Physical affection here means wanted, mutually agreed nonsexual touch from a close person. The questions concern your preferences over the past few months; these can change with the moment and contact offered, and wanting no touch is a valid preference.
An everyday moment“I’d love a hug. Me too.”
What this can look like
A hug feels welcome on one occasion; on another, you'd prefer a wave, and the other person checks rather than assumes.
Keep in mind
No score or earlier answer gives permission to touch someone; consent is specific and current. These questions need proper research testing.
If a situation has not applied to you, skip it. That is different from not wanting it.
For adults exploring their own experience. These guides cannot diagnose a condition, measure your worth or decide who is suitable for a job or relationship.
Choose how to explore
Use the pictures or read the detail. Your result does not decide how you should learn.
Reflect on a remembered or imagined greeting only; no contact experiment is needed.
How this can look
See it from another angle
+
Keep the preference specific
Consider receiving nonsexual affection from this close person in this kind of moment. A general preference never grants permission for contact.
Imagine meeting a close person after a busy day. You sometimes welcome a greeting hug, but today you would prefer a smile and some space before talking. No contact has been agreed.
What it offers
Thinking about receiving affection in this particular greeting can distinguish a general liking for hugs from what you want today. The reflection makes room for welcome nonsexual affection while leaving a no contact greeting fully available and meaningful.
A question to keep
What would make the imagined greeting acknowledge today’s preference without assuming yesterday’s consent?
These situations are examples to think about. They do not predict what you will do. The diagram connects ideas in the guide; it does not measure your mind or show scores.
5 minute read · Read in order or choose a section
The situations in this guide are invitations to compare with your own experience. They are not measured predictions about you.
On this page 10 sections
What it means
This preference concerns receiving wanted, mutually agreed nonsexual affection from a close person. Consent is specific and current; no score, prior answer or illustration gives permission for contact. Wanting no touch is a valid preference.
Consider what you prefer to receive in the same close relationship over the past few months. The six preferences can coexist and can vary across people and situations. Missing experience remains unanswered rather than counting as a low preference.
Lower on this response scale
Less preference for receiving nonsexual physical affection, including wanting none; this says nothing about affection or relationship quality.
Higher on this response scale
More preference for receiving welcome nonsexual affection in these situations; fresh consent still matters every time.
These are ends of a spectrum, not two kinds of person. Context and the middle of the scale matter too; neither end measures your worth.
In everyday life
You recall a greeting when a mutually welcome hug felt right and another when you preferred a wave.
During a difficult day, you would rather be asked whether physical comfort is wanted than have it assumed.
Strengths and blind spots
What this approach can offer
Putting the preference into words can make an invitation easier to accept or decline.
Recognising that the preference changes by person or setting can support clearer communication.
What can be easy to miss
A high preference can be mistaken for standing consent; it is never that.
Lack of experience with welcome contact can be mistaken for low preference instead of an unanswered item.
These are possibilities to check against your experience, not predictions about everyone with a similar result.
Wanted contact in a particular moment
This guide concerns preferring to receive wanted, mutually agreed nonsexual physical affection from a close person. The questions refer to ordinary greetings, quiet time, difficult days and shared good news. They do not ask about sexual preferences, and they do not grant permission for any contact.
Consent is specific and current. A preference for a hug in one situation says nothing decisive about another person, another kind of touch or another moment. Wanting no touch is a complete and valid preference. Nobody needs to explain it through a diagnosis, history or personality category.
A stronger preference may mean that welcome physical affection feels meaningful or comforting in the situations described. That can coexist with clear limits about who, when and what kind. A person who often enjoys hugs may not want one when concentrating, tired, overheated or simply uninterested at that moment.
A weaker preference may mean that words, company, practical help or personal space are more welcome. It does not imply less affection for the other person, a poor relationship or something that needs correcting. Receiving less touch is not a failed version of receiving more.
Lack of opportunity is different from a low preference. If the described situation has not occurred, or you do not know what you would want, leave that uncertainty visible. Imagining what you think you ought to prefer can obscure the actual experience the questions are meant to explore.
Imagine meeting someone close after a long absence. One person approaches expecting a hug; the other is pleased to see them but does not want contact. The warmth of the reunion and the preference about touch are separate matters. A simple invitation with genuine room for refusal can preserve both.
The relevant response to a refusal is to respect it, not to treat it as a puzzle that must reveal hidden rejection. Another form of greeting can be offered if wanted. A previous questionnaire result, earlier consent or a familiar habit never overrides what is communicated now.
After a difficult day, one person may welcome an offered hug while another wants a quiet conversation or to be left alone. Ask what would help rather than infer it from how you would want to be comforted. The preference for receiving can differ from the preference for giving.
If touch felt comforting, you can notice that without claiming to know its mechanism or treating it as a universal remedy. If it did not, the experience does not need to fit a positive story. The practical standard is whether the contact was wanted and whether the people involved could communicate freely about it.
Physical affection can occur during focused time or accompany appreciative words. A memorable moment may include several things at once. Ask what each contributed rather than using the overlap to decide that one preference is your essential relationship identity.
Different receiving preferences do not by themselves establish incompatibility. People can discuss what is welcome and choose mutually acceptable ways of expressing care. Where preferences remain different, nobody owes contact as a compromise. Respecting the limit is part of the relationship, not a failure to meet the other person halfway.
Recall an ordinary occasion involving an offer of nonsexual affection, if one is available. What did you want at the time? Was there room to accept, decline or change your mind? Compare another occasion when the answer differed. No new contact is needed to complete this reflection.
If you choose to discuss a preference, describe it provisionally and specifically: the kind of contact, the person and the situation. Make clear that it does not replace checking what is welcome later. Do not turn the conversation into a request that someone prove affection physically.
The four original illustrative items are unvalidated receiving-preference prompts. They cannot establish consent, safety, attachment style, relationship quality or a duty to change. The present wishes of each person remain more important for an actual interaction than any score or guide.
This preference has 4 original illustrative items and needs at least 3 numeric answers. All are direct endorsements; available answers contribute equally to a 1–5 mean. Not applicable, unsure and skipped answers remain missing. There are no exclusive relationship types or validated interpretation thresholds, and the preference is not permission for an action.
This construct does not establish: consent to any contact, sexual preferences, attachment style, relationship safety, compatibility, affection for another person, or a duty to receive touch.
These original illustrative receiving-preference items are unvalidated and do not cover every aspect of a close relationship.
Receiving preferences do not measure giving preferences, relationship quality, attachment style, safety or compatibility; they are not exclusive types.
All items are positively worded, and overlapping content is not independent confirmation. No score overrides a stated limit or provides consent to touch.
Context to consider: Preferences can differ by person, setting, sensory experience or the particular contact offered. Limited opportunity to receive wanted contact can leave these items unanswerable; it is not a low preference score.
Use this guide for adult self-reflection. It is not a diagnosis or a basis for recruitment, relationship decisions or other consequential judgements.
