Special Groups

We have sections you must join to use. You can see the full list here. Most you can join with a click. The medical and pastoral groups require approval.
Note, some groups were not accepting new members properly. That is fixed.

Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

What limits should we set before marriage?
Forum rules
Post in this section can be seen by guests and search engines.
EB
Single
Single
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by EB »

@SeekingChange,

>I agree, to sexualize hugging is an extreme that is dangerous. And to use the argument of “desensitization”,….

You guys are totally building up a straw-man argument here.  Do you understand that we are talking about Frontal Hugging ?  No one is sexualizing all hugging that I can see.

>maybe some desensitization is needed for some so they can actually show and receive affection without it being sexual to them.

Do you need to Frontal Hug people of the opposite sex to show affection?  Could a side hug do?

>This very idea came up when I was talking with my husband about it. People need touch.

Did you mention to your husband that the subject at hand was about FRONTAL hugging, not side hugging? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you  - do you believe that Frontal Hugs on the opposite sex to people you are not married to are NECESSARY for their well being?  Do you believe that this is the touch (frontal hugs) that men NEED from you in order for them to properly function as human beings?   

In the event that people actually have a conviction to SIDE HUG only, can you see that as a valid conviction without characterizing your brother or sister as religious, insensitive, Phariseeical, or cold? 

EB
Single
Single
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by EB »

@Wireless,

You make it sound like places like my church are cold and stuck in a religious rut.  This is a straw-man argument.

We do practice hugging.  The pastor and his wife (that'd be us) do not practice frontal hugs to people of the opposite-sex.  Most people in our congregation do not either, I think by just common-sense.  But the congregation is very huggy with side-hugs, anyways.  I do not believe anyone is hug-deprived here for the lack of opposite-sex frontal hugs.  But COVID has pretty much put a damper on all of this for now.

I could interpret your "huggy church" in its worst light but will not do so as charity demands I believe the best about you and your church.  I'd be willing to bet that most in your church will side-hug the opposite sex also though I could be wrong.
User avatar
SeekingChange
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4690
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:45 pm
Location: All I know is I'm not home yet

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by SeekingChange »

@EB, Have you read my answers/comments at all? I have already answered some of those questions. And I know I have said more than once people ought to act out their own convictions. I have said over and over I am addressing church culture, a trend in church culture that I have seen in my 7+ years in the Christian marriage/sex world.   A trend of hypervigilance to "affair proofing" that I believe is more damaging as a whole to the body of Christ than most see or realize.

The only time I said anything about "legalistic, pharisaical, etc" was when I was specifically addressing @Brynna's situation she shared.  Which cannot be applied to this topic as a whole because it was about a very specific incident and it wasn't about hugging at all.

Question for you, do you just side hug your children?  If not, why not?  If a side hug is sufficient enough to comfort others, or to show them care and love, shouldn't it be for your own children?  Do you only side hug your parents?  Your siblings?  Obviously, there's a difference between a full embrace and a side hug.  (Or you do your family completely different than I do my family, and what I observe in the families around me.) The body of Christ is a FAMILY, I still stand very strongly on the side that there is absolutely nothing wrong, in and of itself, to give fatherly/motherly or brotherly/sisterly hugs, even if that means full frontal, or a fully embraced hugging.   If people are convicted not to, that's between them and God, their personal conviction shouldn't be the "rule" for others and for all those in their sex, church, etc.   Bless the people who have not needed to be held during a time of hurt, loss or sorrow.  Bless those who haven't been fatherless, widowed or have been fully and safely loved.  Because I believe those people who have experienced those things, will know the difference a full embrace can make.
God can change what people do, behavioral patterns that have been in play for decades. He can change what we do to cope, to find comfort, to survive conflict, to count. Rahab had done a same old thing for years... and then she did something new.
User avatar
WirelessRouter
Queen bed
Queen bed
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am
Location: Near the 45th parallel

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by WirelessRouter »

I was not trying to put down your church, EB. I was merely expressing gratefulness for mine.
User avatar
WirelessRouter
Queen bed
Queen bed
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am
Location: Near the 45th parallel

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by WirelessRouter »

@EB, A terminology clarification: SeekingChange and I are using the term "hugs" for what you term "frontal hugs" because we believe "frontal hugs" are the normal hugs, and that side hugs are the abnormal variant that needs to be specified. Keeping this in mind likely will make her and my comments easier to understand.

LBD
On the floor
On the floor
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am
Location: Heart of Dixie

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by LBD »

Some people are just not “huggers”, period. For any reason. They seem to have little to no innate desire to hug. And when they do, which may not be often, they are less than enthusiastic about it.

let’s try something. Could we call them low hug-drive ? Maybe.  Let’s use LhD for short.
So how should the HhD folks treat the LhD folks? I mean after all, shouldn’t the HhD expect the LhD to accommodate them? Because obviously HhD is the better of the two, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the LhD adopt an enthusiastic attitude to hugging just to please the HhD’s?    I mean they are depriving the HhD of an essential need after all. HhD is as the Lord intended things to be, since hugging is such an integral part in any good relationship. HhD’s know that “duty side-hug” simply isn’t enough.can never be fully satisfying. If you don’t give someone that full frontal, up close, bear hug, every time, you obviously don’t really love them.

 

It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance. -Thomas Sowell
::dog
User avatar
newwifenewlife
Under the stars
Under the stars
Posts: 2311
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am
Location: Place colder than I want to be

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by newwifenewlife »

“Powerful you have become, sarcasm I sense in you.” - Yoda :D
User avatar
Duchess
Under the stars
Under the stars
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by Duchess »


  1. For engaged couples: A) I don't personally see the point in or need for no kissing  until the wedding, but if others do, God bless 'em. B) If they are trying to minimize the temptation to go farther than they want to, "prolonged full-frontal hugs" are an excellent way to totally fail in their intentions.

  2.  Personally, I know very few people who don't hug as a matter of course. Family, church, friends, even strangers. I'm nearing 50 and before this thread I don't think it ever occurred to me that any of the men I've hugged would think it was something sexual. I've known many older men who enjoy "flirting" with young girls and women, commenting that I'm pretty or joking about making my husband jealous. I've always seen it as normal and completely harmless. I do know that I became slightly more conscious of my breasts pressing into the objects of my hugs (male and female) when I switched from wireless to underwire bras. Wireless bras just allow more automatic flattening, while my underwire bras keep the girls pointed forward. Every man that I hug that is not my husband feels in my heart like a brother, a father, or a grandfather. And we have such a reputation for being a couple still in love after all these years, that I think no one would even begin to entertain the thought that one of us would mean anything more than friendship or familial or Christian love by a hug. Maybe the other ways a couple outwardly demonstrates their devotion are just as important as their protective rules? It works for us, anyway.

  3. I believe I can see both sides of the rather intense discussion about whether having a strict hug limitation policy is wise protection or overly legalistic and damaging to the church. On the one hand, we each have a personal responsibility to behave wisely and avoid sin, but on the other, salvation and life in Christ is all about freedom from the grasp of sin for the purpose of glorifying Him. I guess it's a little like having a broken leg, getting it all healed up, having the doctor remove the cast and say, "You are now FREE to walk wherever you need to go!" but if I still feel a little unsteady, I might hold on tight to the handrail and watch my steps carefully when I go down a steep flight of stairs. While it's good for me to watch my steps to make sure I don't fall, we don't want to put up a bunch of signs and warnings that make it seem like the stairs themselves are unsafe or that no one should go down them, because that's just not so. But the rail is there for whomever needs it. It's great for individual men and their wives to decide that side-hugs are the maximum physical contact they will have with other women, but we should make sure we remember it's a personal choice according to their own conscience and be careful to avoid implying that the church as a whole frowns upon innocent physical affection because we can't separate the sexual from the non-sexual. lest the world be unable to recognize us by our lack of love.


 
LBD
On the floor
On the floor
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am
Location: Heart of Dixie

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by LBD »

You hit upon the right word- “legalistic”. Though I know of no scripture that specifically addresses hugs, so it would be difficult to cite book, chapter, verse. Thus you’re left with principle and inference. Perhaps example. So I would agree, it can be seen as rather ascetic interpretation if one makes a hard and fast “rule” against it.  But, “some men can eat all things, others only vegetables. Let each be fully convinced. (Yet live in grace and understanding the scripture further explains.)”

The problem to me is not whether someone chooses to be a FF hugger or not, nor even why. It’s when that choice somehow gets attached as a negative aspect of ones personal walk with Christ, that if they can’t or don’t choose the perceived “spiritual” choice, then they “are not living in true freedom in Christ.” Who are we to judge that?
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance. -Thomas Sowell
::dog
User avatar
Duchess
Under the stars
Under the stars
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:00 am

Re: Men: Frontal Hugs With Females

Post by Duchess »

This was a really LONG thread, and I'm not going to take the time to read it all again right now, but IIRC, I think I took the caveat against the hug-limiting rules as concern that it went past a personal choice and became a movement or philosophy inside the church, eventually becoming a stricture.

There is nothing in the Bible, nor even in my denomination, that prohibits drinking alcohol. (Drunkenness, yes; alcohol consumption, no.) Yet several outspoken, hard-working, spiritually wise members of our fellowship believe drinking is a sin. By their influence, it can be inferred at our church that drinking any kind of alcohol is the same as killing a man (since all sin is equal.) This causes needles struggle, at times, for those of our congregation who--perfectly correctly--find no conviction in their hearts or command in the Bible against enjoying a drink now and then. Such a struggle can lead to secrecy, false guilt, rebellion against God in the form of rebellion against the church, and eventually giving up on their faith if the teetotaler belief is continually hammered into them by those who have chosen to abstain.

There is nothing at all wrong with someone choosing to refuse alcohol. It's probably good and healthy to just never go there. (Often times, the argument is that one can never be an alcoholic without taking the first drink.) There is, however real harm in implying that one's own conviction is the universal rule of the whole congregation/denomination/Church. I believe this principal is what was being argued in the comments about maintaining freedom in Christ. At least, it's how I took it.
Post Reply

Return to “Sexual Limits (Engaged)”