What better day to discuss the hug craze than the Roman Catholic-appointed sabbath, a day when there's a whole lot of grin-and-bear-it hugging going on across this church-going nation?
Seems to be that Americans began to embrace the hug heartily somewhere along in the 1990's. From whence it sprang as a casual adult practice is unclear. A good guess is that the hippies started it and 12-step groups stole the idea. Those organizations pride themselves as being bastions of support, comfort and understanding. Because the groups often met in church basements, it was not unexpected that the practice eventually went upstairs. When recovery and other support groups became an American industry, hugging seeped into the medical profession and forged beyond its previous boundary of pediatrics.
So here we are, trained to hug our way to better feelings. It is not working. This is a provable by a peek at the DSM-IV-TR or a glance at the pharmaceutical intake figures.
It used to be that hugging was for children, lovers, occasionally spontaneous sports fans, and some adults in reuniting with a long-absent dear one or seeing them off on a journey. Hugs were and are always present at times of bereavement, they are spontaneous and welcomed displays of human grief.
During the Vietnam War, the term was picked up by the military to describe the enemy's tactic employed to avoid being bombed into oblivion. (One might reasonably hypothesize that this tactic gave birth to the acceptance of civilian casualties and friendly fire as regrettable consequences of engaging the enemy.)
Prior to the second half of the 20th century, hugging between acquaintances and strangers was virtually unheard of. Now it is commonplace to be caught by the rhetorical demand, "Can I get a hug?"
No, thank you, I hardly know you.
How many are brave enough to say no when they would prefer not to be embraced? Some of us raise an eyebrow, scowl or step back in hopes of dissuasion. Such a response often leads the hugger to be offended or to launch into a pop-psychology attack. Woe be tied for the one who refuses the advance from agents of God or the healthcare system. Here's where being a curmudgeon or a witch comes in handy, or for the small child, being a spoiled brat is useful for avoiding the hug. Unfortunately for them, eventually either their immunity will be compromised or they shall endure the trials of reprogramming. At the rate society is pushing the hug, they will soon join the rest of us out here the hugosphere.
Of course, there are those granted birth-right exception from the hug. . .
If one is an aristocat (spelling intentional), hugs are out of the question. To be of royalty or celebrity -- anyone from the tippy-top echelons of government, business and religion -- is to be exempt from the hug. It is not just the bodyguard or security detail that provide defense. None dare touch the great ones because that's the rule. Members of society have been indoctrinated in the minutest principles of respect for authority. It took a few generations for the great divide between members and rulers to become obvious and secure. It won't be compromised by a hug.
Anyone who thinks they are beyond the grasp of the average bear need only ask themselves, "Can I be hugged today?" If one answers yes or maybe, then that one is not of the social strata they're kidding themselves they belong to. Think about it -- imagine trying to give CEO 44 or Pope 266 a hug.
There was much ado when #44 Michelle Obama put her hand on Queen Elizabeth II's back during their meet-and-greet. However the gesture was not a hug. Granted, it was improper and ill-advised contact. But this was the chance QE II took when she granted audience without permitting her sister to review and tutor the first couple. Another explanation given is that Michelle Obama is a direct descendant of the pharaohs, giving the first lady divine right upmanship on the queen. Perhaps. If so, that was risky business on Michelle's part. Elizabeth has control of all the records and Michelle's geneological documentation could disappear with the flick of bic.
Granted, there are a few humans out there that are traditional huggers on all occasions and would be no matter the fad or social training. Some are affectionate-natured (usually women and children) and the rest are perverts (usually men from this female perspective). The exceptions need not be detailed, we know who they are and why they do it. (Ever notice that Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith seem awfully friendly at church?)
All too often the hug is an invasion of personal privacy which of course explains why it is gaining in acceptance in these underwear-as-outerwear days.
Seems to be that Americans began to embrace the hug heartily somewhere along in the 1990's. From whence it sprang as a casual adult practice is unclear. A good guess is that the hippies started it and 12-step groups stole the idea. Those organizations pride themselves as being bastions of support, comfort and understanding. Because the groups often met in church basements, it was not unexpected that the practice eventually went upstairs. When recovery and other support groups became an American industry, hugging seeped into the medical profession and forged beyond its previous boundary of pediatrics.
So here we are, trained to hug our way to better feelings. It is not working. This is a provable by a peek at the DSM-IV-TR or a glance at the pharmaceutical intake figures.
It used to be that hugging was for children, lovers, occasionally spontaneous sports fans, and some adults in reuniting with a long-absent dear one or seeing them off on a journey. Hugs were and are always present at times of bereavement, they are spontaneous and welcomed displays of human grief.
During the Vietnam War, the term was picked up by the military to describe the enemy's tactic employed to avoid being bombed into oblivion. (One might reasonably hypothesize that this tactic gave birth to the acceptance of civilian casualties and friendly fire as regrettable consequences of engaging the enemy.)
Prior to the second half of the 20th century, hugging between acquaintances and strangers was virtually unheard of. Now it is commonplace to be caught by the rhetorical demand, "Can I get a hug?"
No, thank you, I hardly know you.
How many are brave enough to say no when they would prefer not to be embraced? Some of us raise an eyebrow, scowl or step back in hopes of dissuasion. Such a response often leads the hugger to be offended or to launch into a pop-psychology attack. Woe be tied for the one who refuses the advance from agents of God or the healthcare system. Here's where being a curmudgeon or a witch comes in handy, or for the small child, being a spoiled brat is useful for avoiding the hug. Unfortunately for them, eventually either their immunity will be compromised or they shall endure the trials of reprogramming. At the rate society is pushing the hug, they will soon join the rest of us out here the hugosphere.
Of course, there are those granted birth-right exception from the hug. . .
If one is an aristocat (spelling intentional), hugs are out of the question. To be of royalty or celebrity -- anyone from the tippy-top echelons of government, business and religion -- is to be exempt from the hug. It is not just the bodyguard or security detail that provide defense. None dare touch the great ones because that's the rule. Members of society have been indoctrinated in the minutest principles of respect for authority. It took a few generations for the great divide between members and rulers to become obvious and secure. It won't be compromised by a hug.
Anyone who thinks they are beyond the grasp of the average bear need only ask themselves, "Can I be hugged today?" If one answers yes or maybe, then that one is not of the social strata they're kidding themselves they belong to. Think about it -- imagine trying to give CEO 44 or Pope 266 a hug.
There was much ado when #44 Michelle Obama put her hand on Queen Elizabeth II's back during their meet-and-greet. However the gesture was not a hug. Granted, it was improper and ill-advised contact. But this was the chance QE II took when she granted audience without permitting her sister to review and tutor the first couple. Another explanation given is that Michelle Obama is a direct descendant of the pharaohs, giving the first lady divine right upmanship on the queen. Perhaps. If so, that was risky business on Michelle's part. Elizabeth has control of all the records and Michelle's geneological documentation could disappear with the flick of bic.
Granted, there are a few humans out there that are traditional huggers on all occasions and would be no matter the fad or social training. Some are affectionate-natured (usually women and children) and the rest are perverts (usually men from this female perspective). The exceptions need not be detailed, we know who they are and why they do it. (Ever notice that Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith seem awfully friendly at church?)
All too often the hug is an invasion of personal privacy which of course explains why it is gaining in acceptance in these underwear-as-outerwear days.
