More or less than a F#%/ Buddy

RadRx · #1 March 9th, 2005, 07:36 PM

Hey, guys:

A question popped into my head this morning, and I wanted to run it by the group.

It seems that there are a lot of folks out there that prefer just cuddling up with someone to having sex.

Would it be considered strange or beyond the realm of possibility to hook up with friend occasionally as a cuddle-buddy (can't think of a better term) instead of as a fuck-buddy?

Would this be considered going too far? Could it remain casual?

One of contributing factors to this question was a passage from the Gospel of Thomas (yes, I'm reading the heresy stuff) -- "Foxes have their dens, birds have their nests, but the human child has no place to lay its head and rest."

Digibacker · #2 March 9th, 2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadRx

Would it be considered strange or beyond the realm of possibility to hook up with friend occasionally as a cuddle-buddy (can't think of a better term) instead of as a fuck-buddy?

It's definitely possible. I've had a number of friends that I've been that close with, even some straight friends. The key is getting over the stigma of being physically intimate. Too many people are afraid that it has to mean "something more". And in some cases, people intend it to mean "something more". So, the trick is coming to a mutual understanding about how far it's intended to go. It might be something that needs to be discussed, or something that just evolves from an existing, close friendship.

Case in point -- my straight example -- a dozen or so of us who worked togther on some amateur stage productions would get together at someone's place, lounging in the dark on the floor, and everyone was intertwined as we chatted and joked around. People laying with their heads on other's torsos, legs flopped over legs, arms around waists, heads resting on shoulders -- men, women, straight, gay -- didn't matter. Picture a big co-ed, bisexual orgy -- but fully clothed and no sex. It was absolutely beautiful. We were all just really good friends being intimate, and no one thought anything else about it.

glammaman2000 · #3 March 9th, 2005, 09:39 PM

...there are no rules.& I always enjoyed the fact that i could get much more "touchy-feelie" with female friends because it was "safe";right?

wbhunk · #4 March 9th, 2005, 10:51 PM

I agree....there is such a thing as "friends with benefits", as I like to put it, but what those benefits are has to be determined on an individual basis. It's also important to be completely open about it with your significant other.

CelticMuscle · #5 March 10th, 2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digibacker

Case in point -- my straight example -- a dozen or so of us who worked togther on some amateur stage productions would get together at someone's place, lounging in the dark on the floor, and everyone was intertwined as we chatted and joked around. People laying with their heads on other's torsos, legs flopped over legs, arms around waists, heads resting on shoulders -- men, women, straight, gay -- didn't matter. Picture a big co-ed, bisexual orgy -- but fully clothed and no sex. It was absolutely beautiful. We were all just really good friends being intimate, and no one thought anything else about it.

What were you doing? Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Scocerer"?

Mdlftr · #6 March 11th, 2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CelticMuscle

What were you doing? Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Scocerer"?

Wow -- and I thought ONLY I would get the very obscure reference!

[For non G&S fanatics, "The Sorcerer" is a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta about a sorcerer named John Wellington Wells, who concocts a love philtre that puts an entire village of young and old, men and women to sleep. The most famous song from this show goes, in part, "My name is John Wellington Wells. I'm a dealer in majics and spells and blessings and curses and ever-filled purses, and sundary majics and knells and something something something...

( you get the idea) ]

Wait, it could be "A MidSummer Night's Dream"! Lots of 'intertwined people' lying around!

Mdlftr

Yachirobi · #7 March 12th, 2005, 07:59 PM

I think we're going to have to make a directory just for Gilbert and Sullivan. Too bad they've been dead for 100 plus years or they could make the Hulk Operetta.

Oh, when I am angered my muscles do swell
And then I go and give the army some Hell.
I might be too big to fit in a mercedes
But my mutant muscles do please all the ladies!

Muscleboi20 · #8 March 13th, 2005, 07:29 PM

Look at Virginia Woolf. Her famous Bloomsbury Group in London was the epitome of intimacy among friends. Sometimes innocent--sometimes not--their liberal views expanded the realm of sex beyond its socially accepted borders. Sex took a back seat to knowledge, creativity, and conversation; its importance was no more significant than dusting furniture on a rainy day. Likewise, when it happened, it happened, and who it happened between, it happened between.

The question arises then: Were the ideals of the Bloomsbury group valid or not? Can they be easily imitated between two people? Maybe in the very least, it can be said that as long as two people communicate their intentions--and only they have the ability to define the borders of their friendship--intimacy among them can happen comfortably.

flexicon1 · #9 March 15th, 2005, 06:30 AM

This thread reminds me of a term I coined: homoaffectionate. I have found it can diffuse the tension created by the term "homosexual" in those who find themselves naturally a little skittish around that term, (or the people they invariably define with the term even when the term itself is not used, when they unconsciously translate the word "gay") in a culture that partly still wants sex to be taboo, naughty, unspeakable, constrained.

A warning: some unscrupulous manipulator is going to use the term to get closer to his or her timid and homophobic pal for the ultimate goal of sex. Our job, when we use this term to define ourselves, is to practice integrity and allow affection to be a safe and trusted boundary.

If feelings start to change, I think honesty and candidness also must be fostered so that the relationship can be discussed and explored. If one feels like going another step and the other does not, the relationship may need to be reconsidered, or the feelings of safety may diminish for the one who chooses not to expand the boundary.

RadRx · #10 March 15th, 2005, 02:38 PM

So if someone is comfortable being affectionate with either sex does that make them a "bifectual?"

Muscleboi20 · #11 March 15th, 2005, 08:59 PM

No, that just makes them highly sensible.

Flexus Lee · #12 March 16th, 2005, 04:04 PM

My current housemates (both gay) have that sort of relationship. They both have their own rooms and usually sleep in them; but sometimes one will feel a bit lonely and go knocking on the other's door to cuddle up.

They both have sex with other people and both know about it. They originally met in a bathhouse so I guess once the initial barrier of intimacy is crossed stepping back to cuddling is not a big thing.

I have two other (gay) friends who used to have that kind of relationship as well. That didn't end too well because issues of jealousy and unfulfilled desires caused a lot of fighting at the end. They're better friends now that they're not living together any more. I think they still are "cuddle-buddies" occassionally.

I think cuddling is vastly under-rated. Sometimes it almost seems that it is considered 'unmasculine' to want to cuddle instead of rooting like a pig in heat.