mpe0

13 hours ago, deltaX said:

Hugs, or cuddles with friends, are as far as I'm willing to go though.  Other forms of physical contact like hand-holding or kissing make me uncomfortable.  

For me hand-holding is good so long as there is no romantic subtext. (Which is difficult to explain, I know). Something more like holding hands because we a part of the same "team", going to do something together, being lead somewhere, etc.
Kissing great so long as it's sensual, sexual or both. But if there is romance there it feels "poisoned". What would be a good fun thing no longer is.

On 18/07/2016 at 10:55 PM, Cassiopeia said:

As we discussed in the other thread, casual cuddling should be a thing.... (I'm trying to find it, I'm not sure where, but several others said similar stuff)

About the only possibility I've found would be http://www.cuddleparty.com/

Though these can be uncommon and expensive (even without considering travel) too.

On 19/07/2016 at 0:53 AM, Ugh... said:

No joke, I used to think that I was craving for hugs, but I would always find them awkward or unsatisfying. One day, while sleeping on my bed in a big pile of pillows, I realized that I was just crazing the incredible coziness of my bed.

For some people pillows, even life-size dolls, can be acceptable as cuddle partners. For others of us it really needs to be living, breathing, humans

On 19/07/2016 at 8:05 AM, Will said:

heh, physical contact.

 

Doesn't bug me but I don't enjoy it. To make that a bit more understandable ; I do it for the sake of my gf's happiness and it's a neutral feeling. Nothing good. Nothing bad. 

 

There's a whole spectrum of how people feel about this.
Though it does appear to be fairly unusual for the "too little" side of the coin to get an airing.
 

On 09/07/2016 at 0:27 PM, Pufflehugs04 said:

people in general tend to see sexual and romantic orientations as one and the same, with all aces being aro, all lesbians being homoromantic, etc. People don't even think of a romantic orientation as something that exists, where a person's romantic orientation is assumed to be the same as their sexual one, can't understand how it can be different.

This can also easily go the "other way" with someone's sexual orientation being assumed from their romantic orientation. e.g. an aromantic person being assumed to also be asexual.

On 11/07/2016 at 9:38 AM, aussiekirkland said:

There's a point where monogamy is taken too far? Needing every single one of your needs met from a single person (particularly non romantic needs) sounds seriously unhealthy to me. I just can't understand it. That ideology (which has come up a few times now) is probably the reason why some romantics are so quick to replace their friends and family with a romantic partner.

I've never understood wanting monogamy.

Similarly I've always found the idea that couples do everything together, including things which arn't even sexual or sensual, to be baffling.
Abandoning people in favour of someone you have just met dosn't seem in any way "friendly" or "loving" in the first place.