# Would you tolerate a woman that does not like to be touched .. (?)



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

To me there are many ... affectations ... that are not serviceable in terms of healthy living. They are in effect, broken conditions. Pretending to live with them as healthy or complying with the owner's delusions does no one a service and in fact is a disservice to all. This is not to say that such a person cannot have those affectations or brokenness, but, I am strong believer in the pursuit principle.

This pursuit principle is something I just invented to name my ... affectation. It essentially means that if a person decides willingly not to seek wisdom, not to try to be 'good', not to try to shore up weaknesses in themselves (and others), they are essentially deciding to be evil or giving up in the pursuit of good and healthy living. That is ... forgivable, but not something I would willingly tolerate in a life partner or even consistent lover. 

There have been many such weaknesses in others (partners) I have noticed and slowly and carefully and properly mentioned over the course of time. A dedicated inability or more to the point unwillingness to 'deal with it' is not acceptable. 

I've had a girlfriend who refused to talk amicably to strangers when we met them even to the point of physically and quite oddly turning their backs on them in public places. Mind you, these are not rude or difficult or in any way - obviously unhealthy people. But she was. I had another girlfriend that was elegant social and super smart but simply could not resist bad sexual behavior when she was inebriated (I know - probably fairly common). As far as I know she never sealed the deal on bad behavior but where there is that much smoke ... it ruined the relationship. I had another girlfriend that had a specific pattern she required for sex. The first time it was novel and interesting. Then I discovered it was - an accepted requirement in her mind. It was one she refused to fix. And I am a careful and polite person to discuss such things with, and I recommended counselling for her. All to no avail. End of relationship. On a more mundane level there was a woman that refused to 'get busy' unless it was always on her schedule. No compromise. And she went to bed at 7:00 pm when she had to start work at 10:00 am. She didn't really need the sleep, it was just her pattern. Intractability is a definite red flag to me. It means the person IS NOT capable of a relationship. They cannot give and take, they only take in that specific sense. 

The sense of touch is bound psychologically and physcially to the greater truth of connection. Denying touch IS denying connection, even if touch is painful. Memories (and I have some deeply scarring ones as well) can be denied and controlled. One has to be willing to try, to learn. Relationships are able to flourish when both parties are healthy, at least going in. I am not saying there cannot be connection between two broken people, there can. But the percentages are that such a relationship is either doomed or unlikely to be itself any healthier than the integrated health of both parties combined. Denial of connection just is not healthy.

Of course some people carry the pain touch thing a bit too far ...


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

Nope.

My primary love language is physical affection and I do enjoy sparring with my partners, I could not possibly tolerate it.

I do in general have some pretty strong personal boundaries and I do not like being touched unless I am emotionally close to a person and even then only my romantic partners get the full force of my affection.

Besides your argument seems quite invalid. Genital part smashing is arguably one of the most sensitive of touching two people can undertake. 

Also you are ruining all the fun when the other parts aren't touched in their entirety. What is the point of sex when it is so mechanical like that?



series0 said:


> *The sense of touch is bound psychologically and physcially to the greater truth of connection. Denying touch IS denying connection*, even if touch is painful. Memories (and I have some deeply scarring ones as well) can be denied and controlled. *One has to be willing to try, to learn. Relationships are able to flourish when both parties are healthy*, at least going in. I am not saying there cannot be connection between two broken people, there can. But the percentages are that such a relationship is either doomed or unlikely to be itself any healthier than the integrated health of both parties combined. *Denial of connection just is not healthy*.


You should consider writing a book on relationships.I always enjoy reading your very eloquent and truthful posts especially here.

Another amazing and great point you brought up here as well.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

All the senses are critical to connection ... 

And here is my gratuity ...





*
Remember the Kakapo!*


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Crimson Ash said:


> Besides your argument seems quite invalid. Genital part smashing is arguably one of the most sensitive of touching two people can undertake.
> 
> Also you are ruining all the fun when the other parts aren't touched in their entirety. What is the point of sex when it is so mechanical like that?.


I only care about busting my ovaries (via) coitus - (5) minutes on the bean (&) I'm through. There are no other reason(s) to touch.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> The sense of touch is bound psychologically and physcially to the greater truth of connection. Denying touch IS denying connection, even if touch is painful. Memories (and I have some deeply scarring ones as well) can be denied and controlled. One has to be willing to try, to learn. Relationships are able to flourish when both parties are healthy, at least going in. I am not saying there cannot be connection between two broken people, there can. But the percentages are that such a relationship is either doomed or unlikely to be itself any healthier than the integrated health of both parties combined. Denial of connection just is not healthy.
> 
> Of course some people carry the pain touch thing a bit too far ...


Sound(s) addictive + unhealthy (&) clingy. I would advise him to get a teddy bear (&) a hobby. But all primate(s) are different.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

Minx said:


> I only care about busting my ovaries (via) coitus - (5) minutes on the bean (&) I'm through. There are no other reason(s) to touch.


That is sad to hear. You are missing out on so many dimensions of sexual play by limiting yourself so much.

But to each their own as they say.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> I would not date a man who refused to be touched. I personally dislike being touched as well, by most people except occasionally by very close family and regularly by my romantic partner. If I couldn't touch my romantic partner I think I would hardly ever be touched at all, and that would probably have negative long-term effects.


You sound rather...touchy...about the whole subject. :laughing:


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Crimson Ash said:


> That is sad to hear. You are missing out on so many dimensions of sexual play by limiting yourself so much.


Not sad; just an incompatible male (via) self-need(s).



> But to each their own as they say.


Fair enough.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

xdae said:


> I noticed that you set the woman as (X) and the partner as (X) as well. Do you mean to differentiate them instead as (X) and (Y)?
> 
> Moving on - this sounds like a situation similar to the plot line of _Her_. In the movie, the woman is nothing more than a digital AI program, yet the protagonist still loves her dearly. That being said, it's very much possible to tolerate someone that you could not touch. Though one would have to be somewhat desperate to agree to something so unfavorable, unless of course that person too disliked touching.
> 
> I'm curious as to why you asked such a question.


No; it is not like the movie ''Her,'' - they are in physical contact - they just do not touch much. I am curious on which individual(s) would tolerate such a woman. 

I suspect most folk(s) are looking for a mother // caregiver - or are in unhealthy obsession w/ ea. other. It is the end of the world for them for the other partner to be a separate entity; odd specimen(s) indeed.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Minx said:


> Sound(s) addictive + unhealthy (&) clingy. I would advise him to get a teddy bear (&) a hobby. But all primate(s) are different.


Check on both ... well ... it's a stuffed lion from my childhood and, no, it isn't on my bed. Still gonna touch my partner, my family, my friends, etc, repeatedly. 

And no one in my life has ever referred to me as clingy. I'm willing to try though ...


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> Check on both ... well ... it's a stuffed lion from my childhood and, no, it isn't on my bed. Still gonna touch my partner, my family, my friends, etc, repeatedly.
> 
> And no one in my life has ever referred to me as clingy. I'm willing to try though ...


Perhap(s) so. To me, it is clingy - but I am merely a _high-functioning_ *solitary* woman with need(s) like the other ''apes''. They are just less potent. I would not consider myself, ''damaged,'' however - since I am capable of high-functioning, 'love,' (&) emotional connect(s).


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Minx said:


> Perhap(s) so. To me, it is clingy - but I am merely a _high-functioning_ *solitary* woman with need(s) like the other ''apes''. They are just less potent. *I would not consider myself, ''damaged,'' however - since I am capable of high-functioning, 'love,' (&) emotional connect(s).*


The blue part is ... concerning to me. In EVERY aspect of life there is both what might be referred to as high functioning and low functioning. A balanced blend of both is healthy and either in isolation is unhealthy ... is my contention. 

I find many people, men and women, who are 'high-minded' and I do indeed consider them broken. This pretentiousness is disquieting and rude, perhaps condescending. Get down and dirty, get comfortable with it, if you eat meat, you must hunt and clean an animal, etc. Own your life. Own your shit. Own it all. Be all you can be. That is healthy. Denial of the id is NOT integrating it and it will own you then, one way or another. Jekyll and Hyde complex. Madonna complex men, etc. My female partner to me is a slut and a noble queen, a street smart rogue and a kept princess. Both. Both is healthy.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> The blue part is ... concerning to me. In EVERY aspect of life there is both what might be referred to as high functioning and low functioning. A balanced blend of both is healthy and either in isolation is unhealthy ... is my contention.
> 
> I find many people, men and women, who are 'high-minded' and I do indeed consider them broken. This pretentiousness is disquieting and rude, perhaps condescending. Get down and dirty, get comfortable with it, if you eat meat, you must hunt and clean an animal, etc. Own your life. Own your shit. Own it all. Be all you can be. That is healthy. Denial of the id is NOT integrating it and it will own you then, one way or another. Jekyll and Hyde complex. Madonna complex men, etc. My female partner to me is a slut and a noble queen, a street smart rogue and a kept princess. Both. Both is healthy.


Denial of what .. (?) I have no qualm(s) admitting I am *flawed *+ have (_low-functioning_) times. I do not think I am [low-functioning] in a sense I am_ incapable [broken] _(via) high-functioning emotional bonds + connectivity (via) two high-cognitive monogamous primates - which was implied (via) your 1st post. My relationship _history _simply demonstrates your claim is false.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

Minx said:


> I suspect most folk(s) are looking for a mother // caregiver - or are in unhealthy obsession w/ ea. other. It is the end of the world for them for the other partner to be a separate entity; odd specimen(s) indeed.


That is not where many who are pointing out the importance of touch and connection are coming from.


It is put simply utilizing physical intimacy to lose yourself in the other person and hopefully they lose themselves in you. It is about two independent entities coming together in the moment and then splitting apart when it is over.


Personally, I need my time apart from my partners. Sometimes too much time as I can get lost in solitude, which lets the ones who desire more time together down.


I am not looking for a caregiver, I am looking for a sparring partner, a partner in crime and passion. One who wants to walk the path of life by my side not with them carrying me or me carrying them exclusively.

Entwined together but able to operate independently as well. Complementing each others positive qualities while helping overcome the negative ones.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Crimson Ash said:


> That is not where many who are pointing out the importance of touch and connection are coming from.
> 
> 
> It is put simply utilizing physical intimacy to lose yourself in the other person and hopefully they lose themselves in you. It is about two independent entities coming together in the moment and then splitting apart when it is over.
> ...


Sound(s) like a bunch of grown folk(s) looking for a parent // therapist to me - the way it is often described. 

Apparently; a female wanting not to be smothered (i.e., w/ obsessive touching + kissing) is abnormal. There is no need for all that stimulus - find something to do.


----------



## Kore (Aug 10, 2012)

Minx said:


> Sound(s) like a bunch of grown folk(s) looking for a parent // therapist to me - the way it is often described.
> 
> Apparently; a female wanting not to be smothered (i.e., w/ obsessive touching + kissing) is abnormal. There is no need for all that stimulus - find something to do.


I don't think it's considered abnormal across the board. Some will find it abnormal and others will find it refreshing. Even the man who wanted to be eaten found someone to oblige, fully consensual. That would be abnormal for most but it wasn't for them. 

I just had to paste this story to a friend a second ago so I thought I'd leave it here for you to enjoy.


* *






She is coming to my home tonight for the first time. We have met before, but only in public, at cafés and art galleries. She always arrives before me, not wishing to be late, but she waits patiently for me to arrive. She leaves me the most comfortable seat. But tonight, she is coming to me, to my home, to serve me.

I have given her clear instructions: she must arrive on the dot of eight. Under her conservative business suit, she will wear white stockings and garters; she will carry high-heeled white pumps in her bag. She will wear no jewelry for tonight; I will adorn her.

When I hear the cautious knock at the door, I do not rise. I call to her; she enters, closes the door behind her. Not once does she turn her back on me. I am watching.

I gesture for her to approach me, and she does, on her hands and knees, crawling gracefully across the floor. She stops within hand’s reach and folds her body neatly, legs tucked under her and palms upturned on her thighs. Her head is bent, and her long hair falls forward, away from the nape of her neck: her beautiful, naked neck. I touch her and she shivers. I lift her chin with my finger and trace her collarbone with my gloved hand.

“Why are you here?” “To serve you, Mistress.” Her voice is soft and light and only trembles a little.

“You agree to obey me and to let my will be yours for this evening, as we have discussed?”

“Yes, Mistress. I would be honored, Mistress.”

A lovely touch, that last. And I know I have chosen well this time. I reach for the collar, the smooth metal links that will appear so heavy on her slender neck. She wants to follow my hand with her eyes, but I have not given her permission to, so she waits as I have left her.

“Kneel up!”

She raises herself up so that I can reach her more easily. I push her hair back over her shoulders and then gesture for her to hold it up. I can see the pulse in her lovely throat as the metal chain encircles it like a hand.

“As long as you wear this collar, you are mine to command. And until I remove it from your neck, I will consider you my responsibility, my possession, my slave.”

She shudders almost imperceptibly.

Tonight she has come to me. And she is mine.


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

Minx said:


> That is, (X) woman assert(s) there is no reason to // or she does not wish to be touched beyond anything other than genital part mashing.
> 
> 
> Note *:: *She does not dislike (X) partner or love less; just wishes to not be touched.


If I love someone, my need of touching her is not healthy to ignore, I believe.

If she had a reasonable answer to why she doesn't want to be touched, I'd respect her feelings.

I have no clue if I'd tolerate the loss for connection. Only time would tell how that relationship would work out.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

Minx said:


> Apparently; a female wanting not to be smothered (i.e., w/ obsessive touching + kissing) is abnormal. There is no need for all that stimulus - find something to do.


It is not smothering. That person simply wants to showcase how much the other means to them through multiples avenues of physical affection.

In this case it is not obsessive. It is calculated, focused and precise forms of communication that utilize touch and affection to various degrees to showcase their affection.


I would categorize smothering as overly and obsessively affectionate behavior towards someone as a tool to gain affection and love as opposed to giving it. Coming from a place of wanting. That could be something I myself would categorize smothering and I have a personal dislike for such behavior.

To put it more basely its the difference between these two statements 

"fuck the shit outta me because I love it when you fuck me" to 

"fuck me because I want someone to show me affection"

While these two statements can overlap at times, what I am trying to explain is that physical touch is healthy and natural and should be a part of our existence.

But like all things there are sometimes unhealthy levels of it, which is what I assume your thinking is gravitating towards when you talk about it.


----------



## broken_line (Apr 23, 2016)

No. I need deep pressure to stay sane. I sleep with pillows pressed against either side of me (but none under my head). If I can't get tactile sensation from a woman the relationship is entirely pointless. The ability to cuddle the woman in question is ~50% of the entire motivation for having a relationship to begin with and without it I find it hard to see why I would be in the relationship to begin with. Such a person could never be more than a friend.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

ReachForPeach said:


> If I love someone, my need of touching her is not healthy to ignore, I believe.
> 
> If she had a reasonable answer to why she doesn't want to be touched, I'd respect her feelings.


Personal space. :rolleye: I do not let my mother touch me - we still _love_ fine.




> I have no clue if I'd tolerate the loss for connection. Only time would tell how that relationship would work out.


Why do assume you will be ''disconnected,'' if (X) female sit(s) on the opposite side of the booth .. (?)


----------



## RansomthePasserby (Sep 26, 2015)

No. Exploring a woman through touch is one of the ways I get to know her. My hands are name "Lewis" and "Clark" and she is the Wild West.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Crimson Ash said:


> But like all things there are sometimes unhealthy levels of it, which is what I assume your thinking is gravitating towards when you talk about it.


It is simply a _distaste_ for being ''touched,'' (i.e., kissing / waist grabbing / *face touching* / strange account(s) of rubbing) et al - there is no science behind it.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Minx said:


> Denial of what .. (?) I have no qualm(s) admitting I am *flawed *+ have (_low-functioning_) times. I do not think I am [low-functioning] in a sense I am_ incapable [broken] _(via) high-functioning emotional bonds + connectivity (via) two high-cognitive monogamous primates - which was implied (via) your 1st post. My relationship _history _simply demonstrates your claim is false.


Apologies if I mistook you. Flawed is fine, flawed is human. Wanting, aiming, at more is not only aiming at highbrow things but also lowbrow things, in integration. History notwithstanding, the status or attitude determines ... judgement, status, 'good'. The healthy mix calls to all of us, touch included. One flaw in being unready, another in not admitting it (or kibitzing when challenged). Two flaws accepted with no effort to change (implied/defended), a third. How many flaws before the cracks are addressed?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Minx

I was a guy who didn't like to be touched. Eventually, I met a woman for whom touch was important. She got me to respond to her touch after about 6 months. 

Now that I'm single again for the first time in 20 years, I'm not sure I could handle a relationship where touch was not at least somewhat important. I'd like to be able to snuggle on the couch, hold hands, and play with her hair a little. I really like to put my arm around a woman when I'm sleeping. I'll move away when we get too hot, but I like to spoon. 

I guess what I'm saying is no. I probably wouldn't tolerate it long-term.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

tanstaafl28 said:


> @*Minx*
> 
> I was a guy who didn't like to be touched. Eventually, I met a woman for whom touch was important. She got me to respond to her touch after about 6 months.
> 
> ...


Underscoring by way of experience that the position is ... untenable, broken (if you will), in effect. It is on the unhealthy side of normal not to desire and be comfortable with touch. It is a situation to be remedied and at a minimum a situation for which a remedy needs be desired. To sit in such a state and proclaim ... contentedness or preference for it, is a compounding of errors, a retreat from health.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> Underscoring by way of experience that the position is ... untenable, broken (if you will), in effect. It is on the unhealthy side of normal not to desire and be comfortable with touch. It is a situation to be remedied and at a minimum a situation for which a remedy needs be desired. To sit in such a state and proclaim ... contentedness or preference for it, is a compounding of errors, a retreat from health.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Minx said:


>


Already better, she wants to touch me ...


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Crimson Ash said:


> It is put simply utilizing physical intimacy to lose yourself in the other person and hopefully they lose themselves in you. It is about two independent entities coming together in the moment and then splitting apart when it is over.


Personally I don't need physical intimacy to 'lose' myself in another; nor do I need it to sustain a relationship; for me there are other ethereal qualities which I find much more important for a quality bond.



> Entwined together but able to operate independently as well. Complementing each others positive qualities while helping overcome the negative ones.


Touch isn't needed for any of that.



Minx said:


> ... there is no science behind it.


Psychologytoday.com - oxytocin
Psychcentral.com - oxytocin
Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed - massage study


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Touch isn't needed for any of that.


I was simply talking within the contexts of my previous exchanges with OP.

My implications aren't that concrete when taken out of context in such a manner.




> Personally I don't need physical intimacy to 'lose' myself in another; nor do I need it to sustain a relationship; for me there are other ethereal qualities which I find much more important for a quality bond.


To quote myself from a few posts before



> to each their own as they say


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

Minx said:


> Personal space. :rolleye: I do not let my mother touch me - we still _love_ fine.


I find it mysterious that you feel uncomfortable inviting a person to your (Physical) personal space. Has it always been like that, or did something happen? 

What about 15 minutes of close touching and hair smelling a couple of days a week? How would that feel?




> Why do assume you will be ''disconnected,'' if (X) female sit(s) on the opposite side of the booth .. (?)


X--Y (Mental connection)
X -Y (Physical connection)

Edit: Can't say I like being touched by people. Not even my family, I hate my parents as much as I love them, lol. But a lover's touch is different. And my cat, no ****.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Crimson Ash said:


> I was simply talking within the contexts of my previous exchanges with OP.
> 
> My implications aren't that concrete when taken out of context in such a manner.


I read the exchange; it's not out of context. 



> To quote myself from a few posts before


Just pointing out writings which are supported by means that aren't required for such; it doesn't make much sense - for someone like me - but aye, to each their own. :winky:


----------



## huhh (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't think so, maybe if it was some unimaginably good reasons for this i would try with my whole heart but it would more or less never work out


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

i would love to know the reasons. Then I would decide if I can live with it.
Since physical contact means so much to me.
physical contact is really sweet imo, if not done in the wrong time


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

ReachForPeach said:


> I find it mysterious that you feel uncomfortable inviting a person to your (Physical) personal space. Has it always been like that, or did something happen?
> 
> What about 15 minutes of close touching and hair smelling a couple of days a week? How would that feel?
> 
> .


_Heh_... To be fair; darling. I never said you could not ''never touch me,'' - I just do not like it. I am willing to compromise (via) my (X) lover(s) + partner(s) strange + odd need(s), however, my needs always come up ''too extreme,'' (i.e., unbearable + weird) to compromise to. Why must I compromise then .. (?)




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Psychologytoday.com - oxytocin
> Psychcentral.com - oxytocin
> Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed - massage study



I did not mean it literally; of course there is ''science,'' (via) _social bonding + touch _- also; it states that 'coitus,' is the strongest way to induce this chemical - seem(s) all is fine.






Crimson Ash said:


> It is not smothering. That person simply wants to showcase how much the other means to them through multiples avenues of physical affection.
> 
> In this case it is not obsessive. It is calculated, focused and precise forms of communication that utilize touch and affection to various degrees to showcase their affection.


It is obsessive to myself; as I do not like it.

I will not enjoy your touching + ''affection(s)'' much unless it is in the form of coitus. I would want you to *GTFO* me - but I am willing to compromise. I prefer not to be touched, but you can touch me. I do not like hug(s), it feel(s) like being enclosed in a smothering human blanket - more or less; our relationship + feeling(s) for ea. other will not change my discomforts in this regard. 

I do not understand why you need to repetitively touch me - it is disgusting + desperate looking; while I tolerate it.





series0 said:


> Two flaws accepted with no effort to change (implied/defended), a third. How many flaws before the cracks are addressed?


You can touch me; I do not have to _enjoy it_ - however.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Minx said:


> You can touch me; I do not have to _enjoy it_ - however.


You heard it people! Permission granted! ...

But seriously, it would be great fun trying to convince you to enjoy it.


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

Minx said:


> _Heh_... To be fair; darling. I never said you could not ''never touch me,'' - I just do not like it.


True. I took your word as law, to never touch if you did not like it. 



> I am willing to compromise (via) my (X) lover(s) + partner(s) strange + odd need(s), however, my needs always come up ''too extreme,'' (i.e., unbearable + weird) to compromise to. Why must I compromise then .. (?)


I guess a relationship where the couple don't compromise with eachother doesn't exist. Or the couple are somehow perfectly synchronised in universal taste, thus making compromising suggestions nonexistant. A perfectly synchronised relationship can also exist in that matter where they accept and respect each others compromises. <--- Edit: Kinda misread your question, ofc you know why/when/how to compromise..l3l

If I may ask, what was your need, which someone thought as "too extreme"? If I heard you fart, I'd instantly smack that ass.


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

series0 said:


> You heard it people! Permission granted! ...
> 
> But seriously, it would be great fun trying to convince you to enjoy it.


Step aside old man. This woman is mine for the taking! If you do not accept this, I challange you to a game of chess.

No but seriously, I'm afraid @Minx is the alpha in this thread. What I mean by that is, I kiss her ass, if she would tolerate it.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

ReachForPeach said:


> Step aside old man. This woman is mine for the taking! If you do not accept this, I challange you to a game of chess.
> 
> No but seriously, I'm afraid @Minx is the alpha in this thread. What I mean by that is, I kiss her ass, if she would tolerate it.


I am much too _*broken*_ for @series0 .. :tongues: He would lose his mind + all cognitive function(s).



> If I heard you fart, I'd instantly smack that ass.


XDD


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Minx said:


> I did not mean it literally; of course there is ''science,'' (via) _social bonding + touch _- also; it states that 'coitus,' is the strongest way to induce this chemical - seem(s) all is fine.


I know; trying to give logical reasons for one to develop in it; a taste. :apple:


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

I used to not like being touched myself honestly, and found it strange how people reacted when I don't eagerly want to touch them, or hug, or whatever. I often did not commit to hugs either, because they were weird too me. I can remember one time a while back a girl grabbed my hand and was saying how long my fingers are, and I snatched them away on reflex, and I felt so weird, and thought where did that come from. But things are different now, years of experience I guess, now I actually crave human touch, with someone who I am interested in, or am in a relationship with. Mind you, my ex, she wanted to touch a lot, and even then, although I by now I am way more open to it, still had hesitation, but with her, you may cuddle for an entire day, naked and all, and it was wonderful to be honest. Although she betrayed me, her over need in that department, helped me to become way more open to touch. 
@Minx have you ever thought you may have OCD in some way?


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Tolerate? Yes.
> 
> Though I think I might prefer to switch the genital part mashing for affectionate holdings.


That. 

Theoretically I'd have no issues with it. 

In reality though a certain amount of affection is desirable, and touch enables bonding. 

I've had one night stands which were pretty much what the OP describes. Can tolerate it but it wouldn't be my number one choice. Were I to choose between and extremely extroverted, touchy-feely person and the 'cold', untouchable person, I might be tempted to choose the latter.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Macrosapien said:


> @Minx have you ever thought you may have OCD in some way?


Nah - I just do not fancy _nonsense_ + human *cling-machine(s)* (i.e., folk(s) that cannot go a day w/out sucking my tits) (&) _crying_ about it.


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

jeez damn @Minx is that you on the pic?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

@Minx if you are going to avatar like that, I am going to need a lot of time and touch.


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

Huh! Well, that is an interesting question. I would definitely respect her wishes. In this scenario I'm assuming I'm already in love with her. I would try it out, and hey, if it doesn't work out, we can always be friends instead.


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

This thread is just full of *Minx's* *Darling's*


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

ReachForPeach said:


> This thread is just full of *Minx's* *Darling's*


Yeah pretty much! Minx is super sexy. @[email protected] (don't kill me Minx!!!)


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

ReachForPeach said:


> This thread is just full of *Minx's* *Darling's*


LOL Minx is the type of girl that I would have had this scenario with in high school:

I would have followed her around, with big puppy dog eyes, worshipping the ground she walked on, trying to learn every single thing about her, trying to get her attention and holding a deep unrequited love for like 5 years.

And she would think I was really weird and annoying but would still sorta-kinda be my friend for some reason XDD


(actually I had the literal exact same scenario with a girl in high school who looked and acted a lot like Minx. aahhaha)


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

NewMango said:


> LOL Minx is the type of girl that I would have had this scenario with in high school:
> 
> I would have followed her around, with big puppy dog eyes, worshipping the ground she walked on, trying to learn every single thing about her, trying to get her attention and holding a deep unrequited love for like 5 years.


That sounds painful for you, I am familiar with being in love with hopeless hope.



> And she would think I was really weird and annoying but would still sorta-kinda be my friend for some reason XDD


To be less annoying I can give you the advice to develop your T. Especially Ti that you can explain in an understandable sense to people who have less Ti. That would probably be something an INTJ appreciates in their company. But really, don't care about what I'm saying though, there are people who appreciates your self concept of being annoying.



> (actually I had the literal exact same scenario with a girl in high school who looked and acted a lot like Minx. aahhaha)


To be fair Mango. No one here has heard or seen Minx express herself in real life. And her face is covered, like a space ninja soldier. Edit: One thing is true though: The avatar of hers is just insane sex appeal... Her way of attracting males is... a disturbance in the force.

Shit I sound like an obsessed freak. Is my self concept judging me fairly? Can anyone help me??+111


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

ReachForPeach said:


> To be fair Mango. No one here has heard or seen Minx express herself in real life. And her face is covered, like a space ninja soldier. Edit: One thing is true though: The avatar of hers is just insane sex appeal... Her way of attracting males is... a disturbance in the force.
> 
> Shit I sound like an obsessed freak. Is my self concept judging me fairly? Can anyone help me??+111


It's true, Peach. She could even be a dude for all we know! Because, y'know, there are no girls on the internet. 


(psssst it is Te! I have Te! And actually I am an extremely strong Te user despite it being my 3rd function. This accounts for me often coming across as "too blunt". my annoyingness stems from how when I "like" someone romantically I just become super intent on wanting to talk to them 24/7 in the beginning stages of the romance, because I am so intrigued and want to ask tons of questions and learn more about them haha)


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

NewMango said:


> It's true, Peach. She could even be a dude for all we know! Because, y'know, there are no girls on the internet.


If she is a dude. I'm willing to touch her penis. Srsly tho this forum is so incredible!!! It's like a balance of gender. With everyone being interested in personalities.




> (psssst it is Te! I have Te! And actually I am an extremely strong Te user despite it being my 3rd function. This accounts for me often coming across as "too blunt". my annoyingness stems from how when I "like" someone romantically I just become super intent on wanting to talk to them 24/7 in the beginning stages of the romance, because I am so intrigued and want to ask tons of questions and learn more about them haha)


Cool.


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

ReachForPeach said:


> If she is a dude. I'm willing to touch her penis. Srsly tho this forum is so incredible!!! It's like a balance of gender. With everyone being interested in personalities.


Yeah actually...the content of her posts alone are so sexy, even if she's secretly a sea turtle or spam bot or animate space heater or some weird shit like that I'd probably still be into it.


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

NewMango said:


> Yeah actually...the content of her posts alone are so sexy, even if she's secretly a sea turtle or spam bot or animate space heater or some weird shit like that I'd probably still be into it.


I just realized this is extremely awkward. We are talking about OP as if she weren't here. Gotta cool it with the obsession 

Did I just say I am obsessed?

Are you trying to retrive information from me?

What is this life?


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't think Minx is such a wimp that she would be wigged out by a bunch of randos complimenting her posting on the internet. 

Also no offense Peach but you seem rather insecure.


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

NewMango said:


> I don't think Minx is such a wimp that she would be wigged out by a bunch of randos complimenting her posting on the internet.
> 
> Also no offense Peach but you seem rather insecure.


Bitch pls 

uhh sorry, impuls talking!

I mean...Thank you for acknowledging!


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

ReachForPeach said:


> Bitch pls


Whipping out the gendered insults now! Way to go, champ. Anyway, let's not derail the thread. That's what's happening at the moment.



(Look mods look! I'm being nice! I'm not gonna rip this guy apart! Don't infract me again plz.)


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

ReachForPeach said:


> If she is a dude. I'm willing to touch her penis. Srsly tho this forum is so incredible!!! It's like a balance of gender. With everyone being interested in personalities.



Lucky for you - I like fucking dude(s) in the ass, too.



NewMango said:


> Yeah actually...the content of her posts alone are so sexy, even if she's secretly a sea turtle or spam bot or animate space heater or some weird shit like that I'd probably still be into it.


Indeed; I am bot. I alway(s) have been - any folk(s) here will tell you.


----------



## Hypaspist (Feb 11, 2012)

Hmm... let me think.....

.00000875 seconds pass .....

Nope.


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

Minx said:


> That is, (X) woman assert(s) there is no reason to // or she does not wish to be touched beyond anything other than genital part mashing.
> 
> 
> Note *:: *She does not dislike (X) partner or love less; just wishes to not be touched.


I personally don't like it when people touch me so I definitely could tolerate a woman who doesn't like being touched. My ESTP friend always tries to bro-hug me and I feel violated when he does. But I've never been in a relationship before so obviously I don't know a lot about such things, but I hypothesize that I could have a relationship without the need to hug or cuddle with them.


----------



## Stockholmaren (May 25, 2016)

Minx said:


> Lucky for you - I like fucking dude(s) in the ass, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed; I am bot. I alway(s) have been - any folk(s) here will tell you.



If I were to be fucked in the ass by anyone...It would be by you. If you were gentle with a mini strap-on. Or a finger. Two fingers? Shit man dunno.

When I think about it...Maybe you are an AI. Those who created you let you explore the internet to become endlessly inspired by information.


Edit: I wonder how it would feel to get fucked in the ass while listening to the simple smooth tunes of 




Edit 2: On second thought the tempo of the song is too slow


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Fluctuate said:


> @Catwalk, your best bet is to find someone similar.
> 
> This might be unrelated; I'm sure you all are familiar with the fact that marriages among people with autism and neurotypicals have higher divorce rates?
> 
> ...


I can see how (2) individual(s) sharing mutuality would work smoothier; indeed. I appreciate your response, doll. Lovely name, as well.




Tsu said:


> As (yet another) ENFP, I enjoy physical affection. But only up to a point. Sometimes I just want to do my own thing, whether its my hobbies or sleep or what have you.
> 
> But *no* touching whatsoever... I do not think I would be capable of rising up to a challenge like that. I know there are scientific reasons why touching in an intimate context is meant to feel good (though I do not have a reference to a study on hand right now), but I do understand that some people do not enjoy physical affection as much.


Yes, yes indeed. ENFP™ are rather _touchy_ (&) touchable - I'll say.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Noctis said:


> I know a few women IRL who aren't into touching, but are polite about it when telling me. I don't mind if they are polite, that doesn't bother me, however rudeness does.
> 
> I knew one in college who was very cold and icy about touching when I accidently on reflex reached out to hug her when she was upset.


She sound(s) rather _rude_. I will sympathize with your experience.


----------



## marblecloud95 (Aug 12, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> I can see how (2) individual(s) sharing mutuality would work smoothier; indeed. I appreciate your response, doll. Lovely name, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah the f stands for feeling people up among other things.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

Catwalk said:


> She sound(s) rather _rude_. I will sympathize with your experience.


Thank you. She gave me an icy look and stormed off, which really hurt my feelings to be frank. She tested as INFJ, but I think she might be the unhealthy/immature variant, as INFJs in real life I know don't behave that rudely. 

I found an ESFP young lady at the college I graduated from to be very polite, pleasant, and openly communicative/assertive about when she liked to be hugged.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

So no foreplay or kissing at all either?
Only genitals are touched? Why not just use a toy and call it a day?
Seems overly emotional to need another human just to get off....
Hey, do what you want, but this whole thread just reeks of needines....needing attention for being "so unusual" and needing to validate your preference by getting people to try and convince you something is off. 

Congrats on your 15+ pages of attention though.

--- edit:
Personally, I could not be with someone who doesn't do physical touch. That is my way of expressing/receiving affection. It helps create intimacy. Without closeness, I have no reason for romance. Friends can mentally stimulate me and sex is easy in this world.

Also, I can't stand germ phobes. I will probably use their toothbrush or something at some point. I mean, someone can swap bodily fluids that can transmit deadly disease or create a whole new human, but they can't caress a shoulder? Yeah, that's _logical_.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

OrangeAppled said:


> So no foreplay or kissing at all either?
> Only genitals are touched? Why not just use a toy and call it a day?
> Seems overly emotional to need another human just to get off....
> Hey, do what you want, but this whole thread just reeks of needines....needing attention for being "so unusual" and needing to validate your preference by getting people to try and convince you something is off.
> ...


Speaking for myself, a toy can't compare to an actual person. I'm not even speaking emotionally, but functionally. They're a lot more limited (then again, they haven't adapted over millions of years).


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Speaking for myself, a toy can't compare to an actual person. I'm not even speaking emotionally, but functionally. They're a lot more limited (then again, they haven't adapted over millions of years).


No of course it isn't the same, but the differences begin to shrink when you eliminate the rest of the body from being touched during sex. Sounds very "wham, bam, thank you ma'am". 

Are there barriers used to prevent anything besides "genitals mashing"? I mean what if thighs accidentally brush? Are hazmat suits involved?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

OrangeAppled said:


> So no foreplay or kissing at all either?


No. Although, I do not particularly find them an enjoyable activity. ''_Physical touch_,'' is not one of my love language(s).

Would *you* like a _kiss_ from me.. (??) 




> Only genitals are touched?


I would _prefer _that; yes.




> Why not just use a toy and call it a day?


I prefer to utilize those on partner(s) -- more so than myself (via) _Catwalk' time_.




> Seems overly emotional to need another human just to get off....


Yet;

You state --> 



OrangeAppled said:


> Personally, I could not be with someone who doesn't do physical touch. That is my way of expressing/receiving affection. It helps create intimacy. Without closeness, I have no reason for romance. Friends can mentally stimulate me and sex is easy in this world.


... 

Not sure what you're _rambling_ about, doll. Many thing(s) flawed here.



> Hey, do what you want


OK.



> but this whole thread just reeks of needines....needing attention for being "so unusual" and needing to validate your preference by getting people to try and convince you something is off.


And what does your post (i.e., 10+ lines of belligerency to my persona) - rather than formally addressing (Post #1) ''reek,'' of, and rather *rancidly* so, might I say. Any ideas .. (??) :bwink:




> Congrats on your 15+ pages of attention though.



Thank you for contributing, anyhow [both irrelevantly & then re-editing to still address the main point]. Do you feel_ *bamboozled*_ (via) _absence _of self-control .. (??) Or are you just here to _entertain_ me as well, darling .. (?) :rolleye: 

Feeling _feisty_ ..(?)




> Also, I can't stand germ phobes. I will probably use their toothbrush or something at some point. I mean, someone can swap bodily fluids that can transmit deadly disease or create a whole new human, but they can't caress a shoulder? Yeah, that's _logical_.


I see. 

Safe coitus = flourishing / marvelous coitus ... no issues here with ''STD'', malfunction(s) in the disease category. 

Although, I can be a tad _hygienic_ for others tastes -- ... So I can see the repulsion, it is *surely* likewise. :bwink: I would be more concerned about the *other* individual in this circumstance.

[HR][/HR]



OrangeAppled said:


> No of course it isn't the same, but the differences begin to shrink when you eliminate the rest of the body from being touched during sex. Sounds very "wham, bam, thank you ma'am".
> 
> Are there barriers used to prevent anything besides "genitals mashing"? I mean what if thighs accidentally brush? Are hazmat suits involved?


This was addressed (via) (Page #13) - this is not only false; but simple laziness. Coitus is rather* touchy* for me.

You seem rather curious in how I _fuck_ - however; I suppose we can_ discuss_ this more privately to prevent further _fuss / gibberish / empty-rambling + thread cluttering_.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

not attracted to women, but hell no I wouldn't tolerate a partner who didn't like to be touched. I am possessive and demand affection. consent is required for sex, but if we're in a relationship, you give up your option to dissent to cuddling until you break up with me (fuck bodily autonomy. your body belongs to me, and my body belongs to you).


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Catwalk said:


> No. Although, I do not particularly find them an enjoyable activity. ''_Physical touch_,'' is not one of my love language(s).
> 
> Would *you* like a _kiss_ from me.. (??)
> 
> ...



Blah blah blah....more illogical drivel trying to dress itself as making sense, with an incredibly annoying format to boot. No, I didn't read most of thread because it's not _that_ interesting. The thread topic was as interesting as thousands of others I've participated in, which says little.

Secretly needy people aggressively assert how much they neither need or want. Then they get really excited to point out how others are so fascinated with them, to divert attention away from their neediness for attention. This response continues to support this interpretation.

I added my experience to show you can have and understand your preference without some ridiculous justification that demeans others. That is the point....have your personal preferences and stop asserting them as superior or "logical".


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

*Closed* (OP request).


----------

