The description of the new group is:

"Touch Practice has come to describe an intentional, mindful, 60-90 minute exchange of non-sexual touch between men. The practice is based on hugging, holding, and being held.."

And what does the following tell you? (extracted from About Touch Practice, at the site):

"Touch Practice partner may wish only to have contact between our hands, and no other parts of the body. On the other hand, partners may also explore full body touch up to and including genital touch. Some Touch Practice partnerships explore erotic energy, and others have no erotic interest."

We are living in a culture where feminists have successfully inculcated into the masses that men should be more like women and eschew any thoughts and/or outward demonstrations of dominance and violence in favor of acceptance, passivity and vulnerability as a virtue.  It is a glorification of "touchy-feely" that has succeeded to a great extent in confusing our young men's sexuality and emasculating them, as is proven in a great many of the discussions and comments on AoM from lost young men seeking guidance.  

What say you?

Views: 2917

Replies to This Discussion

To be fair, this is nothing compared to what the greek soldiers got up to...


Brothers don't shake hands, brothers gotta hug!

I gotta say that I am a hugger and I don't care if anyone thinks less of me for that. I don't always hug everyone but I'm not affraid to hug anyone. I do think the new group is a bit off and not exactly up front about it's intentions.

Reminds me of a strange experience I once had. Was not a big deal, but it caught me off gaurd. I've a friend who is a true blue Italian. He was born stateside, but his parents speako no English a very wella. He was conceived in Milan, all his older siblings were born in taly.
He invited me over to have dinner with his fiancee, parents, and his sister (I think he was trying to hook me up with her, in truth). Anyway, when he introduced me to his Mother, she refused to shake hands (turns out his parents are Opus Dei members and she will not have physical contact with any man she is not directly related to, but when he introduced his father, this MASSIVE APE of an Italian Man, standing three inches taller than me and a good 100 pounds heavier, walked into me past my outstretched hand, grabbed me around the shoulders and kissed me on both cheeks.

Long ago an old Italian man kissed both me and my (female) friend at midnight mass.  I thought it was a trip.

Many of us (italians) are very demonstrative, especially those who are native born.  My dad was born in Italy and came here at age 8.  He was demonstrative with us and extended family, and others he knew well, they sometimes kissed when they greeted each other.  However, keep in mind he and his family wanted to assimilate when they came here, that included adopting American cultural norms.  I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have kissed anyone in Church, a firm handshake was more his style.

I, too, am a hugger.  But I'm not so aggressive about it as the fellow in that gif.

Yup, no doubt it is all an effort to tare down male authority and leadership from a role intended by natural law, (God's order). Most women will not listen to men, or submit to his authority. And the opposite of submission is simply rebellion. It seems to me the whole world today simply apologizes for ever holding such a standard as man being the head. To my way of thinking; if you still hold onto this value system today in the West, you are called a sexist, racist, or homophobe. Hell, I'm not sure these are even real words, they weren't even around in the 1800"s...

And lets not forget about the abbreviation MS. all because rebellious feminists loathe the idea of a women belonging to her father ; and then given over to her husband in marriage. Think about it; MSS, MRS, and now MS. just hates the idea of what God made marriage to be, as they hate his divine order in creating man as the head... And on the other hand, some even despise the idea of a God, the creator. However, having feelings and sensitivity does not you a man feminine, anymore than being insensitive makes him a machine. 

Thanks, some how my editing got all fowled up, my apologies.

I think I understand what you were trying to say.  I agree with what you're saying, what's horrifying is that this was accomplished by a relatively small group of people who were loud and well-organized, plus a lot of help from the elite schools which gave it the patina of academic credibility. I think there will be a backlash, might have already started. 

From the "Touch Practice" website:


The main principles and practices in Touch Practice involve clothing-on, hug-based practice. Nakedness is never a requirement, nor is genital touch. If desired and appropriate, an understanding of working with erotic energy can be explored either clothed or unclothed. For groups that choose to explore naked touch, explicit agreements about personal boundaries are created and respected so all men feel safe and comfortable. The work is about relaxing into, and feeling safe in, our bodies. Individuals always remain in control of their own boundaries.


I've read most of what has been written on this string, and I don't agree with all of the reasoning, but I can't see this as a serious therapy. I would make one point that others haven't made. I read in another forum about guys who were interested in this type of workshop and my observation is that they had issues about intimacy with men, often because they were deprived of it by fathers, brothers, and other family. They seem drawn to this as a way to address this deficit, and it is touching that they are seeking to find a way to feel the love that they need.


But, as a trained therapist, I cannot support involvement with any "therapy" that involves close-contact nudity and "working with erotic energy," or touching another guys junk, as someone else described it. From the website again:


If erotic energy shows up during practice, it is, in my opinion, a big mistake to ignore it, downplay it, or wait to engage it. I go there first, fast, and deliberately. If I have permission and I’m working with a partner who will allow me to engage erotic energy when it surfaces, particularly if we’re doing naked work, then if the penis needs attention, I go there first. If there’s erection I acknowledge it. I typically do this by very carefully and slowly, as though I am reaching for something breakable and expensive, taking the genitals in my hands, breathing into them and instructing my partner to do the same. I just “sit with” the genitals; hold them, pay attention to them, offer them some respect and reverence. Sometimes for two or three minutes. Whatever it takes.

You will find very often, not always, that if you sit quietly with an erection by simply holding it in your hands, it subsides. The energy reallocates itself to the rest of the body and is reabsorbed into the larger energetic body. Often dealing with the need to acknowledge erotic energy allows that energy to move off to the side so that other, and deeper, energetic connections can be engaged.


I say without reservation that there is no legitimate therapy that involves holding another man's erection, and men who get involved with this out of their neediness, combined or not with sexual identity issues, are allowing these needs (and possible desires) to draw them into something bogus. I hope they reconsider, but the "Touch Practice" group has drawn 23 members in its short time in existence. It's sad. I don't think it is an attempt to feminize men, but there is a highly inappropriate violation of sexual boundaries involved, and I hope these guys look into what they are doing before they take it further

It's not "erotic energy" that makes your pecker hard.  It's blood flow.  Whatever moron coined thay term needs to be put in stocks and have rotten fruit thrown at them.

It's usually a corruption of a term that refers to the energy chakras, or energy meridians that are manipulated in Oriental medicine.


Latest Activity

Regular Joe replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"What you owe is a variable from the get-go based on the size of your payments, how long it takes you to pay back the money,how the lender decides to change the terms and conditions (which is his right), etc. In most settlements, the value of the…"
5 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"Seven years is how long it takes to drop off the credit report.  4-years is the SOL for filing a lawsuit on the debt. JB"
8 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"Why else would they do it?  ;)"
12 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"By the contract you agreed to.  Certainly principle and interest.  Penalties are arguable either way. JB"
12 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"I thought it was 7 years? Hmm, learn something new. When I met my wife she was aiming for that statute of limitations, we hit it awhile back, but that makes more sense on how much her score has gone up"
14 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"I don't follow.  How would paying the debt sink you deeper into debt?  If you have to borrow to live so you can pay a debt, you can't afford to pay it.   If you're not impoverished, and are living above your…"
14 minutes ago
John Pound replied to MiCHAEL J K.'s discussion being myself
"I like what I read here Michael and I am sure others will too. You are adding value to the lives of others and that is definitely a manly trait. If you read the articles relating to the 3 P's of Manhood this would come under both the…"
19 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"If you repay less than you owe, the forgiven part is charity.  If you don't genuinely need it, you shouldn't accept it. JB"
26 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service