To me, a Cuddle Party is just one step away from an orgy, and I want nothing to do.........well, on second thought....

Mark, you sound like a person who spends 99 percent of his free time telling himself how much he enjoys being alone. The parties you describe sound like good stupid fun; you yourself sound about as lively as a jar of mayonnaise.

Chris Kent: "To me, a Cuddle Party is just one step away from an orgy ..."

Well, apparently, they have "Cuddle Lifeguards," who enforce the no-sex rule, and thus prevent the cuddlefests from turning into an orgy. What's really interesting is how they describe erections as just a normal happenstance and that it doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual. It's a fascinating website, makes for some really fun, if risible, reading.

Rodney Welch: "[Y]ou sound like a person who spends 99 percent of his free time telling himself how much he enjoys being alone."

Rodney, with all due respect, I don't tell myself I like being alone. There's simply no need; I don't need to be convinced. I do enjoy being alone. I value my free time immensely. Each to his own. Engage in "good stupid fun" all you like ... it's no-one's business to stop you from doing so, just ain't my cup of tea, which I think my entry makes pretty clear.

Okay, that's just creepy. I don't want random people accidently bumping into me at the store. Why would I ever, ever pay to have someone I don't know snuggle with me? The people who get into this are probably the same types who got into birth-trauma therapy, or those weird (adult) fetishes for acting like babies and wearing diapers. Equally creepy.

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

Endless Summer Spooning Special: Bring a friend and only pay $20 each! Save $20 and cuddle with a friend too!

If you had a friend to cuddle with, why would you need to go to a cuddle party?

Rodney Welch: "Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that."

Rodney, why does my total lack of desire to be hugged or cuddled by strangers concern you so much? Eh? Inquiring minds want to know.

Tom Johnson: "The people who get into this are probably the same types who got into birth-trauma therapy, or those weird (adult) fetishes for acting like babies and wearing diapers."

Exactly my point! A lot of whacky California-type, New Age garbage ... I'm surprised these cuddle parties are based in New York.

How does one become a "Cuddle Lifeguard?" Is there some kind of class one can take? Do you receive a license? And when the "Cuddle Lifeguard" falls asleep on the job, is that when the orgy breaks out?

Rodney, why does my total lack of desire to be hugged or cuddled by strangers concern you so much? Eh? Inquiring minds want to know.

Probably for the exact same reason cuddle parties obsess you. Cuddle parties are weird, but your horror and distaste for them strikes me as weirder.

Granted, I know where you're coming from -- I only attend churches, for example, that are cold and indifferent to visitors, and I back out from any activity (spiritual or otherwise) that involves enforced hand-holding with strangers (particularly men). But the kind of parties you describe sound a good deal more enticing and interesting, and they certainly give the dirty mind a lot on which to feed. For that, you have my gratitude.

I think a few basic facts should be brought up here: all humans need physical human contact. Babies that aren't held die, it's just a fact. There are al kinds of psychological, emotional and physical benefits from the human touch. Think about massage as just one example. Hugs are very therapeutic.

That, coupled with the logical statement made by the ding dong running this operation about single adults caught up in careers in the Big Bad city not having access to non-sexual human contact, make this seem like quite a good idea, actually.

The people running this particular operation may be knuckleheads, but the idea is sound as far as I'm concerned. I would think anyone who has been lonely, with no one in particular to turn to, would be able to relate to this and see it as a valuable service.

Cuddle party at Eric & Dawn's place!!!

Eric, with the basic facts you're right.
Yet to pay for physical contact seems to me like bringing your car for periodical check-up, something taken out from the Brave New World mono-culture.

Calls for a Back to Nature Movement, before it's too late...

This is getting juvenile, I realize, but you just know that someday, during one of these cuddle sessions or "puppy piles," some flatulent bastard is going to cut one mean mother, and then -- believe you me -- all assembled will witness true human nature in all its glory. The whole facade of MiHALKO's lovefests will crumble. Heh, and what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall during such an episode.

I would guess they justify the charge for "administrative costs" or something like that

Just for the record, you can roll around in my backyard for $10. Not with me, of course, but hey, you probably wouldn't want to . . .

Everyone is taking this thread WAYYYYYY too seriously. Lighten up widgets. FACT: "Cuddle Parties" are about the stupidest things I've ever heard of. Mark is exactly right with his post.

Eric, like Phillip, you have a great talent for stating the utterly obvious.

Anyone who has a girlfriend or boyfriend knows full well that life is NOT entirely about physical sex and orgies. There are afternoon moments in which one reclines on the couch or bed and simply cuddles. All humans have a need for this. But to pay for such interaction with a complete stranger is barely a step above prostitution. It is pathetic in its desperation. Get out, meet a friend, make friends, renew old acquaintances, hug your child, hug your mom, hug your dad, go watch Steel Magnolias, but do not EVER, and I mean EVERRRRR go to some dimwit's apartment and pay to cuddle with complete strangers. You will step into the abyss never to return.......

Maybe it's the kind of thing you should do and regret rather than not do and wonder if you should have. It seems pretty harmless to me, considering there's no exchange of fluids.

bad mood Chris? Your imperiousness in this comment makes me physically ill

I think if you want to do this sort of thing, go for it. Chris takes the same position I do; we'd never do it if you PAID us $30. Even if I didn't have a loving wife, and could get cuddles any time I might want them (which isn't often, as I'm not a cuddly, huggy person), and even if I was lonely as all-get out, I would never attend a cuddle party. No way, no how.

Eric, I understand what you've said about some people seeing this as a valuable service, and I do wish Mr. MiHALKO every success in his rather unique business venture. This is entrepreneurship and I salute it. I never once said, let's ban this sort of thing or compared it to prostitution. People like Rodney Welch can give it a whirl to their heart's content. Just forgive me for laughing my ass off if/when they do.

All I did with this entry is express my own personal distaste for paying for the "pleasure" of cuddling strangers. That is all. Now could we all calm down a bit please? This entry was meant to be amusing.

MEM, and that's how I took it: a bit of ranting hyperbole. But when the general consensus continued in the direction of "only fucking retarded pathetic loons would ever consider such a thing, which is the most stupid idea I have ever heard of," I felt compelled to offer the at least theoretical basis of such a thing, utilizing my great talent for stating the utterly obvious.

I'm not goung to any cuddle parties anytime soon. I'm just going to continue doing what Mark does: maintain a cool and unapproachable exterior and fantasize about it privately.

if a cuddle party helps someone who has nobody else, emotionally, then what is the problem? It sounds to me the same as a pet psychic or something. I don't believe that someone can really communicate with a dead dog, but if it makes the owner feel better, how is it different than paying 70 bucks a hour for a psychiatrist? Let people do what makes them feel better, as long as no laws are broken.

Some people like to spend their time building models out of toothpicks. Just because I have no interest in it, why would I devote so much time to attacking it? Very telling, indeed. Perhaps what is needed here is a constitutional amendment defining who it is okay to spoon with.

Geez. Live and let live.

Amazing - simply amazing how an entry that I intended to be humorous ended up inflaming so many people.

Hello, Boom, earth to Boom: Did you even read what I wrote in comment #21? Where exactly have I said that people shouldn't do it? I'm poking fun at it, not -- I say for the second friggin' time -- wanting to ban or criminalize it.

And Rodney, you're really reaching. How far will you stoop to insult me personally before Justene has to get in on the act. Get yourself to NYC and attend one of these things if it means so frigging much to you. I respect your right to do that, so respect my right to not do it. Sorry, Rodney, but your passionate defense of these cuddle soirees leads me to believe that YOU'RE the one fantacising about them.

I'm not inflamed. There are many creams for that.

I realize, but you just know that someday, during one of these cuddle sessions or "puppy piles," some flatulent bastard is going to cut one mean mother, and then -- believe you me -- all assembled will witness true human nature in all its glory. The whole facade of MiHALKO's lovefests will crumble.

This, I believe, is when the "Cuddle Lifeguard" should come into play. If flatulence ruins a Cuddle Session, then the "Cuddle Lifeguard" should charge them double. At the very least, post a sign firmly but tactfully stating "Flatulence is Forbidden!"

Cuddle parties? That sounds particularly "fruity" to me and a solid way for right smack down on someone.

I am in no way cuddling ANYFRICKINBODY I don't know unless they are under the age of 1.

Got it? GOOD!

So you only believe in cuddling with the completely helpless?

Chris Kent: "At the very least, post a sign firmly but tactfully stating 'Flatulence is Forbidden!'"

Now that's an idea, Chris. Well, hey, perhaps for the shy cuddlemonsters in the group, they would rather have their butts do the talking. Hell, it's probably the only way some of the cuckoos attending these fetes have of fully expressing themselves. If you're going to lose one inhibition in front of total strangers, you may as well go the whole hog and lose another.

But I'm still trying to figure out what they mean, in the rules, by "clean up after yourselves." What the hell? I thought there wasn't supposed to be any sexual activity?! Perhaps it refers to a flatulence problem that's rather ... er, messy in nature.

National Lampoon's Cuddle Session

You never know, it may just knock Fahrenheit 9/11 out of the number 1 position!

I gotta agree with Mark here. If you need to cuddle so bad go get a dog or a cat. Something about spending $30 to cuddle with someone you've never met just rubs me the wrong way... pardon the pun.

Babies aren't helpless, they are inherently cuddly and deserving of cuddles, lonely adults on the other hand who seek out cuddles from strangers and are willing to pay for it is absolutely the first sign of Armageddon.

Wrong on both counts, Dawn. As you know, babies are helpless. As you also no doubt know, lonely adults paying someone to touch them is less a sign of the end of time than it is the beginning of time; this is why we refer to prostitution as the world's oldest profession.

The only reason these people would have to cuddle strangers if they were on Ecstasy.

Way to talk tough there, Mark and Dawn. Bash them fruits. Babies good, fruits bad. If people knew how to form positive, healthy attachments with their babies people wouldn't need things like "cuddle parties" at all.

I think the story is symptomatic of a culture where people are more and more alone and disconnected from traditional bonds to family, religion, and civic groups. Robert Putnam and others have written about this increasing atomism of civil society, but the point is that people feel more and more alone. We're also increasingly angry, rageful, and consumed by infantile obsessions and undefined needs that go unfulfilled with the increasing deterioration and dissolution of marriages, family life, group identity, and meaningful vocation. I can't relate to the kind of person who would want this kind of attention to fill the void, but I agree with Boom and Olsen that they should be allowed to have "single-serving intimacy" in a way that prostitution or sex couldn't provide. It's sad and childish, but so is our culture and it's equally immature to mock people who lack something so fundamental, basic attachment to other human beings.

Sure, I bet a bunch of them are just drugged-out hippies, but let the fruits be fruity. They're not hurting all of you and your loving, ever-so-loved lives (I'm sure), right? Right.

That is all.

The Ecstasy comment was a joke, but it made no sense since I typed it wrong. What I meant to say is that the only way most people would feel comfortable being cuddled by strangers is if they were on E. I strongly doubt, however, that most of the "cuddle partiers" are clubheads or even know what E stands for.

That is all.

Oh, and cuddling is a trap.

Hit it and quit it. Know what I'm sayin?

That is all.

Wow a lot of conservitaves not comfterble with their sexuality here..I mean honestly whats the big deal? don't like it don't do it I always say but hey it doesn't sound as bad as you'd think and I bet it's a freeing expirence..also they have strict rules on what is allowed and what is not so you people really need to lighten up

P.S - only a homophobe who is not comterble with their own sexuality would call it fruity

Agreed, but maybe you should get a little more "comterble" with the English language before delivering a lecture.

How many of the guys who are creeped by this idea either have or would be perfectly okay with joining a sports team that required them to grab, hold, tackle, and otherwise get physical with a bunch of strange men?

Yes, the two situations are different, but not as much as it may seem. Fulfilling the need for physicality is okay if the physicality is violent or combative, but not if it is sensual.

I ask this because this is true for me, and I'm asking myself why.

That's hot, Barnstable.

You mean I could have been getting PAID for this? LEGALLY?

Dangit!

Mark is not saying that cuddlers don't have the right to cuddle. He's just saying that it's weird. Cut the guy some slack.

Barnstable, there is a big difference between trying to ram your helmet into Biff McGursky's solar plexus and spooning with a 42-year-old would-be mom by the name of Willow who works at an art supplies outlet and lives in a walkup with a cat by the name of Whiskers.

I realize that a lot of you think Californians are weird and fruity, and that they would be just the type to engage in this sort of thing. There's some truth to that stereotype. But I must say that, since we're close to that kind of thing, there is a staunch anti-huggers movement here.

Yes, cuddlers are no more than a 21st Century version of a hugger. Most of you know the type, especially if you are familiar wih the term "warm fuzzy." In the days of my youth, when I was told what it means to be a Christian, I encountered huggers on a regular basis, not to mention the requisite hand-holding with strangers of the same sexual persuasion. It's hard to pin down their personalities without writing an essay. In short, they appear to be too happy. As in a naive, ignorant happiness. Like they don't know there is badness in the world.

My guess is that it's the hugger type (think Al Franken's takeoff on Stuart Smalley) that will go to cuddle parties, not your desperate-for-affection type. Yuk.

Duane, you said,
"Barnstable, there is a big difference between trying to ram your helmet into Biff McGursky's solar plexus and spooning with a 42-year-old would-be mom by the name of Willow who works at an art supplies outlet and lives in a walkup with a cat by the name of Whiskers."

Which is funny and well-written, but uninformative. You simply state that there's a big difference: well, what is it? Is it in the impulse, the payoff, the implied morality or immorality, or what?

For my part, I could say that even though the method of getting there varies, both groups spend a lot of time in puppy piles, huddles, and grab-assing. So it seems okay, even desirable, to put a body onto another guy, just as long as you also get to slug him occasionally.

Personally, I get a kick out of contact sports, wear the odd black eye with pride, tend to avoid the butt-slapping thing, and don't see any more pathos in someone who wants to squeeze a willing and pleasant stranger on a futon than in someone who wants to drive their hip into my gut and elbow me in the nose while driving the lane.

That being said, feel free to be "creeped out" by the former folk; I'd just think twice about ascribing their desire to some defect in their personality. That's demeaning, and really beyond your ken unless you are a shrink or a psychic.

The whole thing about butt-slapping and hugs in sports (not necessarily contact sports as there is plenty of this in baseball as well) is that it is, for whatever psychological reason, a male-bonding thing. It is an expression of solidarity, not homoeroticism, though it's hard for anyone who doesn't watch or partake in sports to tell the difference.

That is completely different to those who would spend $30 to cuddle strangers. I just find that off-the-wall. If people are into that, fine, just don't bash me for not desiring that. I don't care how lonely I was - and I'm not lonely; I have a loving wife - I would not resort to "cuddle parties." Not only are these people, to use my favorite word, "fruity," but they're getting gyped. Although, as I've already stated, I admire REiD MiHALKO's entrepreneurship. More power to him.

And, Duane: thank you. It's OK. People are constantly reading things into my entries that aren't there. It's a favorite activity among some of my readership - especially those IDIOTS that wrongly accuse me of homophobia - and if they'd rather pick my words out of context or imagine words that I didn't write rather than play Solitaire to fill up their free time, then bully for them.

Well, barnstable, I guess there are a couple of different issues on the table: (1) violent physical contact vs. cuddling and (2) butt-slapping-type behavior vs. cuddling.

Let's take football as our example. Although I doubt that many players would think of it this way, football is about territory -- taking it and defending it. That is a very attractive endeavor for men, since it appeals to their forebrain. It is a sanitized version of war, which is also about territory. Players use physical means to acquire territory. The satisfaction one might feel by displaying superior physical prowess is secondary to the overall goal -- territory -- which provides the ultimate satisfaction. Many games in which the male ego is at stake involve territory -- take chess, for example. Then there's Monopoly, Risk, checkers, Go, baseball (round those bases), basketball, hockey, etc. There are also games that seem to appeal to some different instinct -- poker, for example. But I digress.

Anyway, back to football. Tackling, especially if applying excessive force, is the civilized version of killing those who would encroach upon your territory, or try to prevent you from encroaching on theirs. Violent tackling is a form of psychological warfare, with the aim of damaging the will of the opponent. Quarterback sacks are a nice example of this.

The physical aspects of football, at least when the clock is running, have nothing to do with affection and closeness. Agreed?

As far as butt-slapping and hugging and whatnot, I can't add much to what Mark wrote in #46. It could just be another brand of psychological warfare. You show the "enemy" your esprit de corps. The more blatant and prominent it is, the bigger effect it has on the opposition. It's all battlefield tactics. Again, I see little resemblance between this and cuddling.

aggressive territorial cuddling - it's next, entrepreneurs take note

Too late, Eric. That's called dating.

I guess there's nothing new under the sun!

I grew up as a non-toucher. My earliest exposures to communal touching were
T-groups (training groups, or encounter groups), a movement of the sixties,
followed by a TA (transactional analysis) group in the seventies, then
Esalen-style massage groups in the eighties. One of the most important
things I got from them was the ability to touch and be touched, without
which I might never have found my way to becoming a massage therapist.
There is something very helpful about being in a group
where certain behaviors are not only permitted but expected,
and there is a layer of protection that prevents
orgiastic degeneration.

Haven't tried a cuddle party, but if somebody around here invites me to one -- hey, why not?

that seems a very reasonable prespective Doc, thanks

Duane, thanks for the reply. I think I haven't expressed myself well here, because I'm reading from you an answer to a question I didn't mean to ask. I can certainly see the "kinetic" difference between contact sports and cuddling--no argument there, as my various occasional weekend contusions can attest.

Where I see less distinction is in both activities using physical contact with strangers to fulfill psychological (and perhaps physiological) needs. You put it well that football with strangers fulfills the socialized man's need to stake and defend territory, as well as to win it back from others. By the same token, cuddling with strangers can fulfill the socially isolated man's need to feel accepted, nurtured, and desired.

As before, you are perfectly free to favor one of these activities over the other. I just think that there is no call or logic (or indeed need) to characterize one population's preferences as derived from some mental or emotional aberration. Especially since you can make an equally convincing case for either side.

Now, having thrashed the horse unto death, I will climb down from the soap box. Dead-horse beating--there's an aberrant pastime...

Hi there in north america. If i may comment on the ongoing "debate" from germany: it´s amazing how passionate those who trash cuddling are fighting for the right to hate and abhorr everybody who favors or endorses it. i rather agree with "JB"s comment that there are obviously a few rednecks here who entertain an uneasyness with non-straight activities whatsoever. more interesting, though, is the urge exhibited here to make public confessions about one´s sexuality and combine them with a kind of hate speech against those who don´t share those unasked-for confessions (cuddle fans are "garbage" etc.). is sexuality really about who you are? seems a ot of people gain a lot here from labelling themselves as non-cuddlers. that´s very weird (perverse if you like), but o.k. after all. just don´t join the "sexuality police".