From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Touching and the Party
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:07:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.203742.13810@midway.uchicago.edu> 
h431@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <memo.531319@cix.compulink.co.uk> cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk 
writes:
>> 
>>Because we are in Bi-space, it does *not* invalidate our right to
>>refuse contact by people who we do not want to be touched by, 
>>it's got nothing to do with not liking that person, but it goes 
>>deeper, and is therefore quite personal -- unless you feel that 
>>the person deserves an explanation. My problem, and I know some 
>>others had the same problem, was that *some* people believed that 
>>if you are willing to be stroked by someone, then everyone else 
>>has free access to you.
>>[...] 
>
>I'm glad Clive, Dave and Julie are bringing up this issue.  
>I'm a person that absolutely HATES social kissing - even the New York 
>style peck on the cheek.  I was at a mostly bi party where there was 
>a kissing game in progress and I really didn't want to participate.  
>Now I feel that I could just bluntly say "sorry, I don't wanna" and 
>leave it at that, instead of making up a fib about an intestinal 
>virus or whatnot.
>
>Orgies make good fantasies, but I'm not sure how I would feel about 
>the reality of it, having to negotiate issues of consent with lots 
>of people, and feeling nasty about saying "no" because somebody is 
>just not attractive to me in that way.
>
>-Heather
>I'll take hugs, but save the kisses for somebody else ...

I feel I should say something to these threads, though it may cast me in 
an unfavorable role.   If I'd been in Edin<mumble> at the party, I very
likely would not "have kept my hands to myself" and would have joined
the nearest pile/clump/whatever.  I've got a definite bias in favor of
touch, *and* I do still have something I use for ethics (which leads
me to look for "consenting adults" and take "no" seriously), 
*and* I can be tempted by lust or wishful thinking to be a bit sloppy
about the details.

UCBU may not generally go as far as the Edin<mumble> party, but we
have come close at times (I'm curious to hear orc's comparison.)

Generally UCBU folk seem fairly free with hugs and other light touch. This
is not to say that people have no limits -- the limits seem to fall somewhere
between group hugs and group sex -- which is where I have some sharp limits
of my own and some gray areas subject to the social context.

My initial reaction to coming to UCBU were "hugging this group is more
definite than dating some people" -- I was finding it very disinhibiting --
alternating between feeling like a "kid in a candy store" and reminding
myself that it was likely the majority of people present had no particular
interest in me.

At one of the UCBU events I did push someone's boundaries too far -- they
complained and I stopped.  I'd placed an anonymous hand on the
inner thigh of someone in a group hug. It took me a few minutes to 
admit that I was the perpetrator, and apologize. (I think we are on good
terms again.) This is what I mean about being "sloppy": going a bit
further than someone's consent clearly allows or joining in a group
activity without an explicit invitation.  

I'm not sure we need to negotiate everything, but at the same time
more communication would not hurt, to find people's likes, dislikes
and limits.  I will pay attention to what I'm told *and* I'm a bad
"mind reader" at the best of times (when my judgement is unimpaired
by wishful thinking.)

I don't want to go back to "sitting on my hands" and I want to respect
people's limits.  The distinction between being "friendly" and "sexual"
is for me more a matter of degree than kind. I know I have to draw a line
somewhere for people's comfort; this doesn't mean I have no sexual
component in my feelings or behavior, just that it's on a shorter leash.

(I don't really have experience in group sex; as I've said my grey areas
are in the area of intimate touch.)

To take a different example, I'm over six feet tall and it is not usually
difficult for me to pick people up when I hug them. However, I tend to
be cautious about doing this, as it upsets many people. I tend rather, to
sort of scrunch down to other people's level for full-body contact regardless
of height.  However, one short person recently *demanded* that I pick them up
when I hugged them -- I said I was glad to comply. At the same time, the
next three people I hugged acted like they were afraid I would do the
same thing to them -- which I wasn't planning to do.  My point (if there is
one) is that different people may have opposite preferences.

I would suggest that if people wish to engage in a group activity (with
three or more people) and they do not want other people to join them, that
they either say "look but don't touch" or retire to a more private setting.

This is is the kind of situation where it is easy to act on the wrong
assumptions.

I would echo what someone else said about hoping that other people will
feel free to say "no".  My ego is sensitive to rejection, but not
really especially fragile, (it's had plenty before, it can take a little
more. ;-)  I'm not sure of the best way to improve communication,
but I'd rather communicate more than just draw back in a shell.

(UCBU folk are especially encouraged to talk with me in person or via
e-mail.)

I would have characterized myself a year ago as being very reserved
and thereby unlikely to push people's limits -- but I can see that in a 
different social context, this is not necessarally true.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................