The latest childish fad I’ve heard coming from conservative Christians is “Side Hugging”. Apparently people who do “front hugging” may get sexually aroused including in a homosexual way.

I’m almost tempted to start a Facebook group called “Christian Front Hugging” (or similar) just to counter these people. What do other people think of this idea?

If I found my Church supporting this side hugging nonsense I’d let them know of my opinion in no uncertain terms.

My opinion:

WTF?

Tah - 17 December 2009 06:31 AM

My opinion:

WTF?

That was my initial reaction. I don’t know how wide spread this Side Hugging thing is in Christian Churches but it’s just too bizarre for my liking.

EDIT: I found a link to a story on it here.

I’m right there with ya, Peter!  Almost the only time I do side hugging is when I have something in one arm but still want to give someone a hug.  What a silly thing for people to suggest.

Side hugging, like spooning?

Well, the one-armed hug (often referred to as a ‘snug’) is hardly new, and is a great way to say ‘hi’ to folks you’re good friends with.

That being said, I think they’re missing the issue. Namely, that the hugging, which should be a fairly intimate gesture of either close friendship or family, shouldn’t be done with the sort of people who are getting off on it. Seriously, someone getting aroused by a hug points to some deeper problems than the hug itself.

It seems that some christian groups are rather firmly of the opinion that nobody, anywhere, should have genitals except for the two minutes required to produce offspring, and even then they should feel guilty about it. With that degree of repression, the body can and will adapt to recognize other stimuli. I’ve read of spinal injury patients, who’ve lost al sensation below the waist, being able to orgasm from a kiss or stroking of the arm..

Mr R - 17 December 2009 07:18 AM

Side hugging, like spooning?

No just look at the link in the third post.

Mr R - 17 December 2009 07:18 AM

Side hugging, like spooning?

No. Like taking a picture and putting your arm around the person standing beside you.

My mum does this to me, but only if she’s holding things in one arm or we’re both facing someone else and she feels the need to hug me, though it’s more of a “this is my daughter” kind of gesture in that case.

In any case, I think it’s a bit… overprotective doesn’t seem right but it’s the closest I’ll get at the moment, I think, of people to be so concerned about this.  Of course, on my internal disdain-o-meter, these kinds of things are on par with PETA stunts.

Robin Bobcat - 17 December 2009 07:47 AM

Well, the one-armed hug (often referred to as a ‘snug’) is hardly new, and is a great way to say ‘hi’ to folks you’re good friends with.

That being said, I think they’re missing the issue. Namely, that the hugging, which should be a fairly intimate gesture of either close friendship or family, shouldn’t be done with the sort of people who are getting off on it. Seriously, someone getting aroused by a hug points to some deeper problems than the hug itself.

It seems that some christian groups are rather firmly of the opinion that nobody, anywhere, should have genitals except for the two minutes required to produce offspring, and even then they should feel guilty about it. With that degree of repression, the body can and will adapt to recognize other stimuli. I’ve read of spinal injury patients, who’ve lost al sensation below the waist, being able to orgasm from a kiss or stroking of the arm..

Robin, that’s an astute observation. 

And I’d like to add that perhaps, these folks should abstain from any kind of contact all together or simply ‘kiss the air’.

I’ve just created the Facebook group “Christian Front Hugging”. I don’t want to take any comments away from this forum so by all means keep posting here if people here wish to keep adding more comments on it.

Peter - 17 December 2009 11:22 AM

I’ve just created the Facebook group “Christian Front Hugging”. I don’t want to take any comments away from this forum so by all means keep posting here if people here wish to keep adding more comments on it.

I found it Peter, but after entering my opinion in the ‘Wall’ area, I was advised I couldn’t post on that wall (yes I was already logged onto Facebook).  Maybe my message was too long so I’ll put it here.  I think some members already know this story anyway:
___________________________
Religious taboos and restrictions against natural human animal physiology invite eventual deviant behavior in an effort to restructure balance.

I attended a missionary boarding high school in Egypt for two years upon special dispensation since my parents were not missionaries.  At that time the mainstream students had been carefully taught taboos and believed that to break them was to invite evil.  One of these was a mindset that to hold hands with the opposite sex caused pregnancy.  This resulted in almost the entire teen population there doing all they could to avoid the opposite gender completely.  Yet because natural tendencies at this age phase instruct flirting etc., they focused these tendencies instead on same sex classmates.  Somehow, in their minds, this was less evil or at least acceptable.

The frequency of bi-sexual and homosexual activities was so high (about 60%) among normally heterosexual teens that the principal of the boarding facility invited my older brother into his confidence because neither my brother nor I had been so manipulated by ridiculously dangerous concepts.  The principal asked my brother to begin inviting girls out on real dates, to movies, dinner etc. (for which the school financially compensated as I understood it), to generate an atmosphere that might drive fearful teens in to accepting to the natural state of being human.  Since I was a girl I could not (should not) be so forward as to ask a boy on a date but my own rebellious behavior with wild flirtation was heartily accepted nor was I in any way punished (by the houseparents) when I leaned over my balcony to bang on the lower balcony doors of the boys dorm floor.

The point here is that many religions suggest that certain human aspects are evil.  I think it should be reinforced that the human animal was carefully designed.