Profoundly Loving & Intimate Relationships Without A Sexual Component

[River]

Does your partner like to cuddle?

 

[kdt26417]

Generally not, I would say ...

 

[opalescent]

I find it frustrating that many people seem to conflate intimacy and love with touching. They are not identical. Lots of folks build intimacy mostly through touch. There is nothing wrong with that! It's maybe the most common way I've seen for building intimacy.

But it's not how I primarily create and sustain intimacy. I need time spent, and conversation and shared experiences. Don't get me wrong - I love touch from the right people in the right circumstances. However, touch is something I do once I start to feel intimate - it's not how I start that process. (I do touch to help sustain intimacy.)

It didn't make sense to me how people could just cuddle someone they had just met until I realized that not everyone created intimacy in the same way I did. I also didn't realize that I often felt rejecting to people who were 'touch-first' people. It wasn't on purpose and once I understood that, I've explained how I operate which I think helps somewhat.

One of the issues Whip and I had is that we have utterly different ways of experiencing and building intimacy. He really only feels intimacy through sex (and maybe touch in a broader sense). He doesn't feel intimate when talking, or doing things together or anything that felt like intimacy to me. This was a basic difference we couldn't overcome. In fact, it was so basic that it took until after the relationship was over that I could think about things and realize the pattern. I learned from this that I need - not want or prefer - people who are compatible with me in 'intimacy' style. We don't need to mesh totally but a basic compatibility in this area is a must have for me.

 

[River]

I learned from this that I need - not want or prefer - people who are compatible with me in 'intimacy' style. We don't need to mesh totally but a basic compatibility in this area is a must have for me.

Thanks Opalescent.

There is so much to explore in all of this -- so much food for thought and for inquiry!

I can't help wondering if there is anything like a common sensibility concerning what intimacy is. Perhaps more important, I wonder what the top five or six (or ten) words would be chosen as representative of what folks seek or want in "intimacy".

Any thesourous -- e.g., http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/intimacy -- can provide a list of commonly agreed upon synonyms. But look how diverse the meanings are! -- and how (sometimes) vague.

Regarding touch... Touch is very important to me in "intimate" relationships, but so is good verbal rapport, enjoyable convesation, happily shared experiences, mutual interests and commitments about which we can be mutually supportive.... And this is true, for me, whether the relationship is "platonic" or otherwise. What touch does, for me, is provide an opportunity for me to sink down below the conceptual into a much more "somatic" experience, and deeply relax into loving intimacy (bonding, connection, warmth...).

 

[kdt26417]

I think there are multiple kinds of intimacy, and that intimacy means different things to different people. I think of it as being in tune with each other's lives and stories. Well and then there is sexual intimacy, but I think that's a different kind of intimacy.

 

[AzureKnight]

There's so many interesting aspects of this thread I'm going to have difficulty being concise -- its also 4:30 in the morning -- but here goes. My first post too! Nothing will go wrong with this plan...

The inquiry is about what distinguishes very close friends from lovers, husbands, wives...

Probably what makes it confusing is that there are multiple spectrums of measure involved. We use the word intimacy in multiple ways and try to use context to know which is meant, but we sometimes combine them. There's:

Emotional intimacy: ranging from 'I never share anything I'm feeling with this person' to 'My every feeling is available to this person'
Activity intimacy: ranging from 'Regardless of the activity I don't want to do it with this person' to 'No matter what the activity it will be fun with this person'
Physical intimacy: ranging from 'I won't ever touch this person' to 'I'd never miss an opportunity to be physically close'
Sexual intimacy: Not sure I have a good sense of the range on this one.

There's probably others.

So for me a friend is going to be someone whom I have an activity, emotional, or physical intimacy with. A lover is someone I have sexual intimacy with. Sometimes these land on the same person, sometimes they don't. I have friends are solely 'activity friends', I have two friends whom I have a strong emotional intimacy with...and so on. Each person I have a relationship with is going to have different degrees of each of the intimacies. And it evolves and goes back and forth on each spectrum as the relationships change.

There's also another component here -- for many "friend" is simply someone they know. My view is that unless there's something going on with at least one of the intimacies, that the person is an acquaintance.

I think the intimacies feed into each other but they're separate needs and are fulfilled in different ways. For instance, emotional is fueled by talking about feelings, goals, life choices, and the day-to-day joys and frustrations. Physical intimacy can make some of that sharing easier and that sharing can make physical intimacy easier.

 

[AzureKnight]

I also didn't realize that I often felt rejecting to people who were 'touch-first' people. It wasn't on purpose and once I understood that, I've explained how I operate which I think helps somewhat.

It does help to explain. .

I'm wondering if 'touch first' is a thing for some people who has 'touch' as a love language. I have touch as a love language but I am cautious about touch as a result. It takes a certain amount of intimacy (or an effort to be understanding of someone that needs some touch) for me to hug, shake hands, whatever.

 

[tenK]

I'm wondering if 'touch first' is a thing for some people who has 'touch' as a love language. I have touch as a love language but I am cautious about touch as a result. It takes a certain amount of intimacy (or an effort to be understanding of someone that needs some touch) for me to hug, shake hands, whatever.

I'm similar. Touch ranks high on my love languages, but for me, I get tapped out quickly when it comes to social environments that are 'touch-heavy'. For context, my live-in partner is from a mediterranean country where it is common to greet EVERY PERSON even remotely connected to the group with multiple hugs and kisses - it's completely exhausting to me after a while and I often have to become super-British and awkwardly switch to shaking hands at some point or I feel like I'm going crazy.

 

[River]

Emotional intimacy: ranging from 'I never share anything I'm feeling with this person' to 'My every feeling is available to this person' Activity intimacy: ranging from 'Regardless of the activity I don't want to do it with this person' to 'No matter what the activity it will be fun with this person' Physical intimacy: ranging from 'I won't ever touch this person' to 'I'd never miss an opportunity to be physically close'
Sexual intimacy: Not sure I have a good sense of the range on this one.

There's probably others.

So for me a friend is going to be someone whom I have an activity, emotional, or physical intimacy with. A lover is someone I have sexual intimacy with.

Thanks Azure. This helped me think through and begin to better understand my own feelings about these matters. Here's where I am at the moment on it.:

Kinds of intimacy (a partial list):

emotional
intellectual
spiritual
physical (though non-sexual, e.g., cuddling)
sexual
shared activities
common interests, values and commitments
"experiential resonance" (sharing similar ways of perceiving, questioning, experiencing such that a special kind of what may be called "relaxed communion" is possible due to this "resonance".

I don't feel it necessary to provide a comprehensive list here, but lising a few may help me be understood.

What I just realized (at least more fully than before) this morning, after having read the post from which I quote here, is that for me intimate "friendship" (non-sexual) requires connection in several of the kinds of intimacy listed (and beyond). I will not think (or feel) that someone is my true friend if we're not connecting on seome several of these areas. And if I am connecting well on some of these with someone, but not at all on others, I will probably want to explore the possibility of expanding the repertoire of kinds of intimacy in which we're conecting. For example, if I've had a frieend for a while and we're connecting emotionally and intellectually ... and are sharing common interests (e.g., going hiking in wild nature together), I may at some point see if we can move past the usual quick hugs and handshakes into cuddling sometimes. Now I realize that for most Americans, cuddling is something exclusive to romantic / sexual relationships, and that this "move" would often be seen as a move in the direction of sex or romance, but for me it's just a natural extension and development of intimacy in friendship (sometimes).

So, it seems, for me, the only major difference between a platonic friend and a lover is that I'm sharing sexual intimacy with the lover and not with the platonic friend. A lover, in other words, is a friend with whom I am "making love" (as it is often called).

 

[kdt26417]

Sometimes my cat and I cuddle in bed. Does that count?

 

[opalescent]

Sometimes my cat and I cuddle in bed. Does that count?

Yes! My pets and I curl up on rainy days and snooze. I would be a much less sane and healthy person without them around.

 

[River]

Sometimes my cat and I cuddle in bed. Does that count?

Ewww! That's sick, man!



I've heard about people like you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

 

[kdt26417]

Ha ha River, very funny. ("Ruff!" means yes, "Ruff! Ruff!" means no.)

Obviously "pet intimacy" is different from "human-to-human intimacy." Pets can't talk to us, but they can be wonderful sources of love and acceptance. The relationship my cat shares with "her humans" is based on feeding her and cleaning her box, playing with her toys with her, petting, kissing, pulling the female human's hair, and of course, cuddling. It's a very simple (and some might say primitive) kind of relationship, but we all feel better because of it.

 

[River]

Ha ha River, very funny. ("Ruff!" means yes, "Ruff! Ruff!" means no.)
.

Oh, great. Now he tells me he likes it ruff.

 

[River]

It's a very simple (and some might say primitive) kind of relationship, but we all feel better because of it.

My experience with cats is that, very often, when they get all comfy and stuff, they will often begin to knead me with their little sharply clawed feet, digging intto the skin, as if I were a loaf of bread dough. Meanwhile, they will quite wetly slurp at my imaginary nipples -- for my nipples are not near my bellly button.... It's much too painful to be very exciting.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qg7qy

 

[kdt26417]

You're a sick man River. Your cats are sick as well. Would they be willing to attend counseling sessions with you?

 

[River]

You're a sick man River. Your cats are sick as well. Would they be willing to attend counseling sessions with you?

I don't currently have any cats, [nor do they have me] because my (same-sex! ) partner forbids me to do so on account of his nose and skin (he's allergic).

I'm old enough now to have had nine lives, so I know all about cats -- and how they will tend to knead me knead me knead me ... and suck on me without even first asking pemission or gaining human consent.

I have attempted on many previous occasions to bring previous cat-people companions into counselling sessions with me, but all of my cat companions have said only this in response: "Cats are not herd animals. I refuse to be herded into your cat-amamie human herd instincts concerning cat-atonic 'therapy'!"

I remain perplexed to this day as to what such words may mean.

Signed,

Mark Twain

 

[kdt26417]

[at the shrink's office]

"So tell me, does this have origins in your childhood?"

"Meow."

 

[AzureKnight]

"experiential resonance[/B]" (sharing similar ways of perceiving, questioning, experiencing such that a special kind of what may be called "relaxed communion" is possible due to this "resonance".

I'd like to hear more about this one. I'm not sure I understand it. Is it something like "we think about things in a parallel way"?

Now I realize that for most Americans, cuddling is something exclusive to romantic / sexual relationships, and that this "move" would often be seen as a move in the direction of sex or romance, but for me it's just a natural extension and development of intimacy in friendship (sometimes).

I feel it is difficult to discern the difference between "courting a friend" and "courting a romantic/sexual partner", objectively observed, many of the behaviors are the same and only differ in the nuances. There's folks that have difficulty observing/acknowledging the nuances. Its tricky to infer, so we run into difficulty if wants aren't communicated directly. Different cultures socialize/emphasize the nuance-reading skills more than others.

So, it seems, for me, the only major difference between a platonic friend and a lover is that I'm sharing sexual intimacy with the lover and not with the platonic friend. A lover, in other words, is a friend with whom I am "making love" (as it is often called).

That's the way I'd characterize lover as well. Not sure how I'd characterize someone with whom I only share sexual intimacy.

 

[River]

[at the shrink's office]

"So tell me, does this have origins in your childhood?"

"Meow."

" ... Okay, doggonit! I'll tell you then! It's true! It's true, doggonit! I'm seeing a dog! I could not help myself!"