Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/some-people-are-uncomfortable-with-touchers-like-biden-should-they-set-the-rules/2019/04/12/9f8a49da-5bbb-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html
92 comments
Yes, they should.
It's not just the potential sexual threat that generates discomfort. A friendly pat on the shoulder can also be interpreted as a dominance display.
The cat is out of the bag, can we please let this piece of poppsych die? A surprisingly large number of manager wannabe type at a FAANG company made a point to try to pat me on the back in public. Please stop trying to symbolically stomp on people you'd like on your team, it's demeaning. Especially for yourself.
I think, as your posts demonstrate, reading too much in to any action is problematic. If a platonic touch is 'symbolic stomping' to you, perhaps the issue is larger than a single action.
Right. Except that none of my other coworkers tried the pat of the back trick. Except that said managers never did it in private. Just don't do it, instant respect losing move.
Non-paywalled https://outline.com/hefKak
Feels like a slippery slope. Someone will always feel uncomfortable with something.
The slippery slope towards consent?
I think not touching strangers isn't really gonna pinch anyone's lifestyle real hard.
I think not touching strangers isn't really gonna pinch anyone's lifestyle real hard.
Many things make some people uncomfortable: touching, making eye contact, being spoken to by strangers, being spoken to in a raised voice, being in the presence of a person dressed in a way that might be considered sexually provacative, or of a member of the opposite sex, or of someone who signals particular religious or political affiliations, and so on.
Which of these are we to gain consent for in advance? No one is hurt by a casual touch to the hand or arm, any more than they are hurt by direct eye contact. But it can make some people just as uncomfortable.
Which of these are we to gain consent for in advance? No one is hurt by a casual touch to the hand or arm, any more than they are hurt by direct eye contact. But it can make some people just as uncomfortable.
I like how you go on and on as if I hadn't written two paragraphs to begin with. I point out the costs of not touching being minimal exactly because I anticipated a tiresome argument whinging about all the other things we won't be able to do anymore.
The costs of avoiding direct eye contact are minimal. The cost of not wearing a crucifix are minimal. There are social benefits to touching, and most people are fine with casual touching. You have failed to demonstrate why touch is a special case.
You can refer to my argument as whinging or tiresome if you like, but it that doesn't change its validity.
You can refer to my argument as whinging or tiresome if you like, but it that doesn't change its validity.
> most people are fine with casual touching
That's a nice assumption. Are you sure about that? Have you asked most people?
You might find that there are a lot of people who don't actually like it, but who find the consequences of making a fuss about it even worse.
That's a nice assumption. Are you sure about that? Have you asked most people?
You might find that there are a lot of people who don't actually like it, but who find the consequences of making a fuss about it even worse.
You’re speculating that most people may dislike being touched, but be unable or unwilling to express their dislike? It’s certainly possible, but they would be indistinguishable from people who are fine with being touched, so there’s not much that can be done in that circumstance.
What can be done in the circumstance is this: keep your hands to yourself unless you know for sure. It's not difficult.
Difficulty has nothing to do with it.
Your approach assumes that touching is somehow unusual and invasive, is not part of normal human interaction, and should always require upfront consent.
I see no reason to assume that a pat on the arm or a light hug should be categorized in that way.
If you don’t like being touched, then fine, that’s up to you. But you don’t get to dictate social norms for everyone else.
Your approach assumes that touching is somehow unusual and invasive, is not part of normal human interaction, and should always require upfront consent.
I see no reason to assume that a pat on the arm or a light hug should be categorized in that way.
If you don’t like being touched, then fine, that’s up to you. But you don’t get to dictate social norms for everyone else.
If you don't know a person, you don't know whether or not they find touch invasive. Don't touch them. You don't get to dictate boundaries for everyone else.
You appear to be making some unjustified assumptions. Namely that I’m defending my habit of touching strangers.
In fact, I don’t touch people in social situations because I have a tendency to shyness. I do, however, find hugs and casual physical contact from other people pleasing and comforting. It’s a perfectly normal form of interaction.
It would lessen the enjoyment I take in spontaneous social interactions, including physical contact, if it were codified and tabooed in the way you seem to prefer. Thankfully, the people I have asked about this in person seem to agree with me.
In fact, I don’t touch people in social situations because I have a tendency to shyness. I do, however, find hugs and casual physical contact from other people pleasing and comforting. It’s a perfectly normal form of interaction.
It would lessen the enjoyment I take in spontaneous social interactions, including physical contact, if it were codified and tabooed in the way you seem to prefer. Thankfully, the people I have asked about this in person seem to agree with me.
You wrote "But you don’t get to dictate social norms for everyone else." My response of "you don't get to dictate boundaries" refers to that.
No assumption there, other than what you've been asserting about social norms as somehow justifying violating boundaries.
Doesn't matter that you have some anecdotal experience with the people you've asked. I've asked people about this in person and they seem to agree with me, so it's a wash.
And I'm sorry your enjoyment might be lessened, but maybe that's just a price you have to pay in a world where other people and their respective enjoyments & preferences exist.
Lots of people find hugs & contact both pleasing and comforting. Maybe there's even a general biological need for it. That doesn't generalize to suggest that unsolicited random hugs & contact with you in particular is necessary or welcome.
No assumption there, other than what you've been asserting about social norms as somehow justifying violating boundaries.
Doesn't matter that you have some anecdotal experience with the people you've asked. I've asked people about this in person and they seem to agree with me, so it's a wash.
And I'm sorry your enjoyment might be lessened, but maybe that's just a price you have to pay in a world where other people and their respective enjoyments & preferences exist.
Lots of people find hugs & contact both pleasing and comforting. Maybe there's even a general biological need for it. That doesn't generalize to suggest that unsolicited random hugs & contact with you in particular is necessary or welcome.
There are benefits to touching in social environments, agreed.
The workplace is not a social environment. It brings together people who otherwise would never have shared the same space, so you need to be super cautious about establishing new relationships.
The workplace is not a social environment. It brings together people who otherwise would never have shared the same space, so you need to be super cautious about establishing new relationships.
The original article isn’t limited to the workplace. And any environment in which humans come together is by definition a social environment.
Then the broader rules apply: watch for cues that your chosen form of interpersonal interaction is not welcomed.
The key is to look for cues, rather than blindly assuming everyone likes drunk men bear hugging them because you as a drunk man like bear hugging everyone.
The key is to look for cues, rather than blindly assuming everyone likes drunk men bear hugging them because you as a drunk man like bear hugging everyone.
I will testify that the cost of never leaving the house is exceedingly high.
No, it really isn't hard to avoid touching someone who doesn't like it. If simple accommodations like that are a "slippery slope", I'd suggest a little empathy.
Obviously, if you know someone doesn't like a thing, you can avoid doing that thing. It is quite common for some people who just met to clasp a shoulder or similar. It provides extra social comfort and connectivity. I'd suggest a little empathy for those seeking human connection in a socially positive way. Hmm. Seems that empathy thing goes both ways.
Touch is a primal thing. There's a reason fights start over it. It can communicate a large range of things, including dominance and aggression.
You don't go to the home of someone you just met and "make yourself at home" the same way you do with yours, and you don't touch without knowing how it will be received. You might pull back a stump.
You don't go to the home of someone you just met and "make yourself at home" the same way you do with yours, and you don't touch without knowing how it will be received. You might pull back a stump.
> It provides extra social comfort and connectivity.
It does, but not for "people who just met". For them it provides awkwardness and the feeling of being dominated.
It does, but not for "people who just met". For them it provides awkwardness and the feeling of being dominated.
When I talk to a little old lady in the grocery line and she touches my arm, I do not feel dominated, but to each their own I guess.
This thread goes on indefinitely because of the lack of one word: context. You think of that little old lady one way. But if she was Queen Elizabeth, you would perceive something completely different in terms of power dynamics.
While I've yet to have Queen Elizabeth or some other high ranking official have some physical contact with me, pretty sure my first reaction would not to be thinking bout oppression.
manicdee(1)
[deleted]
I really don't like people who empathize, but I suggest we shake hands anyway.
In some countries/regions touching is part of the local culture and withdrawing or wincing after being touched is perceived as being anti-social. It contributes to the perception of certain nationalities and cultures as being "cold", which is not a criticism but merely an observation. In the West we appear to be slowly but surely moving to a non-touching culture.
> Humans require social touch, but the rules that govern its deployment are not biologically determined...
On the contrary; social touch, with the ensuing spectrum between "discomfort/aggression/dominance" and "affiliation/friendship/social comfort" is actually found in all social mammals, it has nothing to do with society, gender, sexual undertones or anything human-specific like that! Even domesticated cats http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5962 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1771 have a basic, instinct-driven understanding of how the aforementioned spectrum should be carefully negotiated if one is to establish a genuinely-experienced social bond.
I'm sorry but yes, per the above, Biden's "touchy-feely" behavior with strangers has indeed been singularly clueless, even unintentionally creepy and disturbing, in neglecting these obvious facts. Biden is one of the major figures in U.S. politics and obviously socially competent - he has no excuse for this.
On the contrary; social touch, with the ensuing spectrum between "discomfort/aggression/dominance" and "affiliation/friendship/social comfort" is actually found in all social mammals, it has nothing to do with society, gender, sexual undertones or anything human-specific like that! Even domesticated cats http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5962 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1771 have a basic, instinct-driven understanding of how the aforementioned spectrum should be carefully negotiated if one is to establish a genuinely-experienced social bond.
I'm sorry but yes, per the above, Biden's "touchy-feely" behavior with strangers has indeed been singularly clueless, even unintentionally creepy and disturbing, in neglecting these obvious facts. Biden is one of the major figures in U.S. politics and obviously socially competent - he has no excuse for this.
You're helping to create a very cold world. I've heard the term neopuritan thrown around in this context, and the more I think about it the more it fits. The modern obsession with harshly judging the body language, physical touch, and emotion of individuals today feels like a technology-enabled Scarlet Letter.
People's preferences aren't immediately self-evident to all observers, and intent does matter.
People's preferences aren't immediately self-evident to all observers, and intent does matter.
Absolutely agree with this.
I find it quite sad when I see young non religious people at work behaving like monks and nuns in fear of human latent intentions and interpretations of their behaviour. Sometimes reading too much theory and having too many specific words that define phenomenons which you have not yet experienced and elaborated can lead to a very frustrating life to say the least..
"Coldness", formality and due process are actually the best defense when dealing with someone who is in an obvious position of power. I'm not sure why people are pretending that Joe Biden is just an average guy who has gotten a little too comfy with some social acquaintance of his (the scenario that one might have a "cold" overreaction to). I do wonder what would happen if we were talking about Mike Pence doing the same things. Would the Washington Post be saying the same things about the inherent necessity of touch?
How do you deal with the dissonance of Biden being a leading political figure, whilst being socially incompetent?
How does he get voters? Why aren’t people who meet him singularly turned against his candidacy?
How does he get voters? Why aren’t people who meet him singularly turned against his candidacy?
I hate saying this, but people who take advantage of norms is why we can’t have nice things.
In this case nice things is social interaction that’re natural which don’t require a “contract” (I.e. I’m thinking of hugging you, may I hug you?).
It’s so big brother-like. It’s a bit opposite of being social. It becomes more like a mechanical contract and lawyerly. This is not a path I wish to go down.
Some people are over touchy, but, and here I agree with Pelosi, you have agency. Put your hand out for a shake, or whatever. Yes, some people smooch too much or hug or touch too much, but they are outliers and introducing these artificial mechanics to, in theory, thwart these people, I think is not worth the trouble.
In this case nice things is social interaction that’re natural which don’t require a “contract” (I.e. I’m thinking of hugging you, may I hug you?).
It’s so big brother-like. It’s a bit opposite of being social. It becomes more like a mechanical contract and lawyerly. This is not a path I wish to go down.
Some people are over touchy, but, and here I agree with Pelosi, you have agency. Put your hand out for a shake, or whatever. Yes, some people smooch too much or hug or touch too much, but they are outliers and introducing these artificial mechanics to, in theory, thwart these people, I think is not worth the trouble.
The important thing is that when Jacinta Adern puts her hand out for a handshake, you don’t Scott Morrison your way in for a hug.
Pay attention to the cues, be prepared for non-vocal cues that your physical behaviour is unwelcome in this context, and accept that your “norms” aren’t shared with everyone outside your immediate family, and even then there are caveats.
Pay attention to the cues, be prepared for non-vocal cues that your physical behaviour is unwelcome in this context, and accept that your “norms” aren’t shared with everyone outside your immediate family, and even then there are caveats.
[deleted]
When was the last time someone sniffed your hair or you saw someone’s hair sniffed in a professional situation?
My own professional career spans military, academia and multi-national corporations and therefore dozens of hours of dumb videos showing cringy behavior like Biden. These articles completely miss the point that he’s at least 20 years out of date of what’s considered acceptable (and some of his weird actions were never welcome, despite being acceptable norms).
My own professional career spans military, academia and multi-national corporations and therefore dozens of hours of dumb videos showing cringy behavior like Biden. These articles completely miss the point that he’s at least 20 years out of date of what’s considered acceptable (and some of his weird actions were never welcome, despite being acceptable norms).
Hair sniffing is quite different from hugging or touching. We’re talking about “codifying” how people interact normally, hugging, touching, tapping.
Smelling, I think is outside the norm and most people would agree it’s unwelcome behavior.
It’s like asking, is touching someone’s axillas appropriate? Of course outside medical examinations probably not.
Smelling, I think is outside the norm and most people would agree it’s unwelcome behavior.
It’s like asking, is touching someone’s axillas appropriate? Of course outside medical examinations probably not.
Exactly. The article mischaracterizes Biden’s behavior and is therefore pointless in discussing his fitness for office. (To the point that writers like this appear to be carrying water for him.)
So the article is talking about touching, hugging, etc., tactile social interaction. I agree we don’t need to codify them. On the other hand it totally ignores the socially unacceptable sniffing aspect. That’s likely on purpose because there is no need to explain it away. Most people accept that as outside norms. Now, also, not discussing that but discussing a non problem is a good way to bury the actual problem.
In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions, neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these change over time and fixed rules would prevent that change. The change is needed to adapt to changing living conditions and technological changes.
Of course, there can be exceptions, for example rules may make sense when there is an extremely asymmetric power relation, e.g. one is the employer of another, and we already have rules in the form of laws for that purpose.
Without getting political (please!), does somebody have an idea where does this obsession with rules come from? Fear of civil lawsuits in the US?
Of course, there can be exceptions, for example rules may make sense when there is an extremely asymmetric power relation, e.g. one is the employer of another, and we already have rules in the form of laws for that purpose.
Without getting political (please!), does somebody have an idea where does this obsession with rules come from? Fear of civil lawsuits in the US?
It's actually a matter of personal freedom to have such rules. Joe Biden's-- or anyone else's-- freedom to swing his fist should end at my nose, and this should be made clear and unambiguous to everyone's benefit. License and anarchy are the opposite of genuine, actual freedom.
I think you'll find we already have rules that restrict Joe Biden's freedom to punch you on the nose. On the other hand, we don't have rules that say I must ask for your explicit consent before putting out my hand to shake yours when we meet.
Somewhere in between, there are gray areas. The question is whether one vocal minority should be allowed to define where the lines are drawn, and insist the rest of society adjusts its norms to abide by their definitions. Or is it OK for the establishment of social norms to be a broader, slower, less clearly-defined, and sometimes ambiguous process?
Somewhere in between, there are gray areas. The question is whether one vocal minority should be allowed to define where the lines are drawn, and insist the rest of society adjusts its norms to abide by their definitions. Or is it OK for the establishment of social norms to be a broader, slower, less clearly-defined, and sometimes ambiguous process?
How come the rules that restrict Joe Biden’s freedom to touch other people shouldn’t apply to you?
There don’t need to be rules about shaking hands or high giving because those are mutually consensual actions.
Fist bumping a non-receptive individual (aka punching a colleague on the shoulder) is not consensual.
For the “vocal minority” which is most women and some men, non-consensual touching is associated with bullying, intimidation, physical coercion and assault. In the workplace we try to avoid emotional arousal because people shouting angrily at each other makes it difficult for others to focus on their work.
In social settings, you are free to explore boundaries as long as you are aware that failure to take non-vocal hints can lead to being ostracised from those social circles.
But yes, the “vocal minority” should be allowed to define the lines, which are pretty simple even for people who have never had to follow etiquette: other people’s bodies are off limits to you unless they indicate otherwise.
By all means go for the high five, but accept that if it is not returned you don’t try forcing it to happen. You have now divined where one boundary existed at one point in time.
There don’t need to be rules about shaking hands or high giving because those are mutually consensual actions.
Fist bumping a non-receptive individual (aka punching a colleague on the shoulder) is not consensual.
For the “vocal minority” which is most women and some men, non-consensual touching is associated with bullying, intimidation, physical coercion and assault. In the workplace we try to avoid emotional arousal because people shouting angrily at each other makes it difficult for others to focus on their work.
In social settings, you are free to explore boundaries as long as you are aware that failure to take non-vocal hints can lead to being ostracised from those social circles.
But yes, the “vocal minority” should be allowed to define the lines, which are pretty simple even for people who have never had to follow etiquette: other people’s bodies are off limits to you unless they indicate otherwise.
By all means go for the high five, but accept that if it is not returned you don’t try forcing it to happen. You have now divined where one boundary existed at one point in time.
Biden isn’t swinging his fist. It’s social interaction. Now, blurring the distinction between interactions with friends and strangers is problematic. But the interaction itself isn’t a problem, it’s recontextualizing the interaction which is problematic.
Since you're distinguishing rules from norms and laws, can you describe what kind of rules are you talking about?
The kind of rules the Washington Post article talks about, i.e., explicitly formulated rules that are supposed to regulate behavior but are not (yet) laws. The article contrasts this to "unwritten rules", by which they seem to mean social norms and/or conventions. Social norms are usually not explicitly formulated and codified and if they are, they still exist independently of that formulation insofar as they are internalized by a significant number of members of a group. They evolve organically out of actual social interactions.
How exactly they evolve, what distinguishes social norms from conventions, and their relation to institutions, these are highly controversial topics. I'd personally recommend Cristina Bicchieri's taxonomy and approach, but there are other theories out there. In any case, it seemed clear to me that the WP article didn't talk about social norms - you cannot just decide what social norm is to be in place, these evolve independently and can be more or less stable -, and the WP article doesn't talk about laws only either. It seems to be based on the idea that written codes that are not laws should complement laws and replace actual social norms as kind of guidelines of how to behave, and I reject this idea for many reasons, including many moral ones.
To summarize my reasons very briefly: Everybody has a right to be an asshole and not every undesirable or unwanted behavior is also immoral. I'm very unhappy about the apparent trend (which seems to mostly exist in the US only) of not being able to distinguish between criminal behavior, immoral behavior, generally undesirable behavior, and personally unwanted behavior. These are all different things and mixing them up leads to a lot of confusion.
How exactly they evolve, what distinguishes social norms from conventions, and their relation to institutions, these are highly controversial topics. I'd personally recommend Cristina Bicchieri's taxonomy and approach, but there are other theories out there. In any case, it seemed clear to me that the WP article didn't talk about social norms - you cannot just decide what social norm is to be in place, these evolve independently and can be more or less stable -, and the WP article doesn't talk about laws only either. It seems to be based on the idea that written codes that are not laws should complement laws and replace actual social norms as kind of guidelines of how to behave, and I reject this idea for many reasons, including many moral ones.
To summarize my reasons very briefly: Everybody has a right to be an asshole and not every undesirable or unwanted behavior is also immoral. I'm very unhappy about the apparent trend (which seems to mostly exist in the US only) of not being able to distinguish between criminal behavior, immoral behavior, generally undesirable behavior, and personally unwanted behavior. These are all different things and mixing them up leads to a lot of confusion.
Would you be able to give other examples of this obsession with rules?
From this, and this alone, I'd like to imagine that people just want to clear up the unknown. Social interactions are almost always different from one person to the next. Social norms do tend to keep things pretty similar but the whole range can vary wildly. Maybe this is just a way to narrow the range? I don't think it is a great way to handle things that make you uncomfortable and I also don't think uncomfortable is always a bad thing.
From this, and this alone, I'd like to imagine that people just want to clear up the unknown. Social interactions are almost always different from one person to the next. Social norms do tend to keep things pretty similar but the whole range can vary wildly. Maybe this is just a way to narrow the range? I don't think it is a great way to handle things that make you uncomfortable and I also don't think uncomfortable is always a bad thing.
The problem with setting social rules, is they always seem to line up exactly with what the currently dominant group defines "normal", in my experience.
The worst advice I was given as a child was "treat others as you wish to be treated", because it is awful advice when moving in to a significantly different set of people.
The worst advice I was given as a child was "treat others as you wish to be treated", because it is awful advice when moving in to a significantly different set of people.
I believe "treat others as you wish to be treated" should be taken from a much higher approach than "if you like to be hugged, hug others". I've always seen it as more of "respect others and they will respect you." I still think it can apply to this situation though. Instead of setting social rules, we should show respect for the people we are interacting with.
I think that's trying too hard to read something better into a bad saying :) going straight to your suggested "respect others and they will respect you." seems like a better lesson.
"treat others as you wish to be treated"
It's a useful minimum surely? How else should you treat a significantly different set of people?
Yes once you get to know them, you learn how they want to be treated (mainly?) based on how they treat you and others.
Are you talking about using general formal politeness?
It's a useful minimum surely? How else should you treat a significantly different set of people?
Yes once you get to know them, you learn how they want to be treated (mainly?) based on how they treat you and others.
Are you talking about using general formal politeness?
The problem is it sounds seductive, but fails when your rules of pilteness don't line up with other people's.
For example, I hate being asked questions multiple times. Therefore when i went to ubiversity, if I asked someone is they wanted me to buy a round, and they said no, I would not accept the answer. After some months I discovered I was considered tight, as the first offer is always refused, so "doesn't count".
For example, I hate being asked questions multiple times. Therefore when i went to ubiversity, if I asked someone is they wanted me to buy a round, and they said no, I would not accept the answer. After some months I discovered I was considered tight, as the first offer is always refused, so "doesn't count".
Right, but 'first contact' situations generally call for both sides to be forgiving of the other side.
Theres plenty of time over the ensuing months to communicate your preferences.
FWIW I wouldn't say theres a particular rule requiring offering to buy a round multiple times, so I'd have have been viewed as tight also, even if I was trying to fit in with normal convention.
Theres plenty of time over the ensuing months to communicate your preferences.
FWIW I wouldn't say theres a particular rule requiring offering to buy a round multiple times, so I'd have have been viewed as tight also, even if I was trying to fit in with normal convention.
Codes of conduct.
I think my original statement stands with this example as well. Codes of conduct try to standardize interactions. It tries to get rid of the "unknown". I think they can make sense in a business sense. You would want your employees to all act roughly the same towards each other or those around them (customers). On the other hand, I don't think we would need a "Code of Conduct of Life" for basic human interaction outside of the workplace.
[deleted]
The rule is "ask for permission before toucing someone else".
I find it weird that you've escalated this into some huge thing that infringes upon your freedoms.
Keep your fucking hands off my body.
I find it weird that you've escalated this into some huge thing that infringes upon your freedoms.
Keep your fucking hands off my body.
The point is that everybody already constantly enforces his/her own rules by socially interacting with others and giving the respective feedback. There is no need for someone else to enforce your rules or write them down.
The funny thing is that the same bullshit the WP article talks about already existed in the past, in the form of etiquette books like the Knigge or Emily Post and schools for good manners and etiquette. I firmly believe we can do without that nonsense.
The funny thing is that the same bullshit the WP article talks about already existed in the past, in the form of etiquette books like the Knigge or Emily Post and schools for good manners and etiquette. I firmly believe we can do without that nonsense.
Have you considered that your discomfort with social touching is indicative of personal issues that you need to address, rather than demanding a monumental shift in social norms to align everyone's behaviour with your idiosyncratic preferences.
The above poster was very brash with his emotions which is probably the source of downvotes but his opinion is shared by many, and by me very deeply.
I’m forced to spend a significant amount of time in Miami in a professional setting. I am so damn tired of women touching me in what I consider a wildly inappropriate and intimate way.
I never say anything to them because I don’t think their is anything wrong with them, I understand it’s just cultural. I share deep hugs with my close male friends of 30+ years frequently. I don’t accept that there is anything wrong with me or the above poster. We simply don’t want to be touched outside of the contexts we find appropriate.
This discussion has been excellent as it’s mainly focused on how to handle the rules of engagement in a world that includes people like us and people like them. Please try to focus on that and not on deciding who is wrong.
I’m forced to spend a significant amount of time in Miami in a professional setting. I am so damn tired of women touching me in what I consider a wildly inappropriate and intimate way.
I never say anything to them because I don’t think their is anything wrong with them, I understand it’s just cultural. I share deep hugs with my close male friends of 30+ years frequently. I don’t accept that there is anything wrong with me or the above poster. We simply don’t want to be touched outside of the contexts we find appropriate.
This discussion has been excellent as it’s mainly focused on how to handle the rules of engagement in a world that includes people like us and people like them. Please try to focus on that and not on deciding who is wrong.
I have no problem with a person who doesn’t like to be touched saying so. It’s just good manners to respect people’s preferences. And it’s good manners to be attentive to people’s reactions and adjust accordingly. We should all try to respect each other’s boundaries.
But I object to people who insist that a common behavior is deviant, wrong, or offensive simply because they don’t like it. Social norms should not be dictated by an loud idiosyncratic minority with extreme adverse reactions to normal interactions.
But I object to people who insist that a common behavior is deviant, wrong, or offensive simply because they don’t like it. Social norms should not be dictated by an loud idiosyncratic minority with extreme adverse reactions to normal interactions.
[deleted]
Some people are uncomfortable with non-touchers.
Can't people regulate basic social interactions without the government stepping in, anymore?
If you're uncomfortable with a pat on your shoulder, just tell the person.
Can't people regulate basic social interactions without the government stepping in, anymore?
If you're uncomfortable with a pat on your shoulder, just tell the person.
> just tell the person
Sure, that always works fine. They won't take offense or make it a thing or blow it up and make everything awkward from then after.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic. It's usually easier to just eat the discomfort and not make a fuss. But, it would be nicer to not get touched by randos in the first place.
Sure, that always works fine. They won't take offense or make it a thing or blow it up and make everything awkward from then after.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic. It's usually easier to just eat the discomfort and not make a fuss. But, it would be nicer to not get touched by randos in the first place.
I think the best thing we could do to solve a whole lot of problems at once is assertiveness training for pupils, for example. Teach young people how to communicate what they perceive as their boundaries and that violations of these boundaries will have consequences. I would expect that a lot of things will get better. It would be a win for both active and passive parties in every interaction. If someone finds their boundaries violated, (s)he could defend themselves (in a social way, if things need physical defense, then things went awry already long before) and on the other hand the active partner in an interaction could act more freely, knowing that the passive party would object if he or she did something that the other one does not like.
I like the idea.
I like the idea.
Or, maybe, what if people kept their hands to themselves so that others didn't need to be on assertive defense against touchy grabby hands?
If you know for sure someone welcomes contact from you, then sure go ahead.
Otherwise, you're asking double from the person whose boundaries were violated: First, the discomfort of the unsolicited contact. Then, second, the discomfort of causing a scene to assert their boundaries.
It's nearly always easier to just accept the first small and incidental discomfort and move on - but it doesn't mean it was okay.
If you know for sure someone welcomes contact from you, then sure go ahead.
Otherwise, you're asking double from the person whose boundaries were violated: First, the discomfort of the unsolicited contact. Then, second, the discomfort of causing a scene to assert their boundaries.
It's nearly always easier to just accept the first small and incidental discomfort and move on - but it doesn't mean it was okay.
There is a misunderstanding what assertiveness means.
It is not just about defense against touchy grabby hands, it is meant to help people in every situation where a violation of their boundaries can happen, i.e. in every social interaction.
Examples could be a relative that criticizes your physique (e.g. a comment of the belly someone developed over the christmas holidays), mansplaining or a repeatedly interrupting colleague. Any sort of interaction bears the risk of violating someones boundaries (that one does not know because how could one if they didn't communicate them [0]). Assertiveness means that someone both knows where their own boundaries are, so that they actually can tell when they are violated and additionally that they have the skills to deal with it. This can be as easy as challenging the other with a "Oh? Do you think so?", making clear that there is something one does not agree with and that this is a topic the other would not have an easy time to pursue further. Assertiveness is not about making a scene, it is about clearly communicating that there is a topic that will lead to conflict if pursued further.
Basically it is a tool to make people stronger and more confident so that they do not become victims of other people's transgressions as easily.
[0] This does not mean that people shouldn't be somewhat considerate but being overly considerate is nothing more than social self-censorship. Others have to accept your personality as much as you have to accept theirs. It's an interplay.
Edit: This nice line is from Wikipedia: Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive.
Examples could be a relative that criticizes your physique (e.g. a comment of the belly someone developed over the christmas holidays), mansplaining or a repeatedly interrupting colleague. Any sort of interaction bears the risk of violating someones boundaries (that one does not know because how could one if they didn't communicate them [0]). Assertiveness means that someone both knows where their own boundaries are, so that they actually can tell when they are violated and additionally that they have the skills to deal with it. This can be as easy as challenging the other with a "Oh? Do you think so?", making clear that there is something one does not agree with and that this is a topic the other would not have an easy time to pursue further. Assertiveness is not about making a scene, it is about clearly communicating that there is a topic that will lead to conflict if pursued further.
Basically it is a tool to make people stronger and more confident so that they do not become victims of other people's transgressions as easily.
[0] This does not mean that people shouldn't be somewhat considerate but being overly considerate is nothing more than social self-censorship. Others have to accept your personality as much as you have to accept theirs. It's an interplay.
Edit: This nice line is from Wikipedia: Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive.
This. So much this.
Communication. And grace.
If you're not sure if something is welcome, ask... politely. If someone does something unwelcome, say something... politely. If you see two other people involved in an unwelcome exchange, try to smooth the situation over while teaching lessons... politely.
I volunteer with a variety of alternative groups. It's actually logically impossible to act in a way that everyone's norms around touch are satisfied, because many are mutually exclusive.
In an absence of clarity, all we have is communication, consent, and fundamental decency in how we treat each other when one or both of us &#+@s up. Because we all will, at one point or another.
Teaching children to reach for polite assertiveness when called for, and polite apology when due, would go a long way towards making the world a better place.
(And just to head off the inevitable: we're clearly talking about sub-criminal actions here)
Communication. And grace.
If you're not sure if something is welcome, ask... politely. If someone does something unwelcome, say something... politely. If you see two other people involved in an unwelcome exchange, try to smooth the situation over while teaching lessons... politely.
I volunteer with a variety of alternative groups. It's actually logically impossible to act in a way that everyone's norms around touch are satisfied, because many are mutually exclusive.
In an absence of clarity, all we have is communication, consent, and fundamental decency in how we treat each other when one or both of us &#+@s up. Because we all will, at one point or another.
Teaching children to reach for polite assertiveness when called for, and polite apology when due, would go a long way towards making the world a better place.
(And just to head off the inevitable: we're clearly talking about sub-criminal actions here)
I don't really mind being touched, but it's definitely rather strange and I don't know why would I touch others like that. Why do some people feel such a need? It's not polite, it's... awkward.
Because many people enjoy casual social touching. Personally, I find it pleasing when someone gives my arm a squeeze or gives me a hug when I am leaving. But I would find it awkward to be asked "Do I have consent to sqeeze your arm". For me, and for many people, touch is a comforting gesture of affection and I'd be sad if people felt that they couldn't interact with me in that way.
I'm English and we don't do much casual touching. But when I shared a house with French people, they were visibly offended when I pulled back from a casual kiss on the cheek to say hello and goodbye. Getting used to it cost me nothing and eventually it became natural to me. I have a South African friend of Indian descent, he's much more tactile than is usual in friendships between straight males in the UK. Again, I was uncomfortable at first, but I adjusted because I value the friendship.
I am at a loss as to why people feel that their discomfort is the overriding factor in any situation. Sometimes, it's the uncomfortable one who needs to make an adjustment.
I'm English and we don't do much casual touching. But when I shared a house with French people, they were visibly offended when I pulled back from a casual kiss on the cheek to say hello and goodbye. Getting used to it cost me nothing and eventually it became natural to me. I have a South African friend of Indian descent, he's much more tactile than is usual in friendships between straight males in the UK. Again, I was uncomfortable at first, but I adjusted because I value the friendship.
I am at a loss as to why people feel that their discomfort is the overriding factor in any situation. Sometimes, it's the uncomfortable one who needs to make an adjustment.
I find it pleasing too, but it's strange nevertheless. That strange feeling goes away when the person that does it is not an emotional stranger anymore - I'm touching my partner all the time and she touches me too because we know each other and we know that we like and accept (or even expect) it.
My friends get to know me and can safely interact with me in many ways other people can't and with them we can get really touchy (or not, depending on the person). From others, I do expect that "do I have consent" question. It sounded strange for me too in the past, but I've actually been in places where such questions are a social norm and in practice they work really well. I'm a kind of person who always replies "yes" anyway, but thanks to that question the awkwardness somewhat goes away.
The only sane alternative to asking that question is not touching at all until becoming emotionally connected.
My friends get to know me and can safely interact with me in many ways other people can't and with them we can get really touchy (or not, depending on the person). From others, I do expect that "do I have consent" question. It sounded strange for me too in the past, but I've actually been in places where such questions are a social norm and in practice they work really well. I'm a kind of person who always replies "yes" anyway, but thanks to that question the awkwardness somewhat goes away.
The only sane alternative to asking that question is not touching at all until becoming emotionally connected.
It's not that Biden is a 'toucher' but who he touches, and possibly why he touches.
Find video of his sniffing the hair of an old man for example ... You can't.
Find video of his sniffing the hair of an old man for example ... You can't.
The article mentions some research. Let me add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow#Partial_and_total... to the list:
"Partial isolation involved raising monkeys in bare wire cages that allowed them to see, smell, and hear other monkeys, but provided no opportunity for physical contact. [..] partial isolation resulted in various abnormalities such as blank staring, stereotyped repetitive circling in their cages, and self-mutilation."
"Partial isolation involved raising monkeys in bare wire cages that allowed them to see, smell, and hear other monkeys, but provided no opportunity for physical contact. [..] partial isolation resulted in various abnormalities such as blank staring, stereotyped repetitive circling in their cages, and self-mutilation."
Hi everyone! Just a friendly reminder that as a community of largely white, highly educated, [male](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591309) [millennials](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2175588), we have some blindspots: areas we cannot see that we do not know we cannot see.
When we read an article like this, it's natural to put yourself in the shoes of the people it's about, and imagine if you'd have reacted the same way. As empathetic as we may each feel we are, this process still involves projecting a magnitude of assumptions about the other person's experience which we simply cannot know. We naturally assume that people experience life _generally_ the same way we do: sure, their circumstances may be different, but we're all equal and we all make choices basically the same way.
But it isn't true. We each see the world through a series of lenses, and it's not really possible to remove those lenses. The best we can do is be aware of the lenses, and that other people have different lenses.
I'm not suggesting this article is right or wrong; just that those of us who feel very strongly about it in one direction or the other should, perhaps, acknowledge that theirs is not the _only_ legitimate perspective.
If you're interested in learning more about lenses, privilege, and why we often feel defencive when confronted by it, I highly recommend [this book](https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/d...).
When we read an article like this, it's natural to put yourself in the shoes of the people it's about, and imagine if you'd have reacted the same way. As empathetic as we may each feel we are, this process still involves projecting a magnitude of assumptions about the other person's experience which we simply cannot know. We naturally assume that people experience life _generally_ the same way we do: sure, their circumstances may be different, but we're all equal and we all make choices basically the same way.
But it isn't true. We each see the world through a series of lenses, and it's not really possible to remove those lenses. The best we can do is be aware of the lenses, and that other people have different lenses.
I'm not suggesting this article is right or wrong; just that those of us who feel very strongly about it in one direction or the other should, perhaps, acknowledge that theirs is not the _only_ legitimate perspective.
If you're interested in learning more about lenses, privilege, and why we often feel defencive when confronted by it, I highly recommend [this book](https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/d...).
Next question.