![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So many people have been articulate, moving, funny and wise in reaction to the turgid drivel of wank over the ::hugs:: and ::licks:: kerfuffle that I don't need to do this.
When I first got here, nearly two years ago, I didn't know what all the ::hugs:: were. I felt self-conscious using them and didn't for a while, for that very reason. Same thing happened 7 years back when I first began posting in newsgroups; people had this quotation at the bottom of their posts (yes, won't keep you guessing, it was a sig; I was the newest of new newbies). I thought it was obligatory and earnestly hunted one up to type out and attach by hand. But that was a pain, so I stopped, and, once the penny dropped, I was sig-less for years just because.
But that was a Heinlein newsgroup, and one thing any Heinlein fan knows is that if you're in a tribe that rubs blue mud in their bellybuttons, it's a good idea to do likewise. Not the act of a coward, just that outward conformity is often wise, especially when you're a stranger in town.
::hugs:: is a case in point.
I didn't get pressured into using them. I did it initially because I wanted to fit into this sparkly new world and wanted to be polite. I cautiously did it once I knew people more than casually; the sky remained intact and now I sprinkle 'em around lavishly.
I don't often grope, lick or grab. I hug, smooch, cuddle and snuggle. Would I do that if I met you? Well, you'd get a hug on arriving and leaving, certainly, but I don't do that to rl friends I see every day; I would if they'd come to visit and I hadn't seen them for months though. David and the children get hugged and kissed all the time. We're a snuggly family.
I mean it in a friendly way. A casual, friendly way. I use them with as much baggage attached as a smiley has; i.e virtually none. They're shorthand, they're part of LJ language as much as odd words like 'squick' and 'kerfuffle' and 'glomp' and to think that a group of people earnestly applied themselves to making much stew from one oyster makes me snicker. Sorry. No guilt that I, a married straight woman dared to virtually hug a person of my own gender _at all_. Not a single twinge. I'm allowed to do that.
Except when I wade through the appallingly written screeds they've spewed forth I stop snickering and wonder if clarity and the ability to be concise are no longer taught in schools. When I was at university, if I waffled to stretch an essay out, my lecturers were merciless. I think if they read some of the discussion on this subject by people who pride themselves, for no adequate reason that I can see, on being intellectuals, they'd be screaming for their red pens.
Anyway; if you're someone who prefers not to get virtual hugs, comment below. I'll try and remember. Can't promise, but I'll try. I don't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable or uneasy.
Just don't try to make me feel guilty for a freaking hug because I'll lose my temper. Seriously. And don't presume that you have sufficient information to analyse, condemn, and/or dismiss my way of expressing myself, and pigeonhole me, because you don't.
When I first got here, nearly two years ago, I didn't know what all the ::hugs:: were. I felt self-conscious using them and didn't for a while, for that very reason. Same thing happened 7 years back when I first began posting in newsgroups; people had this quotation at the bottom of their posts (yes, won't keep you guessing, it was a sig; I was the newest of new newbies). I thought it was obligatory and earnestly hunted one up to type out and attach by hand. But that was a pain, so I stopped, and, once the penny dropped, I was sig-less for years just because.
But that was a Heinlein newsgroup, and one thing any Heinlein fan knows is that if you're in a tribe that rubs blue mud in their bellybuttons, it's a good idea to do likewise. Not the act of a coward, just that outward conformity is often wise, especially when you're a stranger in town.
::hugs:: is a case in point.
I didn't get pressured into using them. I did it initially because I wanted to fit into this sparkly new world and wanted to be polite. I cautiously did it once I knew people more than casually; the sky remained intact and now I sprinkle 'em around lavishly.
I don't often grope, lick or grab. I hug, smooch, cuddle and snuggle. Would I do that if I met you? Well, you'd get a hug on arriving and leaving, certainly, but I don't do that to rl friends I see every day; I would if they'd come to visit and I hadn't seen them for months though. David and the children get hugged and kissed all the time. We're a snuggly family.
I mean it in a friendly way. A casual, friendly way. I use them with as much baggage attached as a smiley has; i.e virtually none. They're shorthand, they're part of LJ language as much as odd words like 'squick' and 'kerfuffle' and 'glomp' and to think that a group of people earnestly applied themselves to making much stew from one oyster makes me snicker. Sorry. No guilt that I, a married straight woman dared to virtually hug a person of my own gender _at all_. Not a single twinge. I'm allowed to do that.
Except when I wade through the appallingly written screeds they've spewed forth I stop snickering and wonder if clarity and the ability to be concise are no longer taught in schools. When I was at university, if I waffled to stretch an essay out, my lecturers were merciless. I think if they read some of the discussion on this subject by people who pride themselves, for no adequate reason that I can see, on being intellectuals, they'd be screaming for their red pens.
Anyway; if you're someone who prefers not to get virtual hugs, comment below. I'll try and remember. Can't promise, but I'll try. I don't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable or uneasy.
Just don't try to make me feel guilty for a freaking hug because I'll lose my temper. Seriously. And don't presume that you have sufficient information to analyse, condemn, and/or dismiss my way of expressing myself, and pigeonhole me, because you don't.