[scaught]

Alright. This came up because of a discussion I was having with a group of friends recently that was based around this topic: Is it OK to hold hands with someone you just want to bang? When I say bang, I mean no strings attached straight up sex. I'm guessing the general consensus is a solid NO. That said, we set upon stack ranking the levels of intimacy in "acts" between 2 people. This is what we agreed upon. 1 is least intimate, 5 being most.

1. hand manipulation (to use a phrase stern used to use, haha)
2. oral
3. intercourse
4. kissing
5. hand holding

discuss.

[Chuckit]

I disagree that holding hands is more intimate than sex. That's a really odd idea, actually. I'm willing to hold the hand of lots of people I'd never ****.

[Kerrigan]

Things get pretty intimate when her tongue touches his anus.

[yakkiebah]

What about fisting?

[smacintush]

1. hand holding - If this was considered to be very intimate then square dancing would have been outlawed years ago.

2. kissing - Of course there are many different levels of kissing. I realize that a lot of people consider kissing to be very personal and that's probably why it was at number 4 on your list. I would say that if you are doing number 1, 2 or 3 with someone whom you wouldn't want to do number 4…In the words of Norm MacDonald: "you are a giant whore".

3. hand manipulation - I assume you meant finger banging and hand jobs. I actually think this is pretty innocent. It definitely belongs above kissing but I think it should be pretty far below oral and intercourse.

4. and 5. Oral and intercourse. I put these together because although many people have oral as a prelude to what THEY consider REAL sex, I don't think it gets enough recognition that it is REAL sex. I think it is very intimate to have someone's genitals in your mouth.

I realize that it may look as if I missed the context or the point of the original list. I didn't. I just think that it shows how skewed our ideas on sex can be and I don't agree that sex should be separated from "intimacy" that way.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

What about fisting?

Maybe THAT'S what he meant by "hand manipulation"!

[paul w]

Originally Posted by scaught

Is it OK to hold hands with someone you just want to bang? When I say bang, I mean no strings attached straight up sex. I'm guessing the general consensus is a solid NO.

I'll go against the consensus and say YES. I have done it - besides holding hands, like all kinds of touching or kissing can mean so many things. I usually just go with it and pick up the pieces afterwards. Or I do now anyways, now that I realize how much all the silly overanalyzing got me in the past...

[mojo2]

If you DON'T love the person to some degree you have no business messing around with their energies, sexual or otherwise.

If you do love them just be honest and clear.

Holding hands and any of the other numbers are mere expressions of how we feel.

If you can't feel good holding hands with someone you'd have sex with it's only a matter of time before you begin to feel like you are cheating YOURSELF by sleeping with people you don't care about.

Once you have enough casual experiences you will long for more and deeper and better and you will begin searching for someone to be your MATE not your Kleenex.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by scaught

Alright. This came up because of a discussion I was having with a group of friends recently that was based around this topic: Is it OK to hold hands with someone you just want to bang? When I say bang, I mean no strings attached straight up sex. I'm guessing the general consensus is a solid NO. That said, we set upon stack ranking the levels of intimacy in "acts" between 2 people. This is what we agreed upon. 1 is least intimate, 5 being most.

1. hand manipulation (to use a phrase stern used to use, haha)
2. oral
3. intercourse
4. kissing
5. hand holding

discuss.

The mechanical acts themselves are not a measure of intimacy. It depends how two people feel about each other. Any one of these could be deeply moving, or as meaningless as taking a piss.

Making love is intimate. Having sex is not. And the former is way more intense.

[IceEnclosure]

Chuckit, I think Scaught would hold many people's hands. But if he were *strictly* banging a particular girl, would he hold her hand?

I agree with the list above, but I've got a wildcard. A small chunk of "game" involving playing with a girl's hand with your own(possibly leading to holding it) in an effort seal the deal, land the fresh fish, or end negotiations. I've practiced this technique, and it works well at the bar when it's just the two of you. I'd probably even kiss her.

But yeah, once you get the goal, there shouldn't be any more hand holding - unless you really like her - but by this time she's probably already wrapped filming on her first three way with two dudes (after all, she fell for the "hand-hold", and you sacked it on the first night).

Food for thought.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

The mechanical acts themselves are not a measure of intimacy. It depends how two people feel about each other. Any one of these could be deeply moving, or as meaningless as taking a piss.

Making love is intimate. Having sex is not. And the former is way more intense.

[Zeeb]

I think whether its ok to hold hands or have sex with someone you just want to bang and leave depends upon the perception of the other person. If said person wants the same thing, hold hands, have oral sex, intercourse whatever.

If you think the person wants to date you and you don't want to date them, none of it is permissible. If you don't know, just ask the person.

As far as the levels of intimacy each act holds, all of them or none of them could be considered intimate by either party.

[Face Ache]

I don't suppose...

[scaught]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure

Chuckit, I think Scaught would hold many people's hands. But if he were *strictly* banging a particular girl, would he hold her hand?

I agree with the list above, but I've got a wildcard. A small chunk of "game" involving playing with a girl's hand with your own(possibly leading to holding it) in an effort seal the deal, land the fresh fish, or end negotiations. I've practiced this technique, and it works well at the bar when it's just the two of you. I'd probably even kiss her.

But yeah, once you get the goal, there shouldn't be any more hand holding - unless you really like her - but by this time she's probably already wrapped filming on her first three way with two dudes (after all, she fell for the "hand-hold", and you sacked it on the first night).

Food for thought.

somehow i knew IE would be down with my theorem.

and i can agree with IEs technique here, as well. i mean, if you're leading her to the sack and holding her hand that's different than a casual stroll through a park holding hands and all.

[Chuckit]

Somebody explain how holding hands while walking (something Bush does with Arab leaders) is more intimate (and apparently immoral) than ****ing, please.

[scaught]

whats your answer to this: Is it OK to hold hands with someone you just want to bang?

[Chuckit]

Yes. It's also OK to hold hands with anybody else. Holding hands is not an immoral act.

[scaught]

well. i think thats weird.

im not saying anything about morals.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Somebody explain how holding hands while walking (something Bush does with Arab leaders) is more intimate (and apparently immoral) than ****ing, please.

Bush and Fahd holding hands is about as immoral as it gets.

There should be ****ing involved before that happens.

It should be televised.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by scaught

well. i think thats weird.

And I'm trying to figure out why.

[SpaceMonkey]

Kang: We are merely exchanging long protein strings. If you can think of a simpler way, I'd like to hear it.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And I'm trying to figure out why.

because if you just want to have sex with someone, no strings attached, you shouldnt hold hands with that person because it infers that you have "feelings" for them in that situation.

[Demonhood]

or that you just like to touch them.

[Gossamer]

<Standard Christian Answer>
1. Holding hands
2. Kissing
3. The rest
</Standard Christian Answer>

No one chimed in yet, I thought I'd throw it out there.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by scaught

because if you just want to have sex with someone, no strings attached, you shouldnt hold hands with that person because it infers that you have "feelings" for them in that situation.

I don't see how holding hands infers that any more than sex does. If you can have sex with no strings attached, why can't you hold hands with no strings attached? (In fact, doesn't holding hands usually have no strings attached?)

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

or that you just like to touch them.

Surely that's what breasts are for. That's why God put them at the front.

Originally Posted by Gossamer

<Standard Christian Answer>
1. Holding hands
2. Kissing
3. The rest
</Standard Christian Answer>

Not according to the Christian girls I've known.

I'm starting to think scaught has a point. If you aren't serious about a girl you should avoid touching her with anything other than your penis. While other physical contact may be misconstrued, the penis can in no way be misinterpreted. Everyone knows the penis isn't looking for a long-term relationship.

Save your hands for the girl you plan to marry.

[Chuckit]

Any woman who would get her hopes up because you touched her hand is probably no less likely to do so because you ****ed her. Just judging by the women I know in general and common sense.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Not according to the Christian girls I've known.

I'm starting to think scaught has a point. If you aren't serious about a girl you should avoid touching her with anything other than your penis. While other physical contact may be misconstrued, the penis can in no way be misinterpreted. Everyone knows the penis isn't looking for a long-term relationship.

Save your hands for the girl you plan to marry.

haha

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Any woman who would get her hopes up because you touched her hand is probably no less likely to do so because you ****ed her. Just judging by the women I know in general and common sense.

I remember having a discussion about this with a girl I really liked (but was only firends with) a few years back.

To her, the main part about holding hands in public was that it indicated a 'declaration of intimacy' to the outside world (which apparently, is a very very big deal with women)

I think every woman who you simply 'bang' would love for you to hold her hand (and no, I don't think a lot of women can seperate love from sex, eventhough a lot of them pretend that they can do), but eventually they simply give up and play along. So for you to hold her hand, would almost automatically indicate a move on your part to take the 'relationship' to another level.

For me, personally, it wouldn't make any difference.

Anyway, my list:

1. Kissing (the holding hands part can start here for me)
2. Hand manipulation
3. Everything else
4. Holding hands (for women)

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by scaught

somehow i knew IE would be down with my theorem.

and i can agree with IEs technique here, as well. i mean, if you're leading her to the sack and holding her hand that's different than a casual stroll through a park holding hands and all.

I think many or most of the responders are down with your theorem. Speaking for myself, I just considered what you were asking and asked myself what was the best course for you and all concerned in the long run and then I described it.

What you want to know is how to take what you want without regard for what she might or might not want and be able to avoid any guilt from her having gotten the wrong impression.

Basically, 'I may like you a lot or a little or I may not like you much at all but I expect to indulge in #'s 1 - 5 with you on my terms and I don't want to have to deal with your feelings. Not your feelings of wanting a relationship, not your feelings of disappointment at my not wanting a relationship. And I don't want to share this knowledge with you beforehand because it might hurt my chances of getting what I want from you.'

You want to have your way with them and you want to do what you want without guilt. But in your favor, you want to avoid giving her any reason to expect more than just your desired level of commitment.

[Sijmen]

It is an interesting theory. I was out with a girl who had a boyfriend, and while we were walking she grabbed my hand. Than that would be a sign of her to let me know that she feels comfortable and save with me, but has nothing to do with sexual interest? As stated above, I would imply this as a sign of interest.

[Monique]

If you are a woman holding hands means that you are intimate, in a loving way or a friendship way.

For a man to intimate you have to be sexual in an oral way, or penetration, or masturbating your partner way.

For a Christian, well being intimate means that I want to touch you but it is forbidden.

[turtle777]

Minister in service:

"And you may know kiss, uhm, no, hold the bride's hand !"

-t

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Not according to the Christian girls I've known.

Were they planning on waiting until marriage to hold hands too? I'm curious as to their views.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

The mechanical acts themselves are not a measure of intimacy. It depends how two people feel about each other. Any one of these could be deeply moving, or as meaningless as taking a piss.

Making love is intimate. Having sex is not. And the former is way more intense.

This is the only sanity in the entire thread. You can't simply number these variable things.

[christ]

6. Leaving the toilet door open.

[ghporter]

This is about physical intimacy. Just plain "intimacy" is a whole different thing.

[d4nth3m4n]

this reminds me of an old joke:

what's the difference between a 16 year old girl and a washing machine?

-a washing machine doesn't follow you around for a week after you drop a load in it.

i dare say scaughtty's on to something here. there are so many clueless, yet amazingly cute and naive women out there who just want attention and will cling to the first person that actually shows interst. as soon as you start showing affection you've found yourself on a very very slippery slope.

[invisibleX]

I'm going to go with holding hands as the most intimate.

Not that holding hands could hold a candle to say making love. However there are fewer non-intimate reasons to hold hands. Sex/oral/etc are all enjoyable without intimacy attached but holding hands really isn't.

So holding hands is more likely to be a sign of intimacy than, say, oral sex.

Apologies if I restated what someone else said. No time to read every post.

[mojo2]

Jeez, guys! I have posted this advice before and I'll post it again and this should make all your libidinous fears go away.

This is a real technique and will really work. Call it the MOJO2.

When she is all 'lathered up' and before either of you are just about to touch genitals the first time you just look up at her, smile sweetly and say this phrase:

THE MOJO2

"I intend to see other people and I wouldn't mind if you did the same."

At that point she wants to enjoy sex with you as much as you want to enjoy sex with her so she will likely say, "ok."

After that all your problems are solved.

It just WON'T be an issue.

No more angst.

I'm sorry to give those of you who are so unfeeling such a killer technique, but it's better you have this technique than going around and NOT letting these nice girls know your real intentions.

If they go along with it then you are home free.

You're welcome.

[Doofy]

The UK inner city version:

1) Shag.
2) Shag, and she drops her chips.
3) Five kids together.
4) You know her name.

[PurpleGiant]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

this reminds me of an old joke:

what's the difference between a 16 year old girl and a washing machine?

-a washing machine doesn't follow you around for a week after you drop a load in it.

Oh man did I out loud at that. and

[finboy]

Originally Posted by scaught

discuss.

If you aren't comfortable holding someone's hand, you shouldn't be doing anything else "intimate" with them. You young guys need to be more careful about giving so much away and treating it so casually. Sex is never "just b*nging" even to a real gunslinger.

[UNTeMac]

Think of it this way. Rank each behavior on what would make you the most hurt if a significant other did that behavior with someone else. That's your real barometer of intimacy.

[PurpleGiant]

Originally Posted by finboy

You young guys

Yes scaughty, you young whippersnapper!

[demograph68]

You can hold hands with me anytime...

[scaught]

Originally Posted by PurpleGiant

Yes scaughty, you young whippersnapper!

haha. right. i LOL'd a bit there, too.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by mojo2

At that point she wants to enjoy sex with you as much as you want to enjoy sex with her so she will likely say, "ok."

You haven't tried this, have you?

[scaught]

Originally Posted by finboy

If you aren't comfortable holding someone's hand, you shouldn't be doing anything else "intimate" with them. You young guys need to be more careful about giving so much away and treating it so casually. Sex is never "just b*nging" even to a real gunslinger.

of course it is, if people mutually decide it is. its called a fair and safe situation between 2 consenting adults. set the ground rules, and play ball.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by UNTeMac

Think of it this way. Rank each behavior on what would make you the most hurt if a significant other did that behavior with someone else. That's your real barometer of intimacy.

Exactly why it's impossible to rank these moments and why context is crucial.