Boys, girls, hugs

I consider myself blessed to have grown up in a physically affectionate family. Not only was I regularly hugged and kissed by my mother, but I still hug and kiss my father whenever I see him. (I am grateful that my father, born in Austria, grew up in a relatively demonstrative culture.) As a schoolboy, however, I learned quickly that any sign of physical affection between men (other than during a sporting event, and even then, of a very limited and specific nature) was associated with homosexuality and effeminacy. I didn't hug a man to whom I wasn't related until I went to college.

Now, of course, I work as a volunteer youth minister at the local Episcopal church. During the past five years, I've worked with a couple of hundred high school-age youth. It's given me a lot of time to think about gender and physical affection. If there's one thing I'm committed to, it's modeling appropriate but loving physical contact with my kids of both sexes. That isn't always easy to do. Not surprisingly, I have had to confront my own acculturation when it comes to physical affection with young men.

First off, we live in a society that is absolutely obsessed with issues of sexual abuse. This obsession is particularly apparent in our churches and our youth ministries; the past three years have brought devastating news of molestation and abuse in every denomination (though our Catholic brethren seem to have taken the brunt of the hit). In this climate, all men who choose to work with youth are open to suspicion. Some of what is being done in response is good and necessary: stricter background checks, for example. But much of what has happened has not been useful, and some of it has even been counter-productive. I have a friend who works in youth ministry at a Presbyterian church nearby, and he says he has been told that the church's policy is to never have any youth minister touch a kid in any way at any time. No hugs, no pats on the back, nothing. He's looking for a new church.

Working with adolescents has taught me just how starved most of them are for safe physical affection, especially the boys. And over time, with input from those on staff at the church, I have developed my own guidelines for my own behavior. What it boils down to is this: I am an inveterate hugger. I hug everyone. Kids, adults, men, women, boys, girls, chinchillas, the ficus tree in the corner. That sounds more compulsive than it is. I have to be constantly, keenly aware of body language. I don't foist hugs on anyone. Nor do I treat hugs as inconsequential, like Hugo's version of a casual handshake. What I'm trying to do doesn't always work perfectly, but it does seem to work most of the time. I'm trying to create a culture in our youth group where non-sexual physical intimacy feels safe and reassuring and validating. That takes a lot of time. Some kids came for six months before I could hug them. Some hugged me the moment they met me. Even in a nurturing and safe environment, there will be different levels of comfort with physical affection.

Many of the girls, of course, have little experience of non-sexual affection from men. If I hear one more story from a teen girl about how her father stopped hugging her when she began to develop, I'm going to scream. (I'm not a father, of course, but I'm just mystified by that phenomenon, which, anecdotally, seems to be epidemic). Many of them, though very young, have already been objectified and harassed by men my age or older. They are in desperate need of truly safe adult men -- men who are neither responsive to their sexuality nor terrified of it. For the record, as a matter of common sense, I am never alone with teenage girls at the church. Ever. I also regularly "check in" with my fellow volunteers and with the church staff, asking them to be willing to challenge me should I ever even appear to behave inappropriately. But none of that stops me, when the barriers have been broken down, from hugging.

I don't hug boys the same way I hug girls. For the most part, with the boys, "horseplay" is the safest environment for physical affection. We do a lot of that at All Saints Church. Mind you, I don't get down on the ground and wrestle with the kids! But the playful pretend punches, the slaps on the back -- all of these can be imbued with very real caring and affection. When I was a high schooler, I wasn't ready to be held by older men -- but I sure as hell wanted their attention, and I did want their caring and affection. A quick squeeze of the shoulder was about all I could take, but damn, did I want that squeeze of the shoulder from men I looked up to! I try and remember that. (I should note that some high school boys do like to hug just as much as the girls do, especially once they realize that ours is a safe environment).

In our current climate of hysteria, we in the church need to struggle to find a balance. We must of course protect our young people from exploitation and abuse. We must do everything we can to create a safe place within our church communities for our teens. But a place where every gesture of physical affection is seen as dangerous is an inherently unsafe environment! Our young women need to be reminded, over and over again, that they are loved and cared for non-sexually; in that effort, a hug is worth ten thousand words. Our young men need to be reminded, over and over again, that here, at least one night a week during youth group, they don't have to be "tough guys." They need men in their lives who will love them without judging them or assessing their fragile masculinities.

I have to admit, it's a bit scary to post about this. I know that many, many women out there -- and some men -- have devastating stories of betrayal at the hands of male authority figures. I know that many of them know just how awful it can be when what was supposed to be a "safe" hug or touch becomes something far different. I try to never lose sight of that reality. But it is also because I am so aware of the prevalence of sexual abuse that I insist on touching the youth with whom I work. I do so not to show my disregard for common sense, but as an act of defiance against a culture that declares all affection to be suspicious. I do it because the kids need it. I do it because we all need it. And I do it because Jesus did it.

Comments

[Jen]

Professor Schwyzer, another fab post! I was one of those girls who was unfortunate enough to experience some 'not so nice' male affection. I can truly say the only reason I've been able to overcome these bad experiences is because I've had men in my life who have shared a 'brotherly' love with me.

Hugo, I want a hug! Where are you?! ;-)

[kp]

I had one professor at my christian college hug me after I returned from my father's funeral. One. He stepped out of his office, into the hall, said "I know I shouldn't do this, but..." and then gave me a FRIENDSHIP squeeze, not a sympathy one-armed hug. I loved it. It was perfect and safe and kind. Even though my dad was an ass (yes, he did quit affection when I hit puberty), I still needed sympathy. That hug not only have it, but also proved bravery and that rule-breaking in the name of Christian fellowship is more than okay sometimes; it's necessary.

[Ivan Lenin]

But a place where every gesture of physical affection is seen as dangerous is an inherently unsafe environment!

Well done, Hugo! You sound more and more like a man. Finally you make me feel like I'm not wasting my time.

[Ivan Lenin]

Also, Hugo, I''d like to comment on your use of the word "sexual". You seem to mean "as related to intercourse", which is reasonable. You can also mean it "as related to sexual urge or instinct" - in which case the hugs and pretend punches you are describing are indeed sexual - which of course is not to say there is anything wrong with them.
Look at boys playing soccer, kicking each other in the butt, stumbling each other, etc. They look like little sperms under a microscope. They have no clue why they're doing it, but what they do have everything to do with sex, and its two major dimensions: compassion and competition.

[Camassia]

Yeah, the sexualization of all touching is one of my pet peeves. Partly it comes from the Freudian attitude that all desire for relationship and intimacy is ultimately 'libido.' But I don't think that holds water even if you're going for strictly animalistic explanations for our behavior.

I do like the way the churches I've been to create a friendly environment for contact, whether holding hands or hugging or whatever. Though some are more circumspect than others. At my previous church I learned what a friend calls the 'evangelical hug' -- done with just one arm. It's OK but it feels oddly like you're posing for an invisible photographer.

[Ivan Lenin]

Camassia,
I have nothing to do with Freudian libido, although I must say most academics have some catching up with old Zigmund to do. He was simply being honest about what he felt, and most of his critics keep on constructing masturbatory little arguments against him, failing to simply admit what Freud had the guts to admit. His attempt to explain what he felt as a science might seem naive to us now, but why not just be grateful he said something nobody had said before him, give him the credit, and stop acting like he was some sex-obsessed radical. This debate about Freud has nothing to do with intellect and science, and everything to do with morals and religion, and it's not where I was getting at all.
But since that's what we're all really interested in, why don't I stop using the word "sex", and substitute it with the word "life", thus making everybody feel "safe".
I guess I will never cease to be amazed how scary the word "sex" is in this country. Sex is the only thing worse than violence, and the biggest sacrelige of all is the idea that maybe Jesus had a penis.

[Joy Paul]

At my church hugging is the common greeting. Men hug women. Women hug men. And same sex hug each other. There doesn't seem to be anything frightening about it. But you can imagine when straight people visit our church and receive a hug from someone of the same sex. It can be a little frightening for them. But we do try to take that into consideration and shake their hand if that is all they offer. But many people who come to our church feel rejected by family or society because they are gay, so hugging is a very affirming action to share.

[Camassia]

I have a B.A. in psychology, so I learned about Freud and how much evidence he has behind him and, more importantly, doesn't have. This isn't the place to debate it, but suffice to say I wasn't impressed.

[Serena]

Hugo, I am so glad that you refuse to be scared away from hugging people! We need more sensible, straight-thinking people like you, especially in youth work. I've been blessed with a very affectionate family, including a father who has always looked after his little girl and known when she needed a hug, but I'm always aware of people who don't seem to know quite what to do about physical, non-sexual, affection.

Also, I think if anyone at my church tried to ban all physical contact (not just "inappropriate" behaviours) ... well, we'd have to stop hugging each other in the Peace, and given how touchy-feely even the supposedly stiff-upper-lipped older Brits in my church are, where would we be then?!

Just my two penn'orth.

[Ivan Lenin]

Camassia,
B.A. is psychology is not exactly something you impress with, either :) But I am impressed that you're responding. It's more than I expected.
Since you've been nice enough to respond, I'd like to ask you: what made you think that I was trying to impress you or anybody else?

[Hugo]

Ivan, please stick to the subject at hand -- I don't want to close this thread, or bar you from commenting, but I will if need be.

[andi]

Hugo,
In highschool, I had a few close female and male teachers and coaches, all of whom--once a certain level of intimacy and trust had been built up--were quietly, consistently, and appropriately affectionate. In a social environment where contact was, indeed, limited, even among friends, I really appreciated these reassuring and strengthing moments of total contact: body, mind, and heart. These people are still my friends, mentors and role models. I absolutely agree that everyone, and especially children and adolescents, need to have literal human contact.

In South Korea, touching is constant and unquestioned. My students, male and female, hold each other, play with each others' hair, sit on each others' laps, everything. Although the really intimate contact between men especially tends to stop after adolescence, my boys hold each other. Teachers are constantly in contact with their students. My little girls especially hold my hand, climb in my lap, and hug me. I've never been in such a consistently physical environment--and it made me realize what a relatively sterile place American society can be.
Korean children, on the other hand (and for better or worse), grow up with an incredibly physical sense of connection to their family and their "people." I don't know if these plays a part in the nearly-pathological loyalty to Korean-ness, but that's a different topic.

Given the hyperactive paranoia surrounding potential sexual abuse, it's wonderful that, once gain, you've gone out on a limb so post about this. Thank you.

[John]

I think you are right, Hugo. My 10 year old boys are desperate for hugs, and starve for them. But there is a balance-particularly with boys who have been abused. So I always try only to hug those I know really well, giving the others a slap or squeeze on the shoulder, or ruffling their hair, if I can get away with messing up the gel ;-). If they aren't ready or comfortable with that, (it's usually because they aren't comfortable with any number of other things) I play Basketball with them, or horseplay, or soccer, or some other form of physical activity that lets them know I care enough to be with them. But I never, ever, hug girls. I swing little ones on my shoulders, and maybe sideways hug those who are old enough to be in the Youth group (if I know them well, the same as everyone does in our church) But otherwise, that's what the female leaders are for. We have homogenous groups for that reason, (and others, of course) and an open-door or witness policy to protect both ourselves and the church from neurotic parents. It's important they be able to trust us with their kids. It's important we also remember why we are trusted.

[Ivan Lenin]

Hugo,
Tell me where I deviated from the subject of girls, boys, and hugs.

[candace]

Here's my 2c: I think paranoia about sex is largely responsible for the sexualization of innocent touching to begin with! I look at people I know who have no sex/sexual confidence in their lives, and they tend to overestimate the sexual significance of non-sexual touches, thereby making them sexual, thereby making them uncomfortable for both parties. It's like the girls in junior high who never have boyfriends but are always convinced that the boy who so much as looks at her likes her "like that." It's a wierd reverse thing.

Hugo, perhaps you have the knowledge to enlighten us as to why our culture evolved that wierd panic about touching (Puritanism?) when there are lots of places in the world where touching can be very intimate without being sexual. (For instance, in the Middle East, it's common for men to touch each other frequently, stand very close to one another, and link arms while walking down the street, something that's very out of our comfort zone for heterosexual men in America.) I'd be interested in how that came about.

As for the related thread, it's probably true that you can't talk about sex in academia without talking about Freud. But I don't know much about Freud so I'll stick with what I know, and that's that this country is afraid of touching and I think it has the opposite of the intended effect!

[Mar]

I'm a massage therapist and do massage out of my church in Minnesota. I cant post enough on this subject, but two things ... I have worked with kids for a long time and have learned from everyone I work with One thing I learned from the director of a youth in crisis group I worked with is find some way to touch the kids in loving way, whether it is messing up their hair or giving them a hug, because some fears can be conquered alone, but some (touching, loving, trusting)require others to vanquish. I think as the church we are touching people, but are we touching them in the RIGHT way? I encourage people to do it with love, not for the reason of getting, but giving.

The second comment I make is regarding the sexual aspect. One interesting piece of information I learned in massage was that as a part of relaxation is that EVERYONE goes through a sexual response, but most people go right through it and into a complete relaxed state in less than a second, however occassionally it lasts longer and for the poor males out there an erection happens however if not encouraged everything will dissappear in moments, but if encouraged it will become inappropriate for the relationship of a therapist/client. I think this is basically how I look at hugging, rubbing a persons shoulders or even kissing them on the cheek. i dont mind if there is an instantaneous moment of sexual response, but that it was given without that expected response and the response is not entertain. I could go on and on about the physicality of God and church excluding it from their communities and dont think I dont understand or have compassion for those who are violated I completely understand that! I do massage for women in a shelter to help with replacing the memories of touch that have been so damaging. I have stories and cries to God (prayers) of anguish for those I have met. Again I repeat, it is not that we dont touch, but that we need to start touching in the right ways.

[MarMar]

Most of my massages are perhaps not as conscious forms of the physicality of God, but when I touch people I can feel my hands soak into their backs. I feel the meditation of the comfort, the relief of the ache, I know the sense of refuge where peace comes over you and releases the stress from your body. I know the invasion it is breaking, shattering sometimes the ghost wall that separates them from others. There is no hiding. I am in and it is an honor to be there. I must return the respect and not harm them but it is purposed invasion and I want to seize the moment and proverbially and literally grab hold of them and invade them with love. Seducing them to let go of that which they fear letting go of and grasp on to so strongly that it literally leaves cramps in their bodies, knots, spasms, a response to pain. The hurting portion echoes a cry for healing to the healthy parts. Isn’t that a classic proverb of the body of Christ? Is it a call to what we should do or merely an innate reaction? Do we listen? Tell me that touch doesn’t make a difference and I say grab hold of your arm and tell me you felt no change. There is no mystery as fascinating as for God to defy form with the divine.

[MarMar]

Sorry for hogging your comments section Hugo, I could go off about this subject all day. This is from my writings: "Most of my massages are perhaps not as conscious forms of the physicality of God, but when I touch people I can feel my hands soak into their backs. I feel the meditation of the comfort, the relief of the ache, I know the sense of refuge where peace comes over you and releases the stress from your body. I know the invasion it is breaking, shattering sometimes the ghost wall that separates them from others. There is no hiding. I am in and it is an honor to be there. I must return the respect and not harm them but it is purposed invasion and I want to seize the moment and proverbially and literally grab hold of them and invade them with love. Seducing them to let go of that which they fear letting go of and grasp on to so strongly that it literally leaves cramps in their bodies, knots, spasms, a response to pain. The hurting portion echoes a cry for healing to the healthy parts. Isn’t that a classic proverb of the body of Christ? Is it a call to what we should do or merely an innate reaction? Do we listen? Tell me that touch doesn’t make a difference and I say grab hold of your arm and tell me you felt no change. There is no mystery as fascinating as for God to defy form with the divine."

[Lawrence Krubner]

What a great post. Really going against the spirit of the times to post a thing like this in public. Well done.

[mythago]

Coming in late here, but thanks for a great post, Hugo.

I think another thing that will help those young women is to learn that they can refuse being touched, and that's okay. That they can say "Please don't hug me" without being treated as paranoid or bitchy. That's an important lesson, and honestly in the long run will probably make them more comfortable with that nonsexual touching.

[shinrikyou]

i don't think that hugging an adult man is very cool.
i also don't like being hugged, am i a freak ?
i think that hugging random people is pointless.

[Paz]

I hug people I like, it just comes natural to me. I don't hold back, it's just not in my character. I think that it might also have something to do with my cultural background.__Have you ever met a cold blooded Latin?? I don't think so...

[Paz]

I think I should add that I'm vey liberal with hugs, but very restrained with everything else.

[Brittany]

An apology is in order.....and a big hug!...I,m sorry I was mean to you Guigemar.

[Joseph Miranda]

Several years back, before I got rid of my television set (which I highly recommend, but that is another story!), I happened to catch a program on sexual harassment. One of the complainants was a woman, a former army officer, who was in tears because another soldier hugged her! He hugged her!!!! Horror. Shock. Gasp. One step away from "date rape," no doubt.

Or another example: in a "sexual harassment" guide I saw somewhere, women are encouraged to "scream" if a man tries to hug them. Then they are to explain the reason they screamed is because a hug is a form of "sexual harassment."

Now, feminists say, "Men just don't get it." But to the contrary, men do "get it." When men see women going into hysterics because of a hug, many men get the idea that women do not want physical affection.

There is a double standard here. I know many women who greet men with huggies. Of course, if a man were to hug a woman without first asking her permission, it is "sexual harassment."

Of course, men can sue women for "sexual harassment" if a woman were to try to hug them, but most men are not that insensitive nor are they that vindictive.

The effect is to have a system in which women can have free access to men's bodies, but that criminalizes male affection towards women.

Then we wonder why men "don't show their feelings."