From: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Wow
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:42:04 GMT

Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
: >In article <19uk2iINN2tj@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S.  
: >Rapoport) writes:
: >> And we hugged ...
: >> Yes, to 99.999% of you, hugs are probably not a big thing.  They are to me

[I'd like to point out that Roy is *eminently* huggable, by the way - 
once he receives/gives a few more, he'll be well in need of a bear code]

: I would also like to put in a word on behalf of hugs ... speaking as one
: who has been known to go through serious bouts of hug withdrawal ...
: I'm not adverse to combining sexuality with sensuality, but at the
: same time I feel like I need human contact more than sex as such.

Albert speaks my language, and not for the first time!  I'm a
touch junkie (note revised sig) and as far as it's measurable, I
do believe I get more out of friendly physical contact with
those I like and love than I do out of sex per se.  I used to
be very body-shy, but I find that's changing a lot, and I'm
getting a huge amount out of hugs, backrubs and other contact.
There are always initiation problems for me - it's hard to
know that someone understands how little (or how much!) I
mean by a physical approach, but there are ways to navigate that.
[Mike avoids getting properly into that discussion due to burnt
fingers]

: (This likely has something to do with my family -- my parents didn't
: start hugging me regularly until they both had been in the hospital with
: life-threatening illnesses.)

Yup - a familiar observation.  A couple of years ago, Dad started
shaking my hand when I returned from long trips (to conferences
or whatnot).  That was the first sign of physical contact with
the parents since they stopped smacking me at a much earlier stage.
Now both parents have got as far as hugs when I reappear, but
generally this is too little too late to counter years of
body-contact negativity.  Fortunately, I respond with rebellion
and hunger, rather than perpetuation.

: It's hard to get people to take seriously both the hugable cuddly side
: and the lustful sexual side to my personality -- not that I'm especially
: good at sorting things out -- I want to offer people what they want
: and I don't want to deny one or the other, but it's a lot easier to
: get people to focus on one or the other.

Hmm.  Difficult.  My problem has tended to be not having the lustful,
sexual side.  It hasn't always been true, but I have spent several
years dealing with The 'I' Word, and still find myself to be less
libidinous than most.  Ah well - there goes another straight-world
stereotype, of bis as "if it moves it gets me hot" types.
By now, I'm very comfortable with the level of my sex-drive
(or levels, it tends to vary).  It's amazing what you can find
if you're not trapped in some performance-based plan .. *deep*grin*
I'm sure many (most?) here have learnt the joys of non-goal-oriented
sex.  I guess I was just lucky, in that the lesson was forced on
me :-)

: Perhaps this is also related to a tendency to be either rather shy
: or rather blatant...

Mike, encouraging Albert to get as blatant as he likes ... *smirk*
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- c g+ k+ s m- e? |"Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and        | Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion            |     - Bruce Cockburn
 ....."I suffer from internalized homophonophobia"....."Their, they're".....
Newsgroups: soc.bi