Physical intimacy

Physical intimacy is sensual proximity or

touching. It is an act or reaction, such as an
expression of feelings (including close
friendship, platonic love, romantic love or
sexual attraction), between people. Examples of
physical intimacy include being inside
someone's personal space, holding hands,
hugging, kissing, caressing and sexual activity.[1]
Physical intimacy can often convey the real
meaning or intention of an interaction in a way
that accompanying speech simply cannot do.
Physical intimacy can be exchanged between
any people but as it is often used to
communicate positive and intimate feelings, it
most often occurs in people who have a
preexisting relationship, whether familial,
platonic or romantic, with romantic
relationships having increased physical The Proposal by William-Adolphe
intimacy. Several forms of romantic touch have
Bouguereau (1872)
been noted including holding hands, hugging,
kissing, cuddling, as well as caressing and
massaging. Physical affection is highly correlated with overall relationship and
partner satisfaction.[2]

It is possible to be physically intimate with someone without actually touching

them; however, a certain proximity is necessary. For instance, a sustained eye
contact is considered a form of physical intimacy, analogous to touching. When a
person enters someone else's personal space for the purpose of being intimate, it is
physical intimacy, regardless of the lack of actual physical contact.

Most people partake in physical intimacy, which is a natural part of interpersonal

relationships and human sexuality, and research has shown it has health benefits. A
hug or touch can result in the release of the hormone oxytocin and in a reduction in
stress hormones.[3]

Due to the important role that language-based communication plays in humans, the
role of touch is often downplayed; however, there is ample evidence that physical
touch still plays an important role in everyday human relationships. While humans
often communicate verbally, they also participate in close contact. Physical touch
has emotional and social connotations that often far outweigh anything that can be
expressed via language.[4]
Inducements towards physical intimacy can come from various sources. During
colder seasons, humans as well as other animals seek physical intimacy with one
another as a means to apportion thermoregulation.[5] Some forms of physical touch
among monkeys and apes serve multiple functions, including cleaning, treatment of
a lice influx or infection and social grooming.[6]

Some forms of physical intimacy may be received negatively. This attitude is

especially marked amongst those with haphephobia.[7] One study has shown that
there is generally a higher level of physical intimacy allowed between immediate
family members than between second-degree relatives.[8] Intimacy norms are
usually more negative near erogenous zones. Some jurisdictions may specify this as
referring to the genitals, buttocks and female breasts.[9]

Contents
Development
Personal space
Display of affection
Culture
Among non-human primates
See also
References
External links

Development
Physical affection and intimacy appear to have a profoundly important role during
infancy and childhood. The skin is the largest sensory organ and is the first to
develop. Humans experience touch as early as fetal development, when the fetus
begins receiving sensory information from coming in contact with the mothers’
abdominal wall. In infancy, babies receive significant amounts of touch through
being held, cuddled, and breastfed. In addition to necessary functions like
breastfeeding, touch is also used to soothe and calm babies or with skin-to-skin
contact called "kangaroo care".[10] Vision and auditory senses are limited in infancy
and babies are introduced to their world primarily through touch and are able to
distinguish between temperature and texture.[11]

Decreased amounts of affectionate touch from caregivers (i.e. for infants in

institutional settings or infants with depressed mothers) is related to cognitive and
neurodevelopmental delays.[12] These delays appear to persist for years and
sometimes whole lifetimes.[13] Studies suggest that if depressed mothers give their
infants massages, it benefits both the baby and themselves, increasing growth and
development for the babies and leading to increased sensitivity and responsivity of
the mothers.[14] There are also biologically beneficial effects of infant massage, with
premature infants displaying lower cortisol levels after being held by their mothers.
During the holding period, the mothers' cortisol levels also decreased.[15]

Personal space
Most people value their personal space and feel
discomfort, anger or anxiety when somebody
encroaches on their personal space without
consent.[16] Entering somebody's personal space
is normally an indication of familiarity and
intimacy. However, in modern society,
especially in crowded urban communities, it is
at times difficult to maintain personal space, for
example, in a crowded train, elevator or street.
Young men engage in hugging, a
Many people find the physical proximity within
form of physical intimacy
crowded spaces to be psychologically disturbing
and uncomfortable.[16] In an impersonal
crowded situation, eye contact tends to be avoided. Even in a crowded place,
preserving personal space is important. Non-consensual intimate and sexual
contact, such as frotteurism and groping, are unacceptable.

On the other hand, most people occasionally desire physical proximity to others,
and will at times welcome a familiar and trusted person into their personal space.
When a partner or friend is not available at such a time, some people satisfy this
need for human contact in a crowded venue, such as a bar, nightclub, rock concert,
street festival, etc.

Display of affection
People who are on a familiar basis may enter into each other's personal space to
make physical contact. These can be indicators of affection and trust. The manner
in which people display affection is generally different in a public context to a
private one. In private, people in an intimate relationship or who are familiar with
each other may be at ease with physical contact and displays of affection, which may
involve:

cuddling,
caressing (e.g. head, hands, arms, back and waist),
tickling (e.g. back and waist),
massage (e.g. neck, shoulders, back, thighs), or
touching heads.
Bonding through intimate, non-sexual contact between platonic friends and family
members includes, but is not limited to, holding hands, hugging, cuddling, and
kissing on the cheeks.

In public, however, and depending on the nature of the relationship between the
people, a public display of affection is generally constrained by social norms and
can range from a gesture, such as a kiss or hug in greeting, to an embrace or holding
hands. Maintaining eye contact can be regarded socially and psychologically as
analogous to touching.

Culture
The role of touch in interpersonal relationships across development and in different
cultures is understudied, however, some observational data suggests that in
cultures who engage in more physical intimacy have lower rates of violence,
demonstrated in adolescents and children.[17] Peoples living nearer to the equator
(Mediterranean, central and south America, Islamic countries) tend to have high-
contact social norms, whereas countries further from the equator tend to be lower
contact (northern Europe, north America, northeast Asian). The public display of
interpersonal touch and intimacy appears to vary across cultures as well.[18]

The term "skinship" (スキンシップ, sukinshippu) originated as a pseudo-English

Japanese word (wasei-eigo), which was coined to describe the intimacy, or
closeness, between a mother and a child.[19][20][21] Today, the word is generally
used for bonding through physical contact, such as holding hands, hugging, or
parents washing their child at a bath. The term has been promoted by pediatrician
and developmental psycologist Nobuyoshi Hirai ( 平 井 信 義 ), and he mentioned it
was taken from a term coined by an American woman at a WHO seminar held in
1953.[22] The earliest citation of this word appears in Nihon Kokugo Daijiten in
1971.[23] According to Scott Clark, author of a study of Japanese bathing culture, the
word is a portmanteau combining "skin" with the last syllable of "friendship".[24]
The similarity with the English word 'kinship' suggests a further explanation.[21]
Use of the word "skinship" in English publications seems to focus on the notion of
sharing a bath naked, an idea known in Japanese as "naked association" (裸の付き
合い, hadaka no tsukiai). It is not clear why the meaning shifted to the parent–child
relationship when borrowed back into English. This word is also used in South
Korea.[25] The term is now described in Oxford English Dictionary as a part of
Korea-related update in 2021.[26]

Among non-human primates

Some animals participate in behaviors similar to physical affection in humans.
Called social grooming or allo-grooming, these behaviors are less common outside
of primates, while other species do perform these behaviors, primates seem to
spend much more time doing this compared to other animals. Some species devote
as much as 20% of their day to grooming behaviors, much of which is spent
grooming others, rather than themselves.[27][28] In more social species the amount
of time spent in self grooming is much less than the time spent in social grooming.
While these behaviors may appear to be for the purpose of hygiene (i.e. removal of
parasites, fur cleanliness, etc.), evidence suggests that grooming behaviors perform
a unique social function which facilitates bonding.[27] From an evolutionary
perspective, the amount of time being devoted to allo-grooming appears to exceed
the amount of time in which it would be adaptive, therefore underscoring the idea
that grooming must have a purpose beyond hygiene maintenance. Furthermore,
there are core grooming partnerships which remain quite stable and do not change
frequently, sometimes with the same partners on the timescale of years.[29]

Some argue that grooming is something which is exchanged like a service with the
expectation that equal amounts of time will be spent or reciprocated by their
grooming partner.[30] Primates tend to groom each other equal amounts of time or
with the expectation that they will be reciprocated with defense in a dangerous
situation. Primates who spend more time grooming each other are more likely to
defend each other when attacked. Although it is not clear how this effect is brought
about, in all likelihood it is the protective effect that known relationships have:
more dominant animals are less likely to attack or harass an individual who is
known to have grooming partners who might come to its aid. However, the
likelihood of a female going to the aid of another female when the latter is under
attack is significantly correlated with the amount of time the two of them spend
grooming with each other.[31] A more plausible interpretation is that grooming
provides the psychological underpinning for an individual's willingness to offer
subsequent support.[32] It does this not by offering a direct exchange of benefits,
but rather by creating the psychological environment that allows support to be
traded mutually.

See also
Emotional intimacy
Haptic communication
Consent

References
1. Cf. [1] (http://www.counsel.ufl.edu/brochure.asp?include=brochures/physical_int
imacy.brochure) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20071118211208/http://w
ww.counsel.ufl.edu/brochure.asp?include=brochures%2Fphysical_intimacy.broc
hure) 2007-11-18 at the Wayback Machine
 2. Guéguen, Nicolas; Fischer-Lokou, Jacques (February 2003). "Another
Evaluation of Touch and Helping Behavior". Psychological Reports. 92 (1): 62–
64. doi:10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.62
(https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.2003.92.1.62). ISSN 0033-2941 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/issn/0033-2941). PMID 12674258 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
12674258). S2CID 30706840 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:307068
40).
3. "Human touch may have some healing properties" (https://www.usatoday.com/n
ews/health/2008-09-28-touch-healing_N.htm). USA Today. 2008-09-28.
Retrieved 2011-01-03.
4. Burgoon, Judee K. (1991). "Relational message interpretations of touch,
conversational distance, and posture". Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 15 (4):
233–259. doi:10.1007/bf00986924 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf00986924).
ISSN 0191-5886 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0191-5886). S2CID 144507275
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144507275).
5. Stabentheiner, Anton, et al. "Endothermic heat production in honeybee winter
clusters." Journal of Experimental Biology 206.2 (2003): 353-358.
6. Diezinger, F. T., and J. R. Anderson. "Starting from scratch: A first look at a
“displacement activity” in group‐living rhesus monkeys." American Journal of
Primatology 11.2 (1986): 117-124.
7. Synnott, Anthony. "Bodily senses." The International Encyclopedia of Human
Sexuality (2015).
8. "The Body Map of Acceptable Social Touching - PsyBlog" (http://www.spring.or
g.uk/2015/10/the-body-map-of-acceptable-social-touching.php). Spring.org.uk.
28 October 2015. Retrieved 18 September 2017.
9. Stein, Nan. "Sexual harassment in school: The public performance of gendered
violence." Harvard educational review 65.2 (1995): 145-163.
10. Ferber, Sari Goldstein; Feldman, Ruth; Makhoul, Imad R. (June 2008). "The
development of maternal touch across the first year of life". Early Human
Development. 84 (6): 363–370. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.09.019 (https://d
oi.org/10.1016%2Fj.earlhumdev.2007.09.019). ISSN 0378-3782 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/issn/0378-3782). PMID 17988808 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
17988808).
11. Field, Tiffany; Hernandez-Reif, Maria; Diego, Miguel (2010-05-04). "Depressed
mothers' newborns are less responsive to animate and inanimate stimuli". Infant
and Child Development. 20 (1): 94–105. doi:10.1002/icd.687 (https://doi.org/10.
1002%2Ficd.687). ISSN 1522-7227 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1522-7227).
12. MACLEAN, KIM (2003-11-14). "The impact of institutionalization on child
development". Development and Psychopathology. 15 (4): 853–884.
doi:10.1017/s0954579403000415 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0954579403000
415). ISSN 0954-5794 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0954-5794).
PMID 14984130 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14984130). S2CID 24420625
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:24420625).
13. Beckett, Celia; Maughan, Barbara; Rutter, Michael; Castle, Jenny; Colvert,
Emma; Groothues, Christine; Kreppner, Jana; Stevens, Suzanne; O'Connor,
Thomas G. (May 2006). "Do the Effects of Early Severe Deprivation on
Cognition Persist Into Early Adolescence? Findings From the English and
Romanian Adoptees Study". Child Development. 77 (3): 696–711.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00898.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8624.2
006.00898.x). ISSN 0009-3920 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0009-3920).
PMID 16686796 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16686796).
14. Tiffany, Field (2006). Massage therapy research. Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier.
ISBN 9780443102011. OCLC 838720638 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/83872
0638).
15. Neu, M.; Laudenslager, M. L.; Robinson, J. (2008-11-17). "Coregulation in
Salivary Cortisol During Maternal Holding of Premature Infants". Biological
Research for Nursing. 10 (3): 226–240. doi:10.1177/1099800408327789 (http
s://doi.org/10.1177%2F1099800408327789). ISSN 1099-8004 (https://www.worl
dcat.org/issn/1099-8004). PMID 19028768 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19
028768). S2CID 25062122 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2506212
2).
16. Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-385-
08476-5.
17. Field, Tiffany (January 1999). "Preschoolers in America are Touched Less and
are More Aggressive Than Preschoolers in France". Early Child Development
and Care. 151 (1): 11–17. doi:10.1080/0300443991510102 (https://doi.org/10.1
080%2F0300443991510102). ISSN 0300-4430 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0
300-4430).
18. Field, Tiffany (2001). Touch (https://archive.org/details/touch0000fiel).
Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
19. Ivry, Tsipy (2009). Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=jg5YLjBOVHEC&pg=PA162). Rutgers University
Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-8135-4636-0.
20. Harkness, Sara; Super, Charles M. (1996). Parents' cultural belief systems: their
origins, expressions, and consequences (https://books.google.com/books?id=y
WfTqRKXqDcC&pg=PA186). Guilford Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-1-57230-031-6.
21. Hijirida, Kyoko; Yoshikawa, Muneo (1987). Japanese language and culture for
business and travel (https://books.google.com/books?id=ORNzbaPIdVUC&pg=
PA218). University of Hawaii Press. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-8248-1017-7.
22. Hirai, Nobuyoshi (1986). "スキンシップ". 大日本百科全書. 12. 小学館. ISBN 4-
09-526012-2.
23. "Skinship" (https://www.wordspy.com/words/skinship.asp). Word Spy. 2003-02-
05. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
24. Clark, Scott. Japan, a View from the Bath. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1994, p. 73. ISBN 0-8248-1615-3, ISBN 0-8248-1657-9.
25. "스킨십" (https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/17b01635ed284520a2b1a3509
e9eedec). NAVER Korean Dictionary. Retrieved 2020-05-26.
26. Salazar, Danica (2021-09-06). "Daebak! The OED gets a K-update" (https://publ
ic.oed.com/blog/daebak-a-k-update/). Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University
Press. Retrieved 2021-11-17.
27. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1991). "Functional Significance of Social Grooming in
Primates". Folia Primatologica. 57 (3): 121–131. doi:10.1159/000156574 (http
s://doi.org/10.1159%2F000156574). ISSN 1421-9980 (https://www.worldcat.org/
issn/1421-9980).
28. Lehmann, J.; Korstjens, A.H.; Dunbar, R.I.M. (December 2007). "Group size,
grooming and social cohesion in primates" (http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/90
0/1/grooming_final_No_highlight_2nd_rev_Anim_Behav.pdf) (PDF). Animal
Behaviour. 74 (6): 1617–1629. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.025 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1016%2Fj.anbehav.2006.10.025). ISSN 0003-3472 (https://www.worldcat.
org/issn/0003-3472). S2CID 14866172 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI
D:14866172).
29. Dunbar, R.I.M. (February 2010). "The social role of touch in humans and
primates: Behavioural function and neurobiological mechanisms". Neuroscience
& Biobehavioral Reviews. 34 (2): 260–268. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.07.001
(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.neubiorev.2008.07.001). ISSN 0149-7634 (https://
www.worldcat.org/issn/0149-7634). PMID 18662717 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/18662717). S2CID 30450770 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3
0450770).
30. Noë, Ronald (2001), "Biological markets: partner choice as the driving force
behind the evolution of mutualisms", Economics in Nature, Cambridge
University Press, pp. 93–118, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752421.008 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1017%2Fcbo9780511752421.008), ISBN 9780511752421
31. Dunbar, R. I. M. (November 1980). "Determinants and evolutionary
consequences of dominance among female gelada baboons". Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology. 7 (4): 253–265. doi:10.1007/bf00300665 (https://doi.
org/10.1007%2Fbf00300665). ISSN 0340-5443 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0
340-5443). S2CID 28369135 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:283691
35).
32. Dunbar, R.I.M.; Dunbar, Patsy (August 1988). "Maternal time budgets of gelada
baboons". Animal Behaviour. 36 (4): 970–980. doi:10.1016/s0003-
3472(88)80055-1 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0003-3472%2888%2980055-1).
ISSN 0003-3472 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0003-3472). S2CID 53203743
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53203743).

External links
"American men are embracing The hug" (https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/b
s-xpm-2005-05-29-0505260313-story.html) - article at The Baltimore Sun
NPR: Poet on Call, By Andrei Codrescu (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto
ry.php?storyId=5507154) commentary on hugs on NPR

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physical_intimacy&oldid=1055706316"

This page was last edited on 17 November 2021, at 09:59 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.