Profoundly Loving & Intimate Relationships Without A Sexual Component

River

Active member
As one who has lived his whole life in the USA, I've been surrounded all my life by certain pervasive and popular attitudes about relationships, love, intimacy, friendship.... In lots of respects, I seem to be actively -- and often consciously and deliberately -- deconstructing or dismantling my social conditioning about all of it. The whole shebang.

Americans, for example, are weird about touch. I recently learned that there are sociological studies showing that young British men who identify as hetorexual quite commonly cuddle, kiss, and (literally) sleep together. The expression of tender feelings and warm touch between this class of people in Britain is nearly inconceivable to the same age group in the United States. I wonder if some "straight" (hetero) guys who learn fo this feel any of the envy and regret I felt upon making this discovery? Or is it just (or mainly) the gay and bi guys (I'm bi) who have such feelings?

Anyway, all if this is digression. There may be nothing but digression in this thread from me -- as the topic is as wide as the world.

In very recent years in my life, I've been incorporating cuddling into some of my non-"romantic," non-sexual friendships. I don't have near as many cuddle-friendly (though non-sexual) friends as I'd like -- just a tiny few, and none of them are women (at present, unfortunately)....

But my inquiry isn't just about touch. It's also about eye-gazing -- holding the other in one's gaze a long while without looking away. And it's about sharing everything (stories, the truth about ourselves...), or most everything, as we tend to do with our closest loved ones. And forming deep bonds of love, however explored and expressed -- except for sexual touch, per se.

The inquiry is about what distinguishes very close friends from lovers, husbands, wives..., beyond sexual expression (apart from obvious issues like child rearing...)....

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tell me your thoughts and feelings on this!

____________________

Cuddling, etc., among young British men.:

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/3/5675092/study-straight-men-cuddle-with-other-men-a-lot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/01/straight-men-cuddle-guys-study_n_5241953.html

http://www.queerty.com/93-percent-o...ay-they-love-cuddling-with-other-men-20150204
 
Last edited:
I have to say that the results of this study, which the first article acknowledges is not a particularly representative sample in either scope nor number, does not at all match my experience as a Brit living in Britain. I would be absolutely staggered if this scales up in any reasonable way. My feeling is that Americans are actually more touchy feely than British guys any day of the week. In fact, the whole sportsman bum-slapping, chest bumping thing practically originated in American football and/or basketball as far as I can tell.
 
LOL tenK.

I don't feel tactilely deprived vis-à-vis other men, but, I'm heterosexual, so it figures right.

I've heard tell that relationship anarchists eschew all labels, and refer to all favored people in their lives as just friends. The relationship is thus free to assume its own shape without semantic constraint such as "what distinguishes very close friends from lovers, husbands, wives ..."

If men did lots of touching in my world I suppose that would be weird at first, but I'd get used to it. I think it would actually be harder to get used to touching women a lot. As a man, I have a tendency to think I'm overstepping my bounds. I did recently hug a niece and exchange "I love you's" with her ... and didn't feel strange about it.
 
River is back!
 
Hi River, I'm guessing this ties in with the comment you made on the thread I started regarding emotional affairs. And to be perfectly honest, I don't know. I think the social world is changing in a way (in some places!) and the lines are becoming blurred. I do wonder if polyamory will become a norm at some point in the distant future
 
Interesting subject.

I am a UK citizen and have lived here all my life but haven't noticed much physical affection between men. I don't think it's a sexual thing - I include homosexual men in that. Brits tend to be quite physically reserved on the whole. There are, obviously, exceptions but I think less touching is more common than more touching.

My experience is that profoundly loving and emotionally intimate relationships are very possible without any sexual component. I remember very clearly the first time I fell in love and had it reciprocated. This was with a platonic friend. We used to spend all our spare time together. We talked about and shared everything about ourselves. That friend is still very close to me, somebody I see frequently. We still share our truths about ourselves. The relationship is different. Jobs, romantic partners, family, hobbies - the trappings of adult life mean that we no longer spend as much time together but that hasn't lessened the connection we have.

My feeling is that relationships like that are subtly and not so subtly devalued in our current society. People are encouraged to value romantic relationships or those that exist between blood relatives. People so often describe themselves as 'just' friends. Romantic relationships, on the other hand, are held up as more real, more meaningful. Marriage is seen as so real that to marry somebody is to make them your legal next of kin.

To make matters worse for people in seeking connection with others, the way that romantic relationships are approached, in my opinion, makes finding good connection within them difficult. They are held on one hand as the pinnacle and on the other hand as a trap that once entered, people long to leave.

Before getting married, couples celebrate by having separate nights out to say goodbye to their freedom.

A serious romantic relationship is seen as a barrier to new connections rather than as an opportunity to have enough opportunity over a long long period of time to build a very deep connection.

New partners are seen as thrilling and exciting. Long term ones often are seen as familiar and comfortable (and boring?). In spite of everybody knowing that people change through their life, I see and read little evidence of anybody looking at a long term partner and feeling excited by the changes in them.

For me, the biggest barrier to romantic relationships allowing the level of connection that I've experienced frequently with friends is the fact that if the people in romantic relationships stop having sex with each other, very often they end up with no relationship at all. Not always because of a falling out.

I reckon that it is more often because one or other of them finds a new partner who doesn't want them hanging out with an old love. I've lost a friend that way. Or it's because once a couple is no longer a couple, they can feel that it is inappropriate to continue relationships with each other's families - I've lost a friend that way too when a family member and his partner split up.

This is not simply people having little in common or not enough time for each other and gradually drifting apart. This is friendships ending because they were once sexual.

Even without a breakup, the way romantic relationships are approached in the UK at least makes things weird. Two of my partner's close female friends were upset when he and I got together. This in spite of these friendships being desired to be platonic on both sides. It just shook things up when my partner became sexual with me. I can guarantee that if he and I had been platonic friends, it wouldn't have been so challenging.

No wonder romantic relationships become difficult to keep going with all these difficult dynamics and odd ways of thinking about them.

The amount of work and effort that people put into romantic relationships is staggering. Even with all of that, they often need the connection being propped up by the feel good, bonding biochemistry that is released during sex.

I find it easier by far to have a close, bonded relationship with another species (a dog) than I do to have a romantic and sexual relationship with another human being.

When I meet somebody new who I'm very attracted to, very fascinated by and who I hope to be very close to for a long, long time the last thing I want to do is have sex with them. Simply because the chances are that if I start a sexual, romantic relationship with them, I won't get to have them in my life for as long as I would like.

I only ever tend to have romantic relationships with people who I've had sex with the first time I met them so that the sex is already part of it before I realise how much I want them in my life. Otherwise I would keep them as friends because I think that those relationships have the best chance of being profoundly loving and intimate and remaining that way during lots of changes.

This is all a big part of the reason why I'm a bit attracted to solo poly and not at all attracted to being poly if I'm in a relationship and also not at all attracted to being a mono partner in a poly relationship. From my point of view, having multiple partners or metamours would simply increase all of the things that I see as barriers to connection with other humans.

IP
 
Encouraging study. I lived in England for most of my life. If younger guys are less homophobic than older guys that's great news. While I was there it did feel to me like things were moving in that direction over time even amongst my generation but it was personally impossible for me to distinguish between that as something that was changing in general or simply my experience due to me moving through different social, economic and cultural spheres.

Personally, I feel like I've always been up for anything that involves anything from basic affection to profound love and intimacy, though I've never met a man I find sexually attractive. I do sometimes eye-gaze with men I admire, can be verbally affectionate (e.g. "You're a beautiful person", "I love you") and my hugs often border on cuddling. That's about it. Kissing on the mouth to me definitely has a sexual component. I find it incredibly intense and apparently, so do the people I kiss. Unless its an uncommon and brief expression of appreciation (i.e. no open mouths and tongue play!) I would be uncomfortable kissing someone on the mouth if I wanted to stay within a non-sexual boundary.
 
LOL tenK.
I don't feel tactilely deprived vis-à-vis other men, but, I'm heterosexual, so it figures right.

This statement is very interesting to me. It seems to be saying that only other-than-heterosexual men (e.g., gay, bi, etc.) should be expected to have an interest in cuddling or other physical affection with other men. It also seems to suggest that most all physical affection is oriented toward or around sex.

I find it interesting because I have a couple of heterosexual male cuddle buddies. These men have zero interest in sex with men, yet they enjoy snuggling and cuddling with men.

It's fascinating how many people so deeply associate all physical affection with sex.
 
Interesting subject.

This is all a big part of the reason why I'm a bit attracted to solo poly and not at all attracted to being poly if I'm in a relationship and also not at all attracted to being a mono partner in a poly relationship. From my point of view, having multiple partners or metamours would simply increase all of the things that I see as barriers to connection with other humans.

IP

I read this post with great interest, IP. It is a fascinating perspective!

I very much enjoy sex, and am not really interested in sex with people I don't like an awful lot. And I do (sadly, perhaps) tend to become much more bonded and intimate with people with whom ther is sex in the relationship. So your post has me wondering about how to "go deeper" ... open up more ... (or become even more intimate and bonded) in platonic friendships.
 
River said:
"The expression of tender feelings and warm touch between this class of people in Britain is nearly inconceivable to the same age group in the United States. I wonder if some 'straight' (hetero) guys who learn of this feel any of the envy and regret I felt upon making this discovery? or is it just (or mainly) the gay and bi guys (I'm bi) who have such feelings?"

kdt26417 said:
I don't feel tactilely deprived vis-à-vis other men, but, I'm heterosexual, so it figures right.

River said:
"This statement is very interesting to me. It seems to be saying that only other-than-heterosexual men (e.g., gay, bi, etc.) should be expected to have an interest in cuddling or other physical affection with other men."

kdt26417 says:
That wasn't my intention. I neither think heterosexual men are interested in non-sexual man-to-man touch, nor do I think that they're not interested in it. My only intention was to speak from my own experience. My bit about being heterosexual was meant to be merely fanciful, not assertive, and was based on what you said as I quoted at the start of this here post. If I'm not interested in non-sexual man-to-man touch, how should I explain myself? Am I suffering from homophobic brainwashing?

Re:
"It's fascinating how many people so deeply associate all physical affection with sex."

Do they? Even the most skittish men in my family will do a "side hug," and I'm sure they don't associate that with sex. So "all" seems to me a bit of an overstatement -- if by "it's fascinating how many people" you mean "most people." Am I being singled out here? I will hug a man, and accept a kiss from a man. I'll hug and kiss and pet my cat. I'll hug a woman, and accept a kiss from a woman. I can do all these things without associating them with sex. So how many people really associate *all* physical affection with sex?
 
Am I being singled out here?

I don't think so.

I typed out a long, thoughtful post in response, and then I accidently hit a wrong button and all was lost. So my answer will be briefer this time.

I honestly believe I can deeply relate to "straight" men quite easily and well. That is, I am very familiar with the usual feelings of warmth and affection which "straight" guys generally or often have for other "straight" guys. I know about this because I feel I share these same feelings, basically.

When I long to hold one of my brothers in my arms, or to sleep beside him in embrace.., this is -- I feel -- not so different a feeling than the feeling my "straight" brothers have about their intimate male friends.

It just happens that I'm not "straight". My sexual orientation is toward other humans, generally. (I'm not much attracted to cattle or dogs in this way.)

What I have some challenge in understanding is why any guy would NOT want to hold one of their brothers in their arms -- in a cuddling sort of way. Or why any woman would not like to hold a sister in this way.

My bi-amorousness (which is about so much more than sex!) is by far the larger feature of my personality. Affection and love are more important to me than sex. (But I really do like sex!)

Because I've lived "a (largely) 'gay' lifestyle," I've necessarily had to address the numerous aspects of homophobia and hetersexism in my culture, and thus in myself. So -- I think, naturally -- I'm more free to love men without reservation than MOST guys who identify as "straight".

But all of this is very, very complex. Many (probably most) "gay" and "bi" men are FAR, far less free to love other men than I. Many gay and bi men are far more interested in sex than in love and affection -- and bonding. Many don't even know the difference!

When it is very clear that sex and affection have no necessary relation to one another, things are more readily understood. And so I think we should not think that gay or bi men are more likely to want (or need, deep down) same-sex physical affection than "straigtht" guys. The same is true between girls/women and girls/women. But most of us have seen the relative ease with which a pair of females are generally free to express physiclal affection in a non-sexual context.

I often see "straight" women clinging to one another in an enduring loving embrace. It's very normal in my world.
 
Re:
"What I have some challenge in understanding is why any guy would *not* want to hold one of their brothers in their arms -- in a cuddling sort of way. Or why any woman would not like to hold a sister in this way."

Hmmm, good question. I'm not much of a cuddler. I couldn't tell you why. The home I grew up in had some touching but not a lot -- if that explains it.

I agree that women are expected to touch each other more than men are -- at least in America (and in much of the Western world).
 
Re:

I'm not much of a cuddler.

Not even in your romantic relationships?

On a scale of 0 to 100, I'm probably a 96 cuddler, with zero being the lowest interest in cuddling. I almost live for cuddling. I consider it an art form. :p
 
I very much enjoy sex, and am not really interested in sex with people I don't like an awful lot.
I feel exactly the same way. :D

And I do (sadly, perhaps) tend to become much more bonded and intimate with people with whom ther is sex in the relationship.

I don't think it's sad to feel more bonded with sexual partners. I think that bonded feeling is partly what sex is for. Plus, it's a lovely way to feel - I experience it as a quite intoxicating rush of closeness.

So your post has me wondering about how to "go deeper" ... open up more ... (or become even more intimate and bonded) in platonic friendships.

I think that time, shared experiences, being around for happy times and sad times, continuing to talk and share thoughts, feelings, life goals etc are what makes relationships closer and deeper whether they are platonic or sexual.

I think that sometimes in romantic relationships as being that people in them stop sharing (or never start) and allow the closeness they feel through shared responsibilities and sex to replace time and sharing thoughts and feelings. I get why - time is short and that sort of sharing does build closeness. Although it can lead to not really knowing people all that well over time.

To me sex is a fantastic way of bonding. It works well to maintain bonds too.

It's just that I don't believe it to be the only way.

Everything that goes on around romantic relationships leads me to view them with caution and wish to make sure I have time and space in my life for close, platonic relationships too. :D
 
I just re-read the post (mine) from which I quote below. The passage I excerpted (especially the highlighed portion) really needs to be qualified. And I don't feel comfortable addressing subsequent posts until after I've done so. So here goes.

But all of this is very, very complex. Many (probably most) "gay" and "bi" men are FAR, far less free to love other men than I. Many gay and bi men are far more interested in sex than in love and affection -- and bonding. Many don't even know the difference!

Perhaps some folks reading that statement were more clear than I was at the moment of writing it that it was spoken by one for whom physical touch is a primary "love language" -- drawing here on a book I've not read but have only heard of: The Five Love Languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Love_Languages

I think there are considerably more "love languages" than these five. (The book lists gifts, quality time, words of affirmation, acts of service, and physical touch.) But that's an aside -- as is the subtitle's orienting these Love Languages around "romantic" relationships. Subtitle: "How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate."

It's also an aside that Americans will likely hear the word "mate" differently than British and Australian people.

What I really meant to say is that I think I'm more free express and appreciate affection physically with men than are most men. That is, if he (whomever he is) is comfortable with cuddling with me, I'm probably just as comfortable with it, or more (provided I'm interested). Most men -- and perhaps especially straight men -- in my culture are decidedly not able or willing to express affection with other men in this way. Notice that my word choices were "able" and "willing," rather than "interested," which is another topic altogether -- and a much trickier one (because we're not always consciously aware of what we'd be interested in were doing it not so darn taboo and unfamiliar.

I think there is a great deal of taboo around guys cuddling with one another -- at least in many cultures, including my own. And we grow up in the orbit and atmosphere of this taboo. And most of us unwittingly absorbed the point of view of the taboo, so largely unconsciously or unwittingly think it "quite natural" for straight boys & men to abhor (or lack interest in) cuddling with other boys / men.

I have heard, for example, that it is completly normal for hetero- guys (perhaps especially young guys) to cuddle amongst themselves in China (at least some regions thereof). And this says something important about the topic. It says people will do this if it isn't taboo. And they will enjoy it, because doing so is both healthy and natural.

I have been using terms "hetero-" and "homo-", but in truth I don't really believe anyone is utterly and completely outside of a spectrum of sexuality which we could call the "bisexuality spectrum". Some folks are way out on the far ends of the spectrim, but I think we're all much nearer to the middle than most of us imagine. At least in terms of potential!
 
I think that time, shared experiences, being around for happy times and sad times, continuing to talk and share thoughts, feelings, life goals etc are what makes relationships closer and deeper whether they are platonic or sexual.

IP, I find this passage, along with many passages you your contributions, to be (strangely) both obvious and saliently insightful. It is strange that these observations can be both so darn obvious AND so amazingly dead-on -- wow -- insightful at the same moment.

I had to learn how to have relationships founded on mutual kindness, respect, affection, etc., somewhat later than many people -- with the process really having its solid beginning in my adulthood. Somehow those ingredients were not sufficiently present in my family home for me to pick them up by osmosis. And I suspect this has everything to do with the dazzlingly "aha!" experience I have in reading your obvious observation about how closeness and intimacy is nutured.

Thank you!

I should mention in passing that the memory of the below quote arose in my mind as I was typing above.

"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement
of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

George Orwell
 
Last edited:
I can't get past the title of this thread. What would make one loving and emotionally intimate relationship I have "profound" while another loving and emotionally intimate relationship is not? I am not sure I would compare the quality of "lovingness" in my relationships in that way.
 
I can't get past the title of this thread. What would make one loving and emotionally intimate relationship I have "profound" while another loving and emotionally intimate relationship is not? I am not sure I would compare the quality of "lovingness" in my relationships in that way.

Curiously, nycindie, I find myself totally agreeing with your largely (probably) rhetorical question / statement while also acknowledging that many people don't see it that way at all, and would need the "profoundly" to wrap their minds around what you and I are agreeing upon: that all loving and intimate relationships are ... just that.

My impression is that most people in "my culture" (to the extent that such a phrase has meaning) do rank relationships as more versus less profoundly loving and intimate. And platonic relationships usually get ranked lower than "romantic" ones. To say that platonic friendships can be just as "profound" as romantic ones would come as something of a surprise (or be met with doubt) by many.

And, as you suggest, if all loving and intimate relationships are on a level ground (without rank), might they all be said to be "equally profound"?
 
kdt26417 said:
I'm not much of a cuddler.

River said:
"Not even in your romantic relationships?"

kdt26417 says:
No, not even in my romantic relationship. In the past I was a bit more cuddly than I am now, but I didn't stay that way.
 
Back
Top