Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Need for Touch

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: The Need for Touch

#71

Post by ebg13 »

virmundi wrote: post #50
coldtea wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First I don't want to catch something (aids, chlamydia, herpes, ...) so a few minutes of sex doesn't seem worth the risk. Sounds more like microphobia. The chances are not that great. Except if you get casual sex from the fringe of society...

Statistically 1/4 heterosexuals have some form of an STI. They can be even higher depending on what you read. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3575167/ STI in transsexuals is even higher. Some reports have it at 3/4 with high percentage of HIV. High rates among gays. Lesbians are pretty low (but have high domestic abuse rates). STIs are a real danger unless many precautions are taken. We’re looking at den…

> STIs are a real danger.

This is basically false and fear mongering.

Herpes has zero consequence for the vast majority of people who have it. Most of the rest just get mild discomfort once a year or every few years. It's so common and harmless that doctors won't even bother testing for it unless you make them.

The connection between HPV and cancer is real but reporting on it overstates its significance. Your risk of developing HPV-related cancer is less than your risk of getting murdered (very low). Also there's an effective vaccine against the most oncogenic strains. If you're worried, get vaccinated.

HIV still sucks, try not to get it, but transmission isn't that easy and, while treatment used to be very expensive, we have cheap and effective post-exposure prophylaxis and the price now for the generic form of standard treatment is less than $100 per year, and life expectancy with HIV is now nearly normal.

Chlamydia and gonorrhea are cured by a single dose of oral antibiotics. Syphilis is also cured by antibiotics.

Re: The Need for Touch

#72

Post by raducu »

throw4reasons2 wrote: post #32
throw4reasons wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I coexist with my wife (and 3 year old) but we came to the conclusion that we are utterly incompatible and cooled off the romantic part completely. I hoped things would turn around but the pandemic and wfh exacerbated the problem. I only play with my child (+ the daily hug) but other than that I haven't touched anybody in more than a year and am somewhat somewhat fine with it. I am aware that I am not replacing the n…

Wow, this is almost my exact situation. I'm living for my child. I would have much preferred to demonstrate to him what a healthy, loving relationship looks like with my wife, but the status quo is probably the best that can be made of a bad situation.

No, it is not and you'll teach your child some very bad lessons for the future.

You should acknowledge and try to fulfill your emotional needs as well.

I had a REALLY bad example in my mother who changed her mind multiple times about divorcing my father for the sake of me and my sister. That mental model of self-sacrifice made me unable to breakup with my (now) wife after some major red flags.

If you want to re-connect with your wife, absolutely tell her that and acknowledge to yourself and her that you do have emotional/romantic needs, and that your child absolutely is a reason in your willingness to give your relationship another go, but you will not be forever happy or stay in this arrangement.

Re: The Need for Touch

#73

Post by leetcrew »

coldtea wrote: post #43
shybutnotshy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be ok with casual sex. I'm mostly not. First I don't want to catch something (aids, chlamydia, herpes, ...) so a few minutes of sex doesn't seem worth the risk. I know, at least according to popular media that puts me in the minority. If my attitude is common it's probably not easy to spot. Second, I don't want to hurt people. I know they exist but 9 times out of 10 people I meet want a serious relationsh…

> First I don't want to catch something (aids, chlamydia, herpes, ...) so a few minutes of sex doesn't seem worth the risk. Sounds more like microphobia. The chances are not that great. Except if you get casual sex from the fringe of society...

I dunno, my personal experience has been that plenty of people who seem otherwise responsible are not very careful about safe sex. several women I've hooked up with (or was about to hook up with) have told me they're on birth control so I don't need to use a condom if I don't want to. uhh thanks, but now I really want to use a condom.

Re: The Need for Touch

#74

Post by Juliate »

germinalphrase wrote: post #47
throw4reasons wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I coexist with my wife (and 3 year old) but we came to the conclusion that we are utterly incompatible and cooled off the romantic part completely. I hoped things would turn around but the pandemic and wfh exacerbated the problem. I only play with my child (+ the daily hug) but other than that I haven't touched anybody in more than a year and am somewhat somewhat fine with it. I am aware that I am not replacing the n…

For what it’s worth, my wife and I slipped into a similar pattern and it put a great deal of stress on our relationship. We did seek some outside support and things have since moved back in the other direction. No advice here. Just sharing to acknowledge that these things can be fluid.

YMMV but on our side, at some point in our life, we resorted to decide on at least one mandatory full minute (60 secs) hug every morning and possibly anytime the other asks for it.

Just this, as small and simple as a one minute hug made a huge difference and generated other benefits.

Re: The Need for Touch

#75

Post by virmundi »

ebg13 wrote: post #71
virmundi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistically 1/4 heterosexuals have some form of an STI. They can be even higher depending on what you read. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3575167/ STI in transsexuals is even higher. Some reports have it at 3/4 with high percentage of HIV. High rates among gays. Lesbians are pretty low (but have high domestic abuse rates). STIs are a real danger unless many precautions are taken. We’re looking at den…

> STIs are a real danger. This is basically false and fear mongering. Herpes has zero consequence for the vast majority of people who have it. Most of the rest just get mild discomfort once a year or every few years. It's so common and harmless that doctors won't even bother testing for it unless you make them. The connection between HPV and cancer is real but reporting on it overstates its significance. Your risk of…

If you don’t want a disease, it is a real danger.

Re: The Need for Touch

#76

Post by phizy »

bluntfang wrote: post #60
Dumblydorr wrote: post #52

I don't agree that touch is the most important sense. For me, vision and hearing both come out far ahead. Where would I be without Chopin's music, without the sound of my friends' instruments as we jam, without the loving voices of friends and family? Where would I be without vision, I couldn't see the works of Monet, Van Gogh, Miyazaki, Blizzard, Bethesda, or practically all code and screens and UI? Touch feels nice…

>Touch feels nice, but as an American man, I was taught to touch only when necessary, lest the other person find it over the line. What? You must not watch sports then. High fives. Butt slaps. Chest bumps. etc. In fact, we might even say that there's a big problem with men inappropriately touching people, just look at the next potential Leader of the Free World, they both have a reputation for inappropriate touching.…

If your go-to examples of male touch are reserved for brief celebratory gestures and "inappropriate" touching, then it would seem you're not effectively making the point you're attempting to make. Neither of these examples indicate that touching is normal, common, or considered appropriate.

Why did you think they would? Do you often find truth by generalizing from exceptions?

Re: The Need for Touch

#77

Post by raducu »

saiya-jin wrote: post #18
shybutnotshy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be ok with casual sex. I'm mostly not. First I don't want to catch something (aids, chlamydia, herpes, ...) so a few minutes of sex doesn't seem worth the risk. I know, at least according to popular media that puts me in the minority. If my attitude is common it's probably not easy to spot. Second, I don't want to hurt people. I know they exist but 9 times out of 10 people I meet want a serious relationsh…

You are doing the right thing I believe - taking relationships seriously. Maybe a bit too seriously but that's up to discussion. I am the same. Low quality relationship does way more harm than good to a normal balanced person, so like elsewhere quality beats quantity. What I can recommend to you, maybe cliche but it works and worked for me - start some physical workout. If you are unfit start gently, adapt your body…

> Maybe a bit too seriously but that's up to discussion.

But that is they key here.

My brother in law is like that, a really good guy and handsome as well. But he takes this perfect partner thing to such an extreme that he's been single forever. Also, he has personal issues that would stand out if he was in a relationship. He thinks that by entering a perfect relationship those would be non-issues, but that's the thing -- there is no perfect relationship or person, and by entering even meh-level relationships you can see your own issues and perhaps fix them -- if you really want a relationship, that is.

Re: The Need for Touch

#78

Post by Tobu »

neolog wrote: post #37
precisioncoder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would highly recommend dropping the dating sites and spending the time and money looking into touch centric hobbies instead. There are dozens of different styles of dance, Acroyoga or Partner acrobatics is also a great option. Whether you meet a partner or not, having a better relationship with the opposite gender and touch will make your dating options much better. Often you don't find your special somebody until…

Do singles go to acroyoga and partner acrobatics without knowing anybody?

Yes of course.

I've been into contact improvisation, some partner dances, and acro, and the scenes are structured by social circles that are much broader that most romantic relationships.

You become part of a scene by showing up regularly, practising, and occasionally making friends.

If some of these activities have sensual components (communication through touch, syncing together, sharing an understanding of the music…), there's no need to link that to romantic connections.

Re: The Need for Touch

#79

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

saiya-jin wrote: post #15
giardini wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read the short article "Why You Should Forget the Past" by Rolf Dobelli at http://meaningring.com/2016/03/07/why-you-should-forget-the-...

OP's situation is more complex because of the child. We all know kids that grow up without father tend to have more often various issues in later life (I've seen folks like that everyday in pre-covid times, it becomes glaringly obvious once you know what to look for in their behavior). But then also staying in cold detached relationship ain't the best for the child either - they are very perceptive and seeing everyda…

It's funny how the exact problems you were unprepared to face in life are what you think should be taught in schools to the exclusions of other things.

Re: The Need for Touch

#80

Post by ebg13 »

virmundi wrote: post #75
ebg13 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> STIs are a real danger. This is basically false and fear mongering. Herpes has zero consequence for the vast majority of people who have it. Most of the rest just get mild discomfort once a year or every few years. It's so common and harmless that doctors won't even bother testing for it unless you make them. The connection between HPV and cancer is real but reporting on it overstates its significance. Your risk of…

If you don’t want a disease, it is a real danger.

That's an irrationally fearful idea of danger. I don't want to eat broccoli, but that doesn't mean eating broccoli is dangerous.
Post reply on HN