Creeeeeeeeeeeepy!
I hate it when people I don't know touch me, unless it's just to shake hands, or a tap on the shoulder.

To each his own, though. Maybe I'm just an ice queen. Or they're all on Ecstacy.

Amy, that Washington Post story is from 2004. Aren't there enough fresh outrages to blog about today?

Ha!

As I recall, the whole cuddle-party meme was pretty well demolished back then as a one-off trying to become a trend via complicit feature writers. Cf: New York Times' "man date" story, etc.

Actually, Nance, this isn't a "meme," but an event that continues to go on, if you'll check the last link with the parties. I realize you're upset at me for being a libertarian or something, but perhaps you have better things to do than knock fun little blog items I post as being not tippy top of the news.

Frankly, I used the cuddle party thing as a side joke in a column yesterday -- hadn't heard of them before (or didn't notice them or forgot about them) -- and was so grossed out by the video I thought I'd post it.

On to your next exposé!

Meow!

I made it through about three minutes of the video before I became worried that somebody in the office might think I was looking at porn. Maybe I'm off-base, but the phrase "soft-core orgy" comes to mind.

I noticed the price list, too. Looks like it's ladies night (or ladies day) every night at Cuddle Party. Do you suppose they go on with the event if there's a really heavy preponderance of one sex over another? If I wanted to get that close to some fat, smelly dude I'd stand right in front of a mirror!

I feel icky just posting here.

Even looking at the still is enough to make me gag a little.

Putting my gag reflex aside, are Americans actually so immune to this economy that they can blow cash on something this stupid?

Ewwwwwwww, no thank you! I have plenty of friends and family I can hug at any given time of the day or night to get my "touch needs"(?!) met. This is just icky.

Bleh.

I could almost understand if this were a large group of really close friends from way... waaay... waaaayyyy back. But they're all wearing name tags which means spooning with a stranger.

Yes, there's validity to the whole need for sensory input by touch without the sexual. Babies need it for physical and cognitive development, kids need it for reassurance, affection, and development of healthy relationships, adults need it for establishing and maintaining intimacy. These people obviously don't have enough intimacy, so they turn to strangers? Well, apparently they're not strangers for very long. So this is a celibate hook-up.

Bleh.

Putting aside, for a moment, any discussion of the possible sexual aspect to Cuddle Parties, I find it interesting that men are paying twice as much to get a little human touch. This suggests that either the supply of touch provided to men is more scarce, or that the demand is greater, or both.

The solution: Free Hugs for Men!

Seriously, hug a man. Consider it a public service. I guarantee that everyone involved in the hug will definitely have a better day because of it.

Ick. And lame. Not my scene, but I can at least understand why people go to "play" parties. This just seems pathetic. But Tyler's comments are insightful. There's uch less casual touching/hugging of men than women in the world. Not that I don't understand why this is the case, but I'd guess that there are a lot of guys in the world who lack for physical contact with people.

EWWWW!!!!! I need a shower now.

Not sexual? Yeah, right. I'm always amused when they protest (always a bit too loudly), it's sensual, not sexual. This was just creepy and pervy.

We have a younger male friend (early 30's) who goes to casual parties (just the regular kind) with a "Free Hugs" T-shirt on. It's worked surprisingly well for him in meeting women.

This is weird and extreme (In a Hippie Way) but I can understand the need.

I had the weirdest experience since the beginning of the year and I hope someone here can make any sense out of it. Twice I have been hugged by women who were complete strangers. I am not talking about nice, timid hugs but literal "Run 'n Grab" hugs. There was no warning signs or any sexual gestures, not even a verbal explanation. Just a sprint ending with a hug.

I have no idea why those two ladies did it. My safe bet is on alcohol since I have not changed my appearance lately. This being said, I am still stuck with the question "Why me?" in my head. Can anyone explain this?

Ah yes, I remember this whole "fad" from a few years ago along with those "man dates". The cuddle party always reminds me of the fat chicks in party hats jokes/pics.

Seriously, hug a man. Consider it a public service. I guarantee that everyone involved in the hug will definitely have a better day because of it.

Two things about hugging men. I always love hugging Elmore (Leonard, my boyfriend is his researcher, so I see him quite a bit) because he lets out this little giggle when I hug him, which I think is the sound of an older man getting big boobs pressed into his chest.

Also, last week, I felt really crappy -- my publisher has, let's say, different ideas than I do about my book cover. Trying to see that it's something that won't make me want to leave the country when the book is published. Gregg has been great -- shot a beautiful photo of me that I hope they'll use.

Anyway, I was in the cafe where I write and felt bad, so I just walked over to this guy, Richard, who I've known from cafes around Santa Monica for a lot of years, and who's a regular at the one I'm a regular at, and asked for a hug. He was happy to provide. Nice guy, kinda sexy, no groping by strangers/toe fetishists. See how easy that is?

I have the suspicion that this sort of behavior has a pathogenic basis - that it may be caused by a parasite that is influencing these individuals to huddle together and rub each other in order for the organism to spread to other hosts.

The reason that I say this is that I've known several individuals who enjoy this sort of thing, and they're typically very eager to promote this behavior, and have a habit of touching people inappropriately - not in a sexual manner, just in odd spots and for too long.

They're also very concerned with their 'safety' and that they should be afforded unconditional acceptance and regard.

Frankly this behavior is maladaptive from an evolutionary standpoint, so I wonder whether it's induced by some other evolutionary motive. Such as that of another life form.

Mack, no offense intended, but I have no idea what you just said. Are you saying the people are infested with little buggies, or that they're another species?

So what's wrong with the traditional method of getting on overcrowded elevators and letting nature take its course?

rpm: buggies

let's call them cuddle bugs.

I know that it seems implausible, but the ability of parasites to influence relatively complex behaviors, in both insects and animals, is well established. There's no reason to assume that humans are immune.

Mack, are you referring to something along the lines of the crazy cat lady parasite?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/magazine/09_10_catcoat.html

I'd bet the cuddle thing is just one of many twisted responses to divorce culture. Kids who had angry households in earlier childhood feel like they missed out on some non-sexual family affection. Those same kids were often soon given new brothers and sisters who they were expected to cuddle with, despite being strangers.... and now they've got energy about it.

But it does sound like the kind of thing the newspaper columnists (non-advice types) would try to make a story out of.... A story on the women's page that men would read too

>>I'd bet the cuddle thing is just one of many twisted responses to divorce culture. Kids who had angry households in earlier childhood feel like they missed out on some non-sexual family affection.

Crumbs, Crid - that's a bit of a reach, isn't it?

On the basis that angry domestic set ups surely long predate divorce culture? (Though the very thought of vanilla frotage - or puppy piles - whether a hack fiction or not - yuck from me too!).

Buttersticks, Jody!

Poodlebuckets!

I can understand going to a cuddly party... when I was in High School and College, I hung with a very touchy-feely crowd, and we were always all over each other, hugging and cuddling as we watched TV or chatted or whatever. It was nice.

But paying for it? And also, cuddling wasn't the whole point of the social event. It seems a bit odd. Like paying someone to chat with you.

Well, divorce culture was what gave us the Brady Bunch instructions from parents that children were to regard these new kids in the house as brothers & sisters. Of course, bad families have been happening since the dawn of man. We used to have (or be) siblings who DIED along the way. But divorce culture is *glib* about it... Children don't merely have their souls sbrutalized; they're further instructed that it's perfectly normal for mother to describe the man she created them with as an asshole, and it's perfectly normal for him to move to Florida and start a new family while taking no notice of birthdays, etc.

I'd guess (not having followed the links) that this 'party' behavior is a not-entirely-serious reenactment of some of that energy. Second best guess is it's all a scam.

crazy cat lady parasite?

Perhaps we could get the cat ladies to collect cuddle people instead?

I'm being a little tongue in cheek regarding the parasite thing - but I do wonder.

This sounds like a setup for an "innapropriate touching" lawsuit or two.

As a cat-lover (I'm distincting myself from crazy cat ladies only because I don't own and have no immediate plans to and have never owned more than one my entire adult life), I have to ask, that article's got to be a spoof? If it's not, I seriously can't take anything in the New York Times seriously any more. That was some whackadoodle article. Even nutsier than the crazy cat ladies.

Crid, I am compelled to point out that the Bradies were both widowed with three kids of their own, not divorced. And also have to wonder what in the hell makes you think that kids with divorced parents never get cuddled in any other context than the step ever again. On behalf of my daughter, I have to say you're a flaming idiot if you actually believe that. And a noncuddly parent passing noncuddliness onto siblings is gonna be that way married or divorced.

Most likely scenario: a scam, dreamed up in a slightly (more or less, my money's on more) pervy mind. Creepy.

"because he lets out this little giggle when I hug him, which I think is the sound of an older man getting big boobs pressed into his chest. "

Amy, that's one of the finest of the little pleasures of life. Actually, I can understand the need for touch thing, especially with the opposite sex. That's one of the reasons ballroom dancing was invented. And it's a heck of a lot more fun and less creepy.

These people can't tell me that the older, nastier dudes in the group are there simply to explore their humanity. They want to rub up on a young chick and allow her to show him her soul - let her really open up to him. Connect!

They say it isn't sexual but the whole thing is a wonderful disguise for someone's true intentions. Which are probably creepy.

I'll stick to cuddles and kisses with my fiance and hugs to my mom and best girlfriends.

> the Bradies were both widowed
> with three kids of their own

We all remember the song, kiddo. But that television show was a hideous enterprise from start to finish; a loathsome, cheapjack, transparent pander to the explosion of divorced families in those years. Why, for the love of Christ, would anyone have paid attention otherwise?

> These people can't tell me that
> the older, nastier dudes in the
> group are there simply to explore
> their humanity.

Speaking as an older, nastier dude who has no interest in these clusters....

It's important to acknowledge that even if I had participated as a younger, more muscular, more responsive young man, my intentions would have been just as ignoble.

Got it? This shit is creepy no matter how old the players are. It's McCulkin-weekend-at-Neverland creepy, and you're exactly right to say so. Of course it's about sex. Of course it is. These people are adult strangers.

"younger, more muscular, more responsive young man, my intentions would have been just as ignoble. "

I guess my argument is ageist: a lot of ladies might actually want a young, muscular man rubbing up on her biz-nass. But not an old guy that could be a father or uncle! I think some of them, though, actually believe they're all there for human, skin-on-skin contact.

> not an old guy that could be
> a father or uncle!

Well, Little Miss snooty-britches! How dare you... How dare you.

(you're right of course: I too would like to feel up the blissed-out Miss Nametag in the photo above)

Gretchen,

the same thing is probably true with older women/younger men, though women are better at hiding this desire.

[Long live the "dirty old man" stereotype!]

If I'm going to pay for human contact, there had better to be a massage and some lavender-scented linens involved.

Listen, getting uglier as you get old is a problem... The bathroom mirror makes this clear to me every damn day.

But can we all agree that plastic surgery isn't the solution?

The idea of paying to cuddle is off-putting, but I can understand why some people might chose to participate if they have no other options.

I remember when I first went away to college (way back in 1980) I wasn't homesick per se, but I was very aware of missing being touched. I am not from a particularly affectionate family, but we always gave a quick hug goodnight at bed time and goodbye as we left in the morning. About 3 weeks into my first semester I was very aware that I had not touched another person except casually in passing in weeks! I really missed the hugs.

This memory has made me much more sympathetic to my elderly (widowed or never married) aunts and uncles who tend to hug a little too long by my standards. The only touch they get is at family events when they can hug all the relatives...

Yeah... But adulthood is adulthood. The touch habits of childhood have different meaning in adult contexts.

Years ago there was this article in a general interest magazine (maybe the online kind) about the groups of amateur photographers, men who'd pool their resources to hire an pretty young girl to show up at a city park on Saturday morning for some amateur modeling. She'd be wearing modest sportswear and a patient demeanor, and the whole thing would happen in public sunshine. Basically, someone would say, 'OK, let's go' and then all these incredibly geeky guys would just start photographing the shit out of her for twenty minutes. This was said to happen in many or most cities on a typical summer weekend.

Great pains were taken by the writer of the article to point out that there was no sex or pornography happening. The point of the piece was that it was grotesquely creepy anyway. It was creep-azoidal.

That's what comes to mind from reading this blog post.

(If anybody remembers the article I'm talking about, send an email. Googling "amateur model photography club public park" was not good research strategy...)

The Brady Bunch ran from 1969-1974. Kinda predates the divorce explosion. Hey, maybe it's all Alice's fault. Stay-at-home moms with full-time help. Harrumph.

Here's their website, they offer training!

http://www.cuddleparty.com/

Yikes.

Fairly right! It appears to me it is extremely glorious idea. Fully with you I will agree.