[dheera]

I'm single and male, and personally I don't feel a "need" for sex. I do wish other less intrusive forms of intimacy e.g. hugs could be more legitimized between single people, though.

Sometimes I see pictures of cats cuddling and just wonder why humans are so bad at engaging in simple, consensual comforts like that.

[Jensson]

Most animals are in heat just a small part of the time, humans are in heat all the time. Animals in heat behave a lot more like humans do regarding these things. Humans still have the genes to populate the earth, we haven't adapted to having a stable population yet where we don't optimize for maximum kids.

[infp_arborist]

I would like to add that humans are in heat only when they are healthy and feel safe (emotionally, financially, physically). The traumatized modern western society tends to get in the way of this.

[jakear]

Humans are in heat approximately a quarter of the time max, far from "all".

Though a fair bit closer than dogs, who are in heat around a twenty fifth of the time.

[mathematicaster]

Anecdotally, I have found this to depend on cultural norms. Southern European cultures appear quite a bit more touchy-feely than North American ones.

[infp_arborist]

I totally agree. In no way is it helpful to see sex as a need. I prefer to see it as a strategy (and sometimes fixation).

[gerad]

Kids are good at it. Adults less so, because of… well, sex.

[weatherlite]

Its also quite cultural. Its normal for men to hold hands when walking in India, Nepal for example. At first it looked ridiculous to me...having grown up since then I think its Western civilization that's a bit ridiculous in that aspect.

[dheera]

Perhaps. But it's also "weird" that it only exists with same-sex. Why is it a cultural taboo for single men and single women to say, hold hands, if they aren't in a monogamous relationship with anyone else, and are doing so consensually?

I feel like traditional culture is the only thing that says "you shouldn't do that", which seems equally ridiculous to me.

[lotsofpulp]

Because there is a potential underlying motive, and it presents danger for one of the parties due to them being physically weaker. The risk of sending (or the other party assuming) the wrong signal is probably not worth it.

[dheera]

> Because there is a potential underlying motive

But that underlying motive could be mutual, it could not, the key is consensuality, at any point one party isn't on the same page they can and should say no, this applies to same-sex and opposite-sex configurations, no?

> and it presents danger for one of the parties due to them being physically weaker

That's also true of same-sex configurations, though.

[lotsofpulp]

> But that underlying motive could be mutual, it could not, the key is consensuality, at any point one party isn't on the same page they can and should say no, this applies to same-sex and opposite-sex configurations, no?

Hence the purpose of flirting to ensure both are on the same page and accepting of the risks. Consensual-ity and motive may not be easy to objectively establish in the moment, so I am guessing this is one area where societies have evolved to play it safe.

> That's also true of same-sex configurations, though.

The low probability of this, as well as the relative strength differences between an average man and the weakest man versus an average man and an average woman make it not worth worrying about, evidently.

[mattyb678]

There are professional cuddlers that you can hire for, non-sexual, cuddles.

[LorenPechtel]

Yeah, but I've never understood the appeal. I am no more interested in professional cuddling than professional sex. They are natural parts of a relationship and to me have no value outside that context.

[dheera]

It seems so weird to me that one would pay for something like that.

Why isn't it something that friends engage in, like animal counterparts? I mean, it seems like an artificial cultural norm we've set upon ourselves -- The idea of no extended touching unless with a sexual partner is one that exists only in my mind, but it's certainly not what my body wants.

[kragen]

Also, cuddle parties!

[dheera]

I don't think I would enjoy a cuddle party, though.

For me having an emotional connection with someone (e.g. long term friends who have gone through struggles together, or people I haven't known for long but we've done something out of compassion for each other) is a prerequisite for touch to be desirable. I'm averse to being touched by a bunch of strangers and people I don't know well, especially in a group setting where I know everyone to different levels. I have a more cat-like personality than a dog-like personality in that regard.

[kragen]

Given favorable circumstances, it might be possible for you to form enough intimacy with someone during a single party to enjoy cuddling with them. Or it might not; people are very different.

(I think a lot of people take MDMA in order to be able to enjoy being touched by a bunch of strangers if they normally wouldn't, and it seems to be effective, but I haven't tried it myself, and although the risks are relatively low, they're far from insignificant.)