[nxc18]

I don't know how common this is, but I was raised to see intimate touch as reserved exclusively for family and sexual/romantic partners. There's a pretty big mental block when it comes to touch, and I think that's made my life materially worse. Do others experience that? I grew up in New England for context.

I'm somewhat fortunate that if I get particularly lonely or touch deprived, I can hop on grindr/scruff/hornet and resolve that situation pretty quickly in most cases. I hear the situation for single heterosexual men is significantly worse, but I'd like to hear others thoughts. Are there outlets for straight lonely people in need of touch?

Gay dating apps have a reputation for being very sex focused, but many of the profiles I see are specifically seeking out touch/cuddling as a primary or even exclusive goal.

[throwawi]

Heterosexual male here. I think the last time I touched anyone was when I hugged my mom when she visited me 3 months ago, and before that I don't think I touched anyone for the 6 months since I broke up with my gf.

After finishing college I moved to basically the middle of nowhere for my tech job without knowing anyone in the area. Wasn't proactive enough making friends, and because of my gf at the time I didn't seek out any women. We broke up right as the pandemic started, which may have been the worst possible time.

I'm not sure if it's because it's been so long that I touched anyone, but I don't get touch deprived as often as I would have expected. Sure there are times occasionally where I feel really lonely, but so far it's been pretty easy to brush that off. However, taking care of my mental health has been nearly a full time job. I make sure to exercise daily, I picked up guitar and mountain biking, and I blocked all social media I see as toxic (reddit, youtube, facebook. HN is okay in moderation). I my sleep schedule in check with targeted melatonin and bluelight filters. Keeping up with old friends and family is also essential.

My running theory is that touch is certainly a positive, but it isn't essential if the other parts of your life are kept in shape. Although shortening that list of mental health tasks to something more manageable does sound enticing. I've never been good at dating though, and with the double whammy of it being quarantine and not having a local friend group I'm not really sure how to solve that problem. Dating advice might be a bit off topic for HN though, considering temporarily unblocking reddit.

[raducu]

My running theory is that western society is built around depriving men of certain emotions that say "you are good enough as you are and should be appreciated just as you are"; be that touch, sex (how many times have I heard this cultural fetish that men should transmute their sexual energy to something "better") .

Like cutting branches from a young tree so that it grows taller or straight -- to serve an ulterior purpose.

The ulterior purpose for cutting emotional branches of men is to increase productivity and yield from men, increase obedience to authority figures for fighting wars and so on.

[throw4reasons]

I coexist with my wife (and 3 year old) but we came to the conclusion that we are utterly incompatible and cooled off the romantic part completely. I hoped things would turn around but the pandemic and wfh exacerbated the problem. I only play with my child (+ the daily hug) but other than that I haven't touched anybody in more than a year and am somewhat somewhat fine with it. I am aware that I am not replacing the need for a partner with the affection for the child but simply accept the situation for now.

[raducu]

> but we came to the conclusion that we are utterly incompatible and cooled off the romantic part completely

> I hoped things would turn around

Tell your wife that.

I feel that I am also incompatible with my wife on an intellectual level, but I can manage many point aspects of our relationship.

One (very) good aspect of our relationship was sex. This has taken a downturn recently and somehow, either because my wife was implying it or some social expectation, I was left with the impression that somehow I was a pig that only wants sex.

A great insight came from a female therapist who told me that sex is also a way to communicate and regulate/re-establish relationships. I shared this insight with my wife who also found it very true.

I'm sure its not just the sex, but touch as well.

There is this modern myth that spouses should be perfect matches and its sort of all or nothing -- this is very wrong and damaging.

[germinalphrase]

For what it’s worth, my wife and I slipped into a similar pattern and it put a great deal of stress on our relationship. We did seek some outside support and things have since moved back in the other direction. No advice here. Just sharing to acknowledge that these things can be fluid.

[Juliate]

YMMV but on our side, at some point in our life, we resorted to decide on at least one mandatory full minute (60 secs) hug every morning and possibly anytime the other asks for it.

Just this, as small and simple as a one minute hug made a huge difference and generated other benefits.

[throw4reasons2]

Wow, this is almost my exact situation. I'm living for my child. I would have much preferred to demonstrate to him what a healthy, loving relationship looks like with my wife, but the status quo is probably the best that can be made of a bad situation.

[nradov]

Ironically, living for your child will probably produce the opposite of the effect you intend on your child.

[raducu]

No, it is not and you'll teach your child some very bad lessons for the future.

You should acknowledge and try to fulfill your emotional needs as well.

I had a REALLY bad example in my mother who changed her mind multiple times about divorcing my father for the sake of me and my sister. That mental model of self-sacrifice made me unable to breakup with my (now) wife after some major red flags.

If you want to re-connect with your wife, absolutely tell her that and acknowledge to yourself and her that you do have emotional/romantic needs, and that your child absolutely is a reason in your willingness to give your relationship another go, but you will not be forever happy or stay in this arrangement.

[twyayayayyaya]

This is likely a common and underreported experience right now. I'm in a similar boat. My partner of many years and I managed through most of the pandemic in a city then moved to another lovely small town. It was a couple weeks later that my partner confessed that they had cheated on me on a single drunken occasion a year and a half previously. I felt taken advantage of, almost kidnapped, that they hadn't thought to say this before. It's been a month and a half and we're in limbo, not together, but not separated. Roommates.

Per the article, my partner is absolutely one who desires the language of touch. That we are around each other but deprived of it is very taxing.

[giardini]

You should read the short article "Why You Should Forget the Past" by Rolf Dobelli at

http://meaningring.com/2016/03/07/why-you-should-forget-the-...

[saiya-jin]

OP's situation is more complex because of the child. We all know kids that grow up without father tend to have more often various issues in later life (I've seen folks like that everyday in pre-covid times, it becomes glaringly obvious once you know what to look for in their behavior).

But then also staying in cold detached relationship ain't the best for the child either - they are very perceptive and seeing everyday cold parents relationship affects them negatively too. There isn't a nice, quick and easy solution for everybody without some real chance of harm for the most vulnerable - that's why it often becomes one's low point of life. You know its bad for the person you love the most, and you don't have a clear win scenario. Amicable split with good care from both sides is probably best, but unfortunately rarely seen.

Fuck I wish we were taught more these kind of things in schools (selection of life partner is tricky, test the relationship and each other hard before having children, but also things like effective communication, teamwork, how to generally thrive in system - ie taxes, how to setup a 1-man company etc.). Imagine nation of people raised like that, instead of memorizing tons of stuff that was forgotten very quickly but spent a lot of time/energy on.

[pedrosorio]

> I've seen folks like that everyday in pre-covid times, it becomes glaringly obvious once you know what to look for in their behavior

I’m curious, what are the telltale signs?

[saiya-jin]

There are many, not 100% for this reason, but often are - unhealthy competitiveness, inability to be happy with what one currently has (clue - it won't get much better once more is achieved). Children from broken families often don't believe in long term relationships or starting family and come up with reasoning like overpopulation and actually doing good for mankind. General insecurities. Afraid of generally any commitment. Emotional intelligence on a low level.

There are more extreme cases - wife works currently as doctor in prison, and most folks there didn't have a good (or any) fatherly model. Women have their own 'daddy issues' side to it, but most above applies too (experienced first hand in one relationship, it was pure nightmare although she was smart and professionally successful).

[hackerfromthefu]

I recommend the book 'families and how to survive them' for some actual insights on this topic

[watwut]

Absolutely none. Kids who grow in families with issues have higher rates of issues. (And kid having issues tend to break family too).

But it is not glaringly obvious at all who grew up with missing dad (or missing mom). None of the issues the sibling mention are exclusive to such people nor so much more likely to be found in such people.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

It's funny how the exact problems you were unprepared to face in life are what you think should be taught in schools to the exclusions of other things.

[watwut]

Once you have child, you are forever tied together through child. If they divorce, he wont be with child every day. He will be with child either on alternating weeks or every other weekend or whatever custody they agree on.

And he will still have to cooperate with ex. (Through here it sounds like fairly doable.)

[adamsea]

Another possibility is you may not be aware of the impact of not having touch, if it is not something you regularly had.

[swiley]

>After finishing college I moved to basically the middle of nowhere

People keep talking about how leaving cities will be great but they haven't lived in rural places. It's not nice.

[shybutnotshy]

You have to be ok with casual sex. I'm mostly not.

First I don't want to catch something (aids, chlamydia, herpes, ...) so a few minutes of sex doesn't seem worth the risk. I know, at least according to popular media that puts me in the minority. If my attitude is common it's probably not easy to spot.

Second, I don't want to hurt people. I know they exist but 9 times out of 10 people I meet want a serious relationship and would be hurt if we slept together than then I called it quits. I wouldn't lie to them directly but they'd feel like I was lying to them if I say, slept with them 2-3 times and then stopped seeing them. So, I basically don't get into it in the first place unless I believe that I'd like to be with them longer term. Of those people that could be more casual usually issue 1 comes up. They sleep around so they are more likely to have something and plus I don't want my heart broken.

Third, I'm also someone who just wants one person not just for sex but for love and companionship so my attitude is bad when meeting / looking for people. My attitude is "can I see myself being with this person long term" instead of "would it be fun to be with this person for the moment". That answer is quite often "no, I can't see myself being with this person long term". I don't think that's that strange of a thought. A stereotype of a story is the person that doesn't think this way and has lots of failed relationships for choosing superficial qualities of attractiveness as their reason for getting into a relationship. But, at least they had a relationship.

Anyway, the sum of those 3 things and possibly some bad luck being in jobs which have few members of the opposite sex and friends that have few friends of the opposite sex means I haven't had a relationship for ~17 years. I hope every day that will change, I frequent 5 dating sites. I have matches. But getting something started seems really hard. I would do much better if I went to church (I'm atheist) or did some activity where I got to know people over time and become friends first. I've gone to several meetups but if they are truly about something I care about they usually have few members of the opposite sex. I've been to a few otherwise but it's been the same bad luck I guess. No one I'm interested in or no one that shows interest.

[saiya-jin]

You are doing the right thing I believe - taking relationships seriously. Maybe a bit too seriously but that's up to discussion. I am the same. Low quality relationship does way more harm than good to a normal balanced person, so like elsewhere quality beats quantity.

What I can recommend to you, maybe cliche but it works and worked for me - start some physical workout. If you are unfit start gently, adapt your body to it. Do something that you +-enjoy, you will not stay with activity you hate for too long. Progress in it, in a pace that suits you (or not, and do it more often - that's progress too). Consistency is the key.

What it brings is not only looking better, but actually feeling much better about oneself. More confidence, happiness. This is something women perceive very well and it elevates your status. One will usually start eating healthier too. What women look for is generally competence, the more you bring to the table the easier is to find the matching partner. At one point, you can start being picky and choose based either on looks (not so smart approach if the main criterion) or personality and compatibility with you.

That way, exposing oneself in various social groups does bring many more encounters and stops being such a frustrating futile experience it once was. At least that's my path, and there is good logic in it.

[raducu]

> Maybe a bit too seriously but that's up to discussion.

But that is they key here.

My brother in law is like that, a really good guy and handsome as well. But he takes this perfect partner thing to such an extreme that he's been single forever. Also, he has personal issues that would stand out if he was in a relationship. He thinks that by entering a perfect relationship those would be non-issues, but that's the thing -- there is no perfect relationship or person, and by entering even meh-level relationships you can see your own issues and perhaps fix them -- if you really want a relationship, that is.

[dTal]

Friendly heads-up, you seem to have assumed that the parent is looking for women, which isn't necessarily the case.

[precisioncoder]

I would highly recommend dropping the dating sites and spending the time and money looking into touch centric hobbies instead. There are dozens of different styles of dance, Acroyoga or Partner acrobatics is also a great option. Whether you meet a partner or not, having a better relationship with the opposite gender and touch will make your dating options much better. Often you don't find your special somebody until you stop needing to find them, because that's when you can be truly open to what the world has to offer you.

[neolog]

Do singles go to acroyoga and partner acrobatics without knowing anybody?

[precisioncoder]

Yes I would say about 80% of most of the groups I've attended has been either singles or people coming without their partners. For a first workshop it often tends to be more couples but the social aspect of it naturally encourages mixing groups, especially because to do it safely you'll need one or two "spotters" that help keep you safe.

[neolog]

What part of the world is this?

[precisioncoder]

I live in Austria but I travel and have trained through most of Europe where it's similar. The international people that I've met have said it's similar in the US but I can't speak personally about it. I've been doing it for about four years did a teaching program last year and teach weekly classes now.

[Tobu]

Yes of course.

I've been into contact improvisation, some partner dances, and acro, and the scenes are structured by social circles that are much broader that most romantic relationships.

You become part of a scene by showing up regularly, practising, and occasionally making friends.

If some of these activities have sensual components (communication through touch, syncing together, sharing an understanding of the music…), there's no need to link that to romantic connections.

[Cthulhu_]

> I know, at least according to popular media that puts me in the minority.

Emphasis on "popular"; as with politics, there's a loud minority that skews the perception of, in this case, the prevalence of casual hookups. But think about it, few people on social media will mention NOT having hookups, so it's a case of survivorship bias (I think).

My point is, the amount of people that have frequent hookups is relatively small, but media (social and others) make it look like it's common, normal, or even expected. But it isn't, in practice.

[brightball]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your point of view. I had basically the same point of view when I was dating and never strayed from it.

The only thing that did change was that I made myself start dating and I was extremely honest. I told anyone that I asked out (or the rare "asked me out") that I wasn't looking for a serious relationship. The first time I said it was after a bad breakup because I didn't think I was ready for it, but I was shocked at how well this was received.

What I accidentally discovered is that women often want to go out, they want to go on a date, get to know you and see if there's a mutual connection there. What they don't want is to be stuck if they decide it's not and you become overly clingy, so they have to concoct ways to let you down easy or break it off without hurting your feelings.

It's been 18 years so forgive me if I can't remember exactly how I phrased it, but I think at some point in a conversation I'd say something along the lines of "Hey, I'm not looking for a serious relationship right now but I like you. Would you like to [have dinner|catch a movie|hang out] sometime?"

It was great. No pressure on anyone (including sexual pressure), no serious hard feelings from any of it. Actually made a lot of life long friends. Over the course of 1 year I went out with about 12 different people and met my wife. We've been married for 16 years now.

[nradov]

You seem unhappy with the results of your current approach. Instead of making changes you're making excuses and sabotaging yourself. Hoping won't accomplish anything. Have you considered therapy?

[jacobush]

I identify a lot with you.

But your paragraphs make it look like this is it. The world is not static. As the other commenter said, you can gently start working out. It's a thing, and it has intrinsic value.

Also, you often can't see yourself attaching to a person long term, because you don't know yourself as well as you think you do. (One should stay away from toxic people though.)

Another thing is that you can start hanging out with people of the opposite sex without trying to get into a relationship. The "friend zone" is largely a myth, not trying to score is incredibly sexy. And lots of friends have hooked up after years as friends only.

Many churches are welcoming of atheists by the way, but you have to stand it yourself, of course. One way could be to not attend service as much as volunteering for their support groups. Volunteers helping out in the community is always in short supply. This goes for non-denominational groups too, of course.

[randomperson321]

Why do you say your attitude is "bad"? Thinking about what you want long-term is far superior to being blown about by the winds of circumstance. I would guess that your issue is your tactics, not your strategy. If you think you're picky, you need to be going on more dates and meeting more people, not fewer. You aren't going to hurt these people if you communicate honestly and openly with them when you meet them.

It's like job interviewing. If you only do it (and more importantly only think about it) once a year, and only when you know it's a job you _really_ want to get, you're going to be really nervous and perform poorly.

[coldtea]

>First I don't want to catch something (aids, chlamydia, herpes, ...) so a few minutes of sex doesn't seem worth the risk.

Sounds more like microphobia. The chances are not that great. Except if you get casual sex from the fringe of society...

[leetcrew]

I dunno, my personal experience has been that plenty of people who seem otherwise responsible are not very careful about safe sex. several women I've hooked up with (or was about to hook up with) have told me they're on birth control so I don't need to use a condom if I don't want to. uhh thanks, but now I really want to use a condom.

[randomperson321]

Is there hard data about this somewhere?

[coldtea]

Perhaps for some countries, but most people go with their empirical data and knowledge of the world.

[virmundi]

Statistically 1/4 heterosexuals have some form of an STI. They can be even higher depending on what you read. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3575167/

STI in transsexuals is even higher. Some reports have it at 3/4 with high percentage of HIV. High rates among gays. Lesbians are pretty low (but have high domestic abuse rates).

STIs are a real danger unless many precautions are taken. We’re looking at dental dams. Condoms. And a lot of cleaning.

[coldtea]

>Statistically 1/4 heterosexuals have some form of an STI.

Which is misleading, as it includes STIs so benign that a full 1/4 of the population can have without any associated issues...

[ebg13]

> STIs are a real danger.

This is basically false and fear mongering.

Herpes has zero consequence for the vast majority of people who have it. Most of the rest just get mild discomfort once a year or every few years. It's so common and harmless that doctors won't even bother testing for it unless you make them.

The connection between HPV and cancer is real but reporting on it overstates its significance. Your risk of developing HPV-related cancer is less than your risk of getting murdered (very low). Also there's an effective vaccine against the most oncogenic strains. If you're worried, get vaccinated.

HIV still sucks, try not to get it, but transmission isn't that easy and, while treatment used to be very expensive, we have cheap and effective post-exposure prophylaxis and the price now for the generic form of standard treatment is less than $100 per year, and life expectancy with HIV is now nearly normal.

Chlamydia and gonorrhea are cured by a single dose of oral antibiotics. Syphilis is also cured by antibiotics.

[virmundi]

If you don’t want a disease, it is a real danger.

[ebg13]

That's an irrationally fearful idea of danger. I don't want to eat broccoli, but that doesn't mean eating broccoli is dangerous.

[coldtea]

If you don't want oxygen, breathing gets a real danger too.

But "real danger" usually has a more well defined meaning...

[flatline]

I don’t think you are particularly unusual in your wants and needs, but there may be some other issues if you have been trying and failing to have any sort of romantic relationship for 17 years.

[guskel]

Some people fall through the cracks and don't build enough dating experience while young to navigate the dating scene, only compounding the difficulty more and moreso as their peers zoom ahead.

[Cthulhu_]

The fact that there is such a thing as a "dating scene" is quite telling already - in just that phrasing it's already depicted as a different world, like idk, accounting vs waste processing in careers. I and many others aren't up for a career switch like that.

Thankfully I met my GF through the nerdy side of the internet - an area I'm much more comfortable on.

[shock]

Robert Glover - No More Mr. Nice Guy

[germinalphrase]

I’ma Brazilian Jiu jitsu player. The sport has a great deal of depth to technique and the physical exertion can be quite intense/rewarding; however, I do believe that the physical touch (and implicit trust therein) are an important aspect as well. It’s aggressive, but neither violent or sexual. Most of my training partners could severely injure me at any time, but I expose myself physically and trust them not to.

[elric]

Long time judoka chiming in. Both BJJ and judo are impossible without constant touch. The only time you're not touching someone during practice/competition is when you're bowing to one another or are doing some solo warmup exercises. I've been doing this since I was 6, so I can safely say that this greatly increases tolerance/comfort for being touched by complete strangers.

When teaching children or adolescents you sometimes get strange looks from parents, because things can look a bit weird in ground holds.

[mr_overalls]

I'm a long-time judoka. I took it up as a very awkward teenager, and it had incalculable benefits for my social comfort and development. And I've seen it do the same for others, beyond what might be expected for an athletic/social hobby.

Part of the effect seems straightforward enough - self-confidence at gaining newfound abilities, exercise, socializing, maintaining emotional self-regulation while engaging in controlled "fighting", etc.

But I think there is also something to the mere act of touching other humans and being touched several times a week. As the article suggests, it's comforting, fulfilling a basic human need. I wonder how this all plays out in the brain - can someone with a neuroscience background comment? Is the sense of touch specifically connected to brain areas of social well-being?

Edit:

"Many neuroscientists and psychologists believe that we have a dedicated system just for the perception of social – affective – touch distinct from the one that we use to touch objects. This system seems to be able to selectively recognise caress-like touch; this is then processed in the insula, a brain area connected to maintaining our sense of self and an awareness of our body. Slow, caress-like touch is not only important for our survival, but also for our cognitive and social development: for example, it can influence the way we learn to identify and recognise other people from early in life."

https://aeon.co/essays/touch-is-a-language-we-cannot-afford-...

[cookingrobot]

This comment reminds me of why it’s fun to dance in a mosh pit, which is probably the most combative thing I’ve done.

[Fnoord]

That really depends on the audience though. There's also different types of moshpits.

[spaetzleesser]

That’s a good point. Even in boxing you do a lot of touching and also the concept of “private space” isn’t valid there either.

[scottlocklin]

New Englandah here. More or less the same upbringing you describe, where intimate touch is reserved for sexual partners and family members. I don't agree, though, that it's made my life materially worse in any way, and articles like OP actively give me the heeby jeebies. I find touchy-feely people and the West Coast hugs newage (rhymes with sewage) quasi-surf-brah culture to be generally fake and creepy. Yeah, you have to hug babies or they come out broken: that doesn't mean you have to hug everyone all the time, or that grown adults have some USRDA specified minimum required human touch. The idea that there are people so lonely and isolated that they pine for hugs is, of course, deeply sad, but that's a problem with loneliness; not some mechanical need that can be fulfilled the way you can cure a vitamin deficiency by popping a pill, which is certainly what this article implies. Random people, including (perhaps especially including) very lonely people invading my space are not appreciated.

The article itself is filled with ridiculous pleonasms and nonsense statements:

>The language of touch also affects the way that we relate to ourselves and our bodies across the lifespan, with profound impacts on our psychological wellbeing

WTF does this even mean? Followed by "citations needed."

>As a scientist, but also as a fellow human, I claim the right to touch, and to dream of a reality where no one will be touchless.

Get away from me creepy science lady!

In all seriousness, this is article is a load of West Coast american New Age horse shit. There are entire cultures of no-touchy people: for example, the Nordics, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese. They tend to be more long-lived, happy and vastly more free of mental illness than West Coast Americanos who gabble on about muh therapeutic touch (and who also post HN articles about the mystical wisdom of .... Nordics and Japanese when it comes to their ancient and mysterious customs such as going outside sometimes[0][1]). There's something infantile and needy about over-touchers. Cultures which have different conceptions of shared space (I dunno southern Europeans, Arabs) also have plenty of boundaries -the touchy feely types don't, and I think the latter are the ones with problems.

Lonely people: if you have something that prevents you from making friends in the ordinary way, please buy a dog or something and leave us non-touchy feely people alone.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20877796

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24886440

[FrankyHollywood]

haha, you gave me a good laugh there, nicely spoken! :)

But you are right. People who are lonely or depressed are better off having some good friends they can call to hang out on a Friday night. Having some huggy colleague or kisses from you aunt don't make you feel better.

My experience is that an intimate relation with someone is nice at first, but as more people have said in this thread, it fades away after some years. I personally never feel better than having a great night with friends.

[randomperson321]

Should those really be considered "no touch" cultures? I would assume most couples, even within those cultures, touch each other frequently.

[DoreenMichele]

Some people pursue activities like dance. You can also pay for massages.

Some people aren't aware of this as a need. Others have mental blocks. But if you really want it (I mean without sex), it is possible to arrange it and some people do so.

[bradlys]

There are people who call themselves cuddle therapists. Might want to look into that. It isn’t supposed to be sexual as far as I know.

I was the same as you until I was about 21. Up until I was 18, everyone in the community I grew up in would say that if two boys touched each other then it was a gay act. And since everyone was deeply homophobic... no men touched each other. I see this culture in many places still even in places like the Bay Area. Men don’t touch and rarely hug. Mostly handshakes or something.

Anyway, I grew out of that by moving to a big city and learning dance when I was 18. Started with swing dancing (Lindy hop, Charleston, etc) then progressed to others. Mostly so I could be close to cute ladies! As I aged, I learned dances that involved a connection spanning from the thigh all the way to the head... like you were in a full contact hug. And sometimes there weren’t enough women to practice with or some of the men wanted to follow, so we had to switch around. And I learned to follow too because I wanted to get better. Getting close to men became less weird and touching people became uneventful. One particular act of this community that danced this way was that they would hug after practically every dance. It was common to hug during arrival and leaving of dances too. It didn’t matter who you were or if you knew each other, as long as the dance wasn’t painful then you would hug. So, even if you didn’t do the full body connection (it was an option) then you still experienced a significant form of touch at the end with hugs.

Anyway, I got used to touch and now it’s weird to be out in the world. I did all those things for so long that I’m completely open to hugging and touch unlike I was in the past. Sometimes me and a person will have a good interaction and reach a good conclusion during a meeting, my natural reaction now is to go for a hug and be like, “nice. Glad we got that done.” But gotta resist that as it’s pretty weird to do in the workplace but totally normal for me.

One of my best friends is an engineer from a more rural part of the country. We’ve hugged maybe a half dozen times over the years. She’s not comfortable hugging men even if they’re her best friend. I see this as normal for most of the US and it’s unfortunate. Touching men is just some weird taboo in the US unless you’re their romantic partner.

[ryandward]

There's something fundamentally different that seems to cut cleanly along cultures.

Growing up in a Mexican culture, I have always been taught to be chaste and pious, but it just isn't something I internalized. Instead, my peers were a much bigger influence.

It seems more common in some other cultural contexts to internalize this kind of self-denial with overtones of purity.

Even as a gay man, I never found the need for dating apps, since there isn't as much of a binary distinction between friends/acquaintances and romantic partners.

[Santosh83]

It has been months, maybe more than a year, since I touched anyone. It is possible, though hard, to overcome this "need"... it is not really the same kind of need as hunger or thirst. It can be sublimated into other activities if you don't keep stressing and agonising about it.

[JimBlackwood]

I’m lucky to have a group of friends that’s very open to touch. I often have a night with a male/female friend and we’ll sit cuddled up on the sofa playing a game/watching a movie.

In terms of dating apps for heterosexual men, I don’t think it’s that bad. There’s a lot of women that are up for just having a conversation and from that a friendship can spark where cuddling is perfectly fine.

[klyrs]

I grew up on the west coast and married somebody from new England, who described "us" as straight exactly once. Awkward. They were hyper possessive about touch. It was so weird to me. People with hangups about sex seem to sexualize everything.

[anon9001]

> Are there outlets for straight lonely people in need of touch?

In short, no. In practice, onlyfans and right-wing politics? That's what seems to be happening instead.