Are you sure, Thomas? Let's open this up to Gawker's second-ever Room for Debate: Does Thomas Matlack Need a Good Cuddle? Three Maureen O'Connors briefly put aside their differences to discuss the issue.
Yes: A Cuddle Puddle Saved My Nana's Life
I agree, Thomas Matlack needs a "good cuddle." For it is the responsibility of a society to provide each his just dessert. Cuddle dessert, sweet sugared cuddles. Cuddles with whipped cream. Cuddle puddle pie. In the future, everyone will have giant vats of corn syrup to nuzzle in the night. Until then, human cuddling with occasional cannibalism must suffice.
No: You Know Who Else Liked Cuddling? Bin Laden
I disagree, Thomas Matlack does not need a "good cuddle." His wanton use of the word "need" to describe what should be a "privilege" frankly makes me sick. This is Soviet-style cuddlemunism at its worst. As an American, I hereby vow to punch Thomas Matlack in the solar plexus, should he ever try to hug me. Lesser encroachments—say, a fist bump or pat on the back—will be met with eye-gouging.
Maybe: I Could Really Go Either Way
Maureen, Maureen, please don't fight. Why can't Thomas Matlack have The Best of Both Worlds (TBOBW™) ? It is really a flaw of Western thought, or American education, or human existence in general, that we do not vacillate more pathetically. Why can't Thomas Matlack have TBOBW™? Thomas Matlack needs cuddling and not-cuddling both. Let us loosely encase him in the limp, clammy handshake of our ambivalence for the rest of TBOBW™s. [NYT, NYT, Previously]