Cuddling is a non-symmetric, non-transitive, and non-reflexive relation from cuddlemonster to cuddlepops.
If Smith is cuddling Jones, it is not necessarily the case that Jones is cuddling Smith. If Smith is cuddling Jones from behind (colloquially, “spooning”), and Jones is doing to the same to Black, it does not follow that Smith is cuddling Black, although he might be. Finally, if Smith is engaged in cuddling, he is not necessarily cuddling himself, although he might be, either because he is engaged in self-therapy or because his arms are unusually long.
It is tempting to think that cuddling = hugging, and thus that the ethical issues these actions raise are identical. However, cuddling is not mere hugging. Phenomenologically, cuddling tends to be infantilising in a way that is usually positively valanced. This explains why you can cuddle a baby or one’s “pookie bear”, but why a guy can give a manly bro-hug to his boy, without thereby having cuddled him, which might be perceived as “gay”.
Prima facie, this is ethically troubling, giving rise to what we might call the Hard Problem of Cuddling: given that it’s typically pro tanto wrong to infantilise someone who is not an infant, what explains the permissibility of cuddling in most cases? The Hard Problem can be solved without much difficulty: in typical cases, the cuddled validly consents to their coddling, thereby waiving their right against infantilisation.
However, the infantilising nature of cuddling makes consent doubly important: non-consensual cuddling involves not only unwanted arm-wrapping, but the dignitary harm of being coddled like a little baby.
The infantilising nature of cuddling contributes to its intimacy, which in turn contributes to its moral riskiness within monogamy. If Jones has made a monogamous promise to Smith, of the generic form “I will not stray physically or emotionally”, it is more likely that Jones will fall short of his promise by cuddling Black than by merely hugging him.
On the positive side, assuming no moral side constraints are violated, cuddling is a great moral good. According to WebMD, cuddling can ease stress, lower blood pressure, relieve pain, fight colds, and improve sleep. Although it is debatable whether cuddling oneself for these reasons is a moral good (as opposed to a merely prudential one), it seems clear that, if these empirical claims hold water, cuddling someone else on the regular will maximise total utility.
However, this is not always the case. If one’s cuddlepot is a murderer, say, who does not intend to stop, then furthering their interests by improving their cardiovascular health is not in the interest of others. As a result, you should starve the killer in your life from cuddles, so as to make an early death more likely.
Enlightening read, though I do object to this claim:
> Cuddling is a non-symmetric, non-transitive, and non-reflexive relation from cuddlemonster to cuddlepops.
Cuddling can be transitive via the infamous "cuddle circle" strategy in paraconsistent cuddle theory: e.g. Alice cuddles Bob, Bob cuddles Claire, Claire cuddles Damon, Damon cuddles Alice. Which doesn't have a clear cuddlemonster/cuddlepups distinction.
John Lockearms argued that cuddles can be reflexive with the "self hugging" strategy. Most philosophers would point to G.W.F. Hugel's counterarguments, but I think self-cuddling can still be rescued with the work of Judith Snuggler, who proposes the "pillow-cuddle" strategy.
I'm glad someone finally broached the hard problem of cuddling. It does seem like there are at least two forms of cuddling that you touch on, call them 'symmetric cuddling' and 'non-symmetric cuddling' since the cuddle relation can be, and can not be, a dyadic symmetric relation. I guess it could also be a triadic relation but now we're bumping into the cuddle-principle of explosion. Anyways, important work here.