wispfox: (Default)
I do not get enough cuddling in my life. Currently, it's basically only [livejournal.com profile] metahacker. [livejournal.com profile] jasra and I are working on it, on our end. The fact that I will tend to forget to be cuddly with people if I've not been doing enough cuddling does not help.

One of the best things about the wedding I just attended was feeling comfortable saying to a couple of women I had just met that I would like to be cuddling them. And then, we did so. One was more comfortable with cuddling than the other, I suspect due purely to experience with it. But. Cuddles. Cuddles with no purpose beyond simple touch.

Also, fabulous dog whose purpose in life is to be cuddly (literally, that's what she's being trained for). :)

I really, really miss contexts in which the cultural norm of 'touch must be sexual or at least have a sexual overtone' has been subverted. I mean, I don't tend to be cuddly with people if I'm not attracted to them somehow or another ("attracted" as in "drawn to" or "fascinated by" or "want to know better" - no specific goal beyond that), but it feels like a world of difference between "hey, you're nifty" and "My only purpose for touching you is because I want to get into your pants at the earliest possible opportunity". The attendees at this weekend's wedding, thankfully basically free of that cultural norm. So, I actually let hugs last as long as they would naturally do so. And didn't feel uncomfortable at random back massages as part of hugs (and indeed gave such as part of hugs myself). I am not trying to suggest that there was no interest, just that it wasn't the point of the touch.

I'm also _utterly_ delighted by the fact that, unlike usual, one of the women there was first to suggest the idea of trading contact information. It can get very, very tiring to always be the one asking for more interaction with interesting women, y'know? (I'm typically not as drawn to lengthen interactions with men, and the fact that I'm acutely aware of not dating any women appears to only have increased this trend more toward finding women more interesting) I think the last woman who was first to suggest more interactions (or perhaps mutual of said) after our first interaction was [livejournal.com profile] jasra. (and before that was [livejournal.com profile] the_xtina)

I can never tell if that's because they are shy to suggest more interaction, there is not sufficiently strong mutual fascination, or what. And I often feel like I come on too strong when I find someone fascinating, which rarely helps when interacting with a woman.
wispfox: (Default)
There is a post bubbling away beneath the surface of my thoughts which may or may not manage to come out in this post, as a result of the combination of [livejournal.com profile] metahacker's post on cuddling and affection with friends-who-are-not-necessarily-lovers, and [livejournal.com profile] figmentj's post on dating when not seen as an audition.

It took me a very long time to understand that, for most people, and in the context of typical societal norms, cuddling was assumed to be sexual. Touch at all - beyond a handshake - was assumed to be an expression of sexual interest.

An additional difficulty with wrapping my head around this concept is that my line between finding someone interesting and wanting to seek them out and spend more time with them, and being sexually attracted to them is very thin. And, people who I find interesting enough to actively seek out are people I would like to cuddle, and there is probably at least some amount of sexual attraction there. It's not quite true that everyone that I'm close to and seek out and am cuddly with is also someone that I have some sexual attraction to, but it's very close.

But having that attraction does not mean that I - or they - have time, energy, sufficient levels of attraction, or even necessarily are aware of it. So, for me, cuddling is _not_ automatically a sexual thing - and has never been - and the idea of there always being a sexual aspect to touch and cuddling is a hard one for me to grasp. However, it does seem true that, at some level at least, whatever nebulous concepts sexual attraction contains is frequently involved in whose touch I seek out.

Also in whose touch I am not comfortable with. If there is any level of sexual content in cuddling for another person and I am not interested in going there, I will not be comfortable cuddling them. This does not even need to mean that they are aware of said context, so I am not entirely sure how I can tell, sometimes. If I can't tell, I will tend to err on the side of caution, so if I can't read a person, I will generally not touch them. Too much cultural baggage tied up in touch, especially cross-gender. This was a very, very hard-learned lesson.

The frsutrating part about this, though, is that I do still find myself hugging people, sometimes, because the social costs of not doing so are more than I can handle right now. This frustrates me when I do it, and is usually a good sign I'm not actually up to group social interactions.

So many things meant by 'attraction', even 'sexual attraction'. So much tangled up in that concept, and the related concepts of the process of sexual entanglement and dating.

Why does [edited to add: anyone believe that] it need[s] to be true that touch and cuddling are completely unrelated to attraction in order for them to be non-sexual? Attraction may often, and possibly usually, contain sexual desire, but that isn't the only thing in there. That isn't the only possible context for touch between adults! Including adults who _are_ sexually involved with each other.
wispfox: (Default)
There is a post bubbling away beneath the surface of my thoughts which may or may not manage to come out in this post, as a result of the combination of [livejournal.com profile] metahacker's post on cuddling and affection with friends-who-are-not-necessarily-lovers, and [livejournal.com profile] figmentj's post on dating when not seen as an audition.

It took me a very long time to understand that, for most people, and in the context of typical societal norms, cuddling was assumed to be sexual. Touch at all - beyond a handshake - was assumed to be an expression of sexual interest.

An additional difficulty with wrapping my head around this concept is that my line between finding someone interesting and wanting to seek them out and spend more time with them, and being sexually attracted to them is very thin. And, people who I find interesting enough to actively seek out are people I would like to cuddle, and there is probably at least some amount of sexual attraction there. It's not quite true that everyone that I'm close to and seek out and am cuddly with is also someone that I have some sexual attraction to, but it's very close.

But having that attraction does not mean that I - or they - have time, energy, sufficient levels of attraction, or even necessarily are aware of it. So, for me, cuddling is _not_ automatically a sexual thing - and has never been - and the idea of there always being a sexual aspect to touch and cuddling is a hard one for me to grasp. However, it does seem true that, at some level at least, whatever nebulous concepts sexual attraction contains is frequently involved in whose touch I seek out.

Also in whose touch I am not comfortable with. If there is any level of sexual content in cuddling for another person and I am not interested in going there, I will not be comfortable cuddling them. This does not even need to mean that they are aware of said context, so I am not entirely sure how I can tell, sometimes. If I can't tell, I will tend to err on the side of caution, so if I can't read a person, I will generally not touch them. Too much cultural baggage tied up in touch, especially cross-gender. This was a very, very hard-learned lesson.

The frsutrating part about this, though, is that I do still find myself hugging people, sometimes, because the social costs of not doing so are more than I can handle right now. This frustrates me when I do it, and is usually a good sign I'm not actually up to group social interactions.

So many things meant by 'attraction', even 'sexual attraction'. So much tangled up in that concept, and the related concepts of the process of sexual entanglement and dating.

Why does [edited to add: anyone believe that] it need[s] to be true that touch and cuddling are completely unrelated to attraction in order for them to be non-sexual? Attraction may often, and possibly usually, contain sexual desire, but that isn't the only thing in there. That isn't the only possible context for touch between adults! Including adults who _are_ sexually involved with each other.
wispfox: (happy)
Good weekend. Very much so. *firm nod*
wispfox: (happy)
Good weekend. Very much so. *firm nod*

random

Aug. 27th, 2007 05:17 pm
wispfox: (googly eyes)
Why does Paperbackswap.com hate me today? Damn them. I want to give away/order more books!

Birthday parties are good. Even if it was too warm for me to remain in my formal clothing, I was still wearing fun clothing. And giggling like a loon continues (as per the trend with [livejournal.com profile] the_xtina) to make kissing cute girls somewhat difficult. But, I now have some immunity to the anti-kissing power of giggling! (even if I did then proceed to get very punchy as the night wore on! There were no announcements of my having toes; clearly I was still reasonably functional)

Also, happy birthday [livejournal.com profile] ifuonlyknew today, and [livejournal.com profile] jasra tomorrow!

I have unfamiliar brains to poke and prod! This is a good thing. (familiar ones continue to be good things to have around to play with, mind. Hell, assuming it's not irritating me, my _own_ continues to be fun to poke at)

I think I have finally been given a reason that I cannot avoid calling myself a geek which is less vague than being interested in everything (interest in everything is too damn general to be a geek thing). My fascination with people's brains/minds/psyches would, I think, be sufficiently strong to be a geek thing. Heh. I am an insufficiently well-educated geek of the mind, but what with my next schooling goals, that will not remain true! (of course, the more I know, the more there is to know, so I will likely continue to think I'm insufficiently well-educated about my fascination)

Mew!

random

Aug. 27th, 2007 05:17 pm
wispfox: (googly eyes)
Why does Paperbackswap.com hate me today? Damn them. I want to give away/order more books!

Birthday parties are good. Even if it was too warm for me to remain in my formal clothing, I was still wearing fun clothing. And giggling like a loon continues (as per the trend with [livejournal.com profile] the_xtina) to make kissing cute girls somewhat difficult. But, I now have some immunity to the anti-kissing power of giggling! (even if I did then proceed to get very punchy as the night wore on! There were no announcements of my having toes; clearly I was still reasonably functional)

Also, happy birthday [livejournal.com profile] ifuonlyknew today, and [livejournal.com profile] jasra tomorrow!

I have unfamiliar brains to poke and prod! This is a good thing. (familiar ones continue to be good things to have around to play with, mind. Hell, assuming it's not irritating me, my _own_ continues to be fun to poke at)

I think I have finally been given a reason that I cannot avoid calling myself a geek which is less vague than being interested in everything (interest in everything is too damn general to be a geek thing). My fascination with people's brains/minds/psyches would, I think, be sufficiently strong to be a geek thing. Heh. I am an insufficiently well-educated geek of the mind, but what with my next schooling goals, that will not remain true! (of course, the more I know, the more there is to know, so I will likely continue to think I'm insufficiently well-educated about my fascination)

Mew!
wispfox: (Default)
I like an awful lot of people. I begin to think that might be 'too many', at least based on my current (past few years) social needs and tendencies.

I find myself saying that I have mild interest[1] in lots of people, but there are very few people I have strong interest in. In every single case of strong interest, there has been a fair amount of in-person interaction over a fairly brief period of time.

This appears to be necessary to remain real in my head, and also appears necessary to be anything more than someone I would eventually like to get to know better. This is especially important when it's wintertime and I'm mostly not social, because I tend to not think to ping people who have lost reality in my head. It is not, however (as is probably obvious), sufficient for strong interest creation. 'Lots of time' != 'someone I am drawn to spending time with'.

I note this most especially with local people, possibly because it's easier to meet local people. And possibly because non-local means I tend to spend longer periods of time with people when in the same location, and I have to pick and choose _who_ to spend time with more carefully.

I think I may need to take a good look at who I actively want to spend time with, as well as who I seem to have an insufficiently strong pull toward to want to see them in non-group contexts. Of course, I appear to be less and less interested in group activities as time passes. Gotta wonder how much of this is due to being insufficiently careful about who I see in non-group activities... Starting to think that people who I'm neutral on would be better in the 'people I see in groups' category, rather than the 'sure, I'll hang out if asked' category, so as to lose less energy in individual interactions, and have more available for groups.

It is so very annoying being simultaneously extro- and introverted. Because half of me is like 'but! Nifty, interesting people!', and the other is like 'ok, too many people. Most of whom I have little draw toward'. Bah.

I do have to wonder how much of this relates to my difficulty with social interaction in the winter, where it's much more useful for people to visit me. So visiting me, even if someone isn't likely to be terribly useful for me in a low energy state, is still better than nothing...

Bah. I think on this for a while. So very strange to need to adjust to current state of socialness; I never used to know this many nifty people, so I didn't really _need_ to pick and choose so much. So my habits aren't really there yet.

[1] In this particular case, as I tend to need friendship before any other kind of interest, I'm mostly referring to a sufficiently strong interest in a friendship with someone to actively pursue one.


edit: I appear to have forgotten to make an important point. I _do_ still intend to seek out people whose 'do they draw me?' status is not known, especially if I've never met them or spent enough time directly interacting with them. Drawing me appears to be _entirely_ in-person interaction based, although online interaction will help with initial difficulty noticing/remembering people. I also intend to seek out people who are in the 'possibly draw me' category, where I don't yet _know_.

(actually, people who are entirely unknown will continue to be relatively infrequent for intentional one-on-one interaction, as they are highest energy requirement; and mostly during non-winter times. People who are potentially drawing for me will be a bit less infrequent)
wispfox: (Default)
I like an awful lot of people. I begin to think that might be 'too many', at least based on my current (past few years) social needs and tendencies.

I find myself saying that I have mild interest[1] in lots of people, but there are very few people I have strong interest in. In every single case of strong interest, there has been a fair amount of in-person interaction over a fairly brief period of time.

This appears to be necessary to remain real in my head, and also appears necessary to be anything more than someone I would eventually like to get to know better. This is especially important when it's wintertime and I'm mostly not social, because I tend to not think to ping people who have lost reality in my head. It is not, however (as is probably obvious), sufficient for strong interest creation. 'Lots of time' != 'someone I am drawn to spending time with'.

I note this most especially with local people, possibly because it's easier to meet local people. And possibly because non-local means I tend to spend longer periods of time with people when in the same location, and I have to pick and choose _who_ to spend time with more carefully.

I think I may need to take a good look at who I actively want to spend time with, as well as who I seem to have an insufficiently strong pull toward to want to see them in non-group contexts. Of course, I appear to be less and less interested in group activities as time passes. Gotta wonder how much of this is due to being insufficiently careful about who I see in non-group activities... Starting to think that people who I'm neutral on would be better in the 'people I see in groups' category, rather than the 'sure, I'll hang out if asked' category, so as to lose less energy in individual interactions, and have more available for groups.

It is so very annoying being simultaneously extro- and introverted. Because half of me is like 'but! Nifty, interesting people!', and the other is like 'ok, too many people. Most of whom I have little draw toward'. Bah.

I do have to wonder how much of this relates to my difficulty with social interaction in the winter, where it's much more useful for people to visit me. So visiting me, even if someone isn't likely to be terribly useful for me in a low energy state, is still better than nothing...

Bah. I think on this for a while. So very strange to need to adjust to current state of socialness; I never used to know this many nifty people, so I didn't really _need_ to pick and choose so much. So my habits aren't really there yet.

[1] In this particular case, as I tend to need friendship before any other kind of interest, I'm mostly referring to a sufficiently strong interest in a friendship with someone to actively pursue one.


edit: I appear to have forgotten to make an important point. I _do_ still intend to seek out people whose 'do they draw me?' status is not known, especially if I've never met them or spent enough time directly interacting with them. Drawing me appears to be _entirely_ in-person interaction based, although online interaction will help with initial difficulty noticing/remembering people. I also intend to seek out people who are in the 'possibly draw me' category, where I don't yet _know_.

(actually, people who are entirely unknown will continue to be relatively infrequent for intentional one-on-one interaction, as they are highest energy requirement; and mostly during non-winter times. People who are potentially drawing for me will be a bit less infrequent)
wispfox: (Default)
Link found on [livejournal.com profile] mactavish's journal:

"Fag. This is what I heard someone call my little boy today. I didn’t ignore it. I asked. I glared. What did you say?"


I don't _want_ to go to bed, even though I'm tired. I think this may be related to the fact that I'm constantly tired. Stupid February. Oddly, today was _very_ Spring-like. What a strange winter this is.


musings on Joe being back in .au and such )
wispfox: (Default)
Link found on [livejournal.com profile] mactavish's journal:

"Fag. This is what I heard someone call my little boy today. I didn’t ignore it. I asked. I glared. What did you say?"


I don't _want_ to go to bed, even though I'm tired. I think this may be related to the fact that I'm constantly tired. Stupid February. Oddly, today was _very_ Spring-like. What a strange winter this is.


musings on Joe being back in .au and such )

[random]

Feb. 3rd, 2005 10:38 pm
wispfox: (Default)
Got long, I cut the part about people, and interest, and connection )


The idea of not having anything for which one is working in an entirely non-verbal space baffles the hell out of me. I can think of three things, off the top of my head, which are entirely non-verbal for me (math, energy work, touch of any sort).


Apparently yes, I do need a jacket. (Yes, I'm not in Boston. It couldn't find Andover. Where it's snowing. Not misty) I don't remember who linked to this.


I have no idea who linked to this, either, but University of Massachusetts researchers will announce today that they have discovered a strategy for immobilizing sperm and have reached an agreement with a Norwegian company to develop a male contraceptive pill.


Ok. Sleep now. Seriously.

[random]

Feb. 3rd, 2005 10:38 pm
wispfox: (Default)
Got long, I cut the part about people, and interest, and connection )


The idea of not having anything for which one is working in an entirely non-verbal space baffles the hell out of me. I can think of three things, off the top of my head, which are entirely non-verbal for me (math, energy work, touch of any sort).


Apparently yes, I do need a jacket. (Yes, I'm not in Boston. It couldn't find Andover. Where it's snowing. Not misty) I don't remember who linked to this.


I have no idea who linked to this, either, but University of Massachusetts researchers will announce today that they have discovered a strategy for immobilizing sperm and have reached an agreement with a Norwegian company to develop a male contraceptive pill.


Ok. Sleep now. Seriously.
wispfox: (Default)
For someone who is intermittently very, _very_ anti-social, I know an awful lot of people. (this comment brought to you by me attempting to figure out which local people I will have not seen in entirely too long because of my busy last and this month - or longer than that in some cases. In some cases, there are people I've seen basically nothing of since before last summer's time of work eating my brain!)

I have to wonder if some of this is simply that there's too damn many nifty people around me now, and it's much easier to feel at least vaguely part of their lives via LJ. And, perhaps, the fact that I haven't quite adjusted to the fact that, since I've been in the Boston area, there've been lots of people who are nifty and actually make sense to me. (vs previous to that, when they were few and far between)

*shakes head* Too. Many. People.

*hides*

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123456
7 8910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 08:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios