with others really rapidly, then sure. But otherwise, I don't see it.
As far as environment goes... okay, that makes sense. If people assigned male aren't allowed many and easy options for platonic affection—if they're essentially starved—then it makes perfect sense that they'd leap at every option and cling to it really, really fast. In fact I could see them getting attached even to options that aren't actually options! Without even taking the time to learn whether someone's a good match, they'd just be drawn to them anyway, purely on the basis of random things like appearance or proximity.
I still think it's weird to impose things like this on people, though. Why restrict the options of people in Box 2 (when it comes to affection), and not those of people in Box 1? Don't they all need platonic affection?
Edit:
@geoff1000: Okay, I think I get it. Thanks! (I still think it's weird, though.)
@DarrenWalker I honestly don't know if each sex's different levels of hormones make a difference in affection speed. It seems physically and biologically plausible to me. I can think of plausible evolutionary reasons why it may be the case. But I don't know. This was just meant to be a response to your statement, "Unless having a certain thingy somehow creates a greater capacity for rapid affection?", to give a plausible though not certain way in which "having a certain thingy" may be related to how quickly one feels affection.
"Why restrict the options of people in Box 2 (when it comes to affection), and not those of people in Box 1?"
Not sure what you mean. Which sex is Box 2, and who is restricting their options?
@CuddleMeLater: It doesn't make any difference to me who's in Box 1 and who's in Box 2. The point is that society's got two categories into which it sorts all humans based on this one thing, and then it treats each category very differently. That one thing doesn't make them that different, surely!
People in both boxes, I figure, would benefit from having lots of easy options for platonic affection. So I think it's weird that society limits the options of the folks in one box, and not the other. Why do that?
@DarrenWalker "That one thing doesn't make them that different, surely!"
But it's not one thing. It's tons of things. But I think we're talking in circles so I won't continue this line.
It's still not clear what you mean by "society limits the options of the folks in one box." In what way are someone's options being limited?
@CuddleMeLater: Uh. Well, the doctors didn't look at "tons of things" when they decided which box to stick me in. Just the one thing, down there between my legs. I dunno how they did it with you.
Anyway, like you say, people in the Female box usually have more and easier options for affection than people in the Male box do. If you're listed under "women," society allows you a lot of freedom when it comes to platonic affection! You can cuddle practically anybody without getting the side-eye.
In physical chemistry, substances can be liquid or gas ; analogous to farmers living on the bottom of a cliff and hunters on the plateau. The "critical point" of a substance, is the pressure and temperature above which there is no distinction ; analogous to the cliff tapering to zero, and the lands merging.
When people say they only cuddle men, or only cuddle women ; it gets a bit tricky when those groups are ill-defined. People then have to start making their own definitions, like maybe the women must be at least C-cup and not enhanced. Fine. Maybe men must be at least 6 feet tall. Again fine.
If I want a used car, I can list my filters and buy one off the Internet ; but if I'm trying to hitch a free lift with those same factors, I may have to wait a long time.
@DarrenWalker It's not that some abstract "society" restricts who men can cuddle. Men have fewer cuddle options because, taken as an abstract whole, there is a lot more desire for cuddles coming from men towards women than there is from women towards men. It's not a decision somebody made from on high, women just don't want to cuddle men as much as men might like.
@geoff1000: People have always made their own definitions. The trick is agreeing on ones that don't leave too many people out (or force them to pretend to be something they're not).
@CuddleMeLater: Don't anthropomorphize society. It's a vast machine, a tangle of traditions and beliefs and habits stretching back centuries, and it doesn't think, much less hand down decisions from on high. It just... is. As it is. And because it is what it is, the people within it find themselves pushed and pulled, restricted and encouraged, helped and hindered in many, many different ways.
@CuddleMeLater "It's not that some abstract "society" restricts who men can cuddle."
True. The restriction comes from their preference. Or maybe women who can't get enough cuddles from men, don't complain about it.
Women can have as much male company as they want. A man can have 1000x more children than a woman. Which is better ?
God cals Adam and Eve together, and tells them he has two gifts, one for each of them, and they have to decide who gets which. "The first gift", says God, "is To Be Able To Pee While Standing Up." "I'll have that", says Adam. "I'm sick of squatting all the time." "Don't you want to hear about the other gift ? ", asks God. "Or maybe let Eve have a choice ?" "No", says Adam. "I'm having that one". Then he grabs the gift and runs off into the woods. "That wasn't very nice", says Eve, dejectedly. "No it wasn't", agrees God. "It looks like you get stuck with Multiple Orgasms."
@DarrenWalker This is what you wrote: "If you're listed under 'women,' society allows you a lot of freedom when it comes to platonic affection!"
You're the one who anthropomorphized society, and I'm the one who suggested that you not.
@CuddleMeLater: Riiiight... and if you're small, a king-size bed allows you a lot of space for pillows.
Edit: Look. You say people in the Male box have fewer cuddle options than people in the Female box because, generally speaking, the folks in the Male box have a lot more desire to cuddle those in the Female box than those in the Female box have to cuddle those in the Male box. The people in the Male box are more desperate than those in the Female box.
And I say yeah: that's true, they are. And do you know why? Because this tangle of traditions and habits and what-have-you is set up in such a way that people assigned to the Male box can't cuddle with other people in the Male box without getting side-eyed. That's why they're so much more touch-deprived than the folks in the Female box, who get to cuddle each other as much as they like—which is why these folks in the Female box aren't nearly so desperate to cuddle those in the Male box as the ones in the Male box are to cuddle them.
@DarrenWalker But what I'm telling you is that it's not due to traditions. I mean, that's part of it, that's a factor, but that's not the main, core reason.
Let me make an analogy to sex. Even though your profile says you're asexual, maybe it will be clearer in that context. I am heterosexual. I am sexually attracted to women, but not men. If I see a naked woman, I may get sexually aroused. If I see a naked man, I will not. This isn't due to tradition, or societally imposed rules, or anything like that. It's just built into me. It's part of who I am. And it's not just because I like vaginas. I like everything about women's bodies, I like the way women talk and act, etc. It would be physically possible for me to have sex with a man, and if all sex were about was the physical stimulation with another human being, then, well, that would do it for me. But that's not all that sex is about, and sex with a man has zero appeal to me.
Cuddling is obviously not the same as sex. I would much more readily cuddle a man than have sex with a man. But cuddling a man doesn't have a strong appeal to me, for the same sorts of reasons sex with a man doesn't appeal to me. Cuddling is not just about being close to a warm body, it's about connecting with another human being, and the people I want to connect with in that way are women.
I actually find it insulting that you refuse to accept that I know myself, I know what I want and what I like, and claim instead that I just meekly followed some arbitrary rule.