Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:39 AM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
I am saying that a policy of NO TOUCH EVER is not only unreasonable and impractical it is actually offensive. It takes the interpersonal responsibility away from the individual.
No, it doesn't. If the workplace policy is "default to never touching anybody", you are still free to exercise your individual "interpersonal responsibility" by specifically asking a co-worker for permission to touch them in circumstances where you think it's warranted.

If you feel it would be unfairly burdensome to have to explicitly state your preferences about touching before you can touch other people, ask yourself why you're willing to saddle other people with the burden of having to explicitly state their preferences about touching before they can expect not to be touched.

AFAICT, what it boils down to in most cases is that the pro-touch people don't want to run the risk of seeming "weird" by asking to touch someone, but they don't really notice or care that the anti-touch people have to run the risk of seeming "weird" by asking not to be touched.
  #502  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:05 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What? If you tell someone that you don't like something they do, that they think is perfectly normal, they get an attitude.

As evidence, I offer this thread.
I disagree, but let's suppose that is true and you don't want your co-worker to "get an attitude" because you told him that you would prefer he not touch you. So you don't tell him and run to HR.

Do you think his attitude will improve because of that?

Again, this is what happens in adult conversations. You tell someone that you do not appreciate activity X that they are doing which affects you. The response can be anywhere on the line from, "I'm very sorry. It will never happen again" all the way to "Fuck you. I'll do what I want and you can shove it up your ass."

Wherever that response lies, then, as an adult, you take the next step as needed. You don't not lodge an objection with someone because you are afraid that they will be a meany pants to you.
  #503  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:57 AM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You tap someone on the shoulder to get their attention. How do you know they dont want to be touched unless they tell you?

And several have said here that the person who doesnt want to be touched is under no duty to inform the toucher.
The non-aggressive thing to do is... don't touch them. Touching someone who doesn't want to be touched is being aggressive towards them. If you don't know, then don't touch them until you do. And we all know that this isn't actually about tapping people on the shoulder, and the fact that people like you keep trying to change the example to tapping on the shoulder says a lot more about the kind of touch you're inflicting on people than you think it does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And no HR dept is going to ruin MY life over tapping someone on the shoulder. The complainers life at that company will be rather short, otoh.
I will also note that touching someone who doesn't want to be touched, then getting them fired from a company for complaining at your unwanted touch is pretty much the direct, polar opposite of 'non-aggressive'. You're clearly and undeniably stating your intent to touch someone despite their unwillingness to be touched, then retaliate if they object, which is EXTREMELY aggressive.

Last edited by Pantastic; 05-10-2019 at 08:01 AM.
  #504  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:27 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
The non-aggressive thing to do is... don't touch them. Touching someone who doesn't want to be touched is being aggressive towards them. ...
I don't think I agree with this statement, that touching someone is necessarily aggressive, at least if you do not know someone does not like to be touched.

I'm generally in favor of individuals' preferences being respected, but I don't think I care for some uses I have recently seen for the word "aggression" - whether micro or not. Perhaps I am expressing my biases and agenda, as I suspect other folk are doing by (mis)using the word that way.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #505  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:42 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I disagree, but let's suppose that is true and you don't want your co-worker to "get an attitude" because you told him that you would prefer he not touch you. So you don't tell him and run to HR.

Do you think his attitude will improve because of that?
Probably not. Which is why a lot of people just "go along with it" without telling the person who touched them NOR reporting it to HR.

Still shocking to me that "Don't touch someone unless you know they are cool with it" is an extreme position.

Full disclosure, I just hugged my boss at an after-work function last night.
  #506  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:00 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Probably not. Which is why a lot of people just "go along with it" without telling the person who touched them NOR reporting it to HR.

Still shocking to me that "Don't touch someone unless you know they are cool with it" is an extreme position.

Full disclosure, I just hugged my boss at an after-work function last night.
Does that mean:

"Don't tap someone on the clothed shoulder unless you've previously gotten explicit verbal confirmation that it's okay to tap their clothed shoulder"

or

"When you go in to hug someone, always telegraph it way in advance and be sure to shift to a handshake if their body language doesn't seem to enthusiastically mirror yours"

or somewhere in between? If in between, where?

Because I totally agree with you that there are people who are too touchy, and who don't respect other's boundaries. But there are types of touching that I would assume are acceptable unless given evidence to the contrary (not just verbal, but also just if I noticed they avoided touching others, or reacted poorly when touched). It's a pretty small range--mostly taps on shoulders--but it exists. Claiming there's NO touching, not even shoulder taps, does seem extreme.
  #507  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:45 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I have worked in offices for 35 years, and have never seen anyone place their hand on the wrist of a colleague. That sentence does NOT describe a tap for me, if he had tapped her on the wrist or shoulder I would expect the word 'tap' to be in there. 'Placed' implies to me that he put his hand on her wrist and left it there, and I think it's really telling that the 'I want to touch people who don't want to be touched' crowd keep trying to change it to taps. I also think it's interesting that you even state that you'd find the action that I picture when I here 'placed his hand on her wrist' would be odd and out of place. (Also, the taps I've seen in meetings average out to maybe one per decade, touching other people just isn't necessary for running a meeting.
From spifflog, post #30
Quote:
A man next to her lightly touched her wrist and said "we are way overtime here, lets wrap this up and we'll start the next meeting with this." He was in contact with her for perhaps half a second.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=874940

Iíve been in a meeting where something similar happened, although as I recall, it was an elbow rather than a wrist that was touched. Iíve also been in a few meetings where a speaker was nudged because their screensaver came on and they had to move the mouse to bring the presentation back up. Years ago, I was in a meeting where a man had prepared a presentation but forgot to check if it was compatible with the Powerpoint version of the meeting room computer. It wasnít, he got flustered, and his project manager went up and put his hand on the presenterís shoulder and huddled with him for about 20 seconds before announcing they were moving the presentation to the end of the meeting so the man could re-save the presentation. Iíve also been in meetings where I was tapped on the arm so somebody could pass me something, or ask to borrow my pen. And shockingly, Iíve been touched on the hand, which was resting on the table, in the same circumstance because that was the part of my body that was most convenient for the person next to me to touch so they could get my attention. And Iíve seen several other people doing the same thing, both men and women. All of these physical contacts happen infrequently, but I wouldnít say they were rare. And thatís just discussing interactions in meetings. If people are working together at a single workstation, or in close proximity in an open-plan office, Iíd expect, and have observed, similar physical contact to occur with more frequency.

I believe thorny locust and others will say that these touches are unnecessary and alternatives are available. Thatís obviously true. The point of the debate is a) whether such touching is inappropriate, and b) if there should be general workplace policies against that type of casual touching. Regarding a), my position is that when someone touches someone else to get their attention, itís because that was the easiest or least disruptive way of getting their attention. And absent knowing that the person being touched is touch-adverse, that contact is appropriate in an office environment. Regarding b), I donít think society should be creating workplace environments where everybody is touch-adverse because some people are touch adverse. I donít go around hugging my co-workers. A few weeks ago, I co-worker Iím friendly with but not close to came in with a ďBaby On BoardĒ badge on her coat. (Women wear these so they can get a seat on public transport.) I smiled and said congratulations. However, several of the women in the office chose to hug the pregnant woman. The pregnant woman was hugging back, and as far as I could tell, enjoying the attention. I donít want to work at a workplace that forbids or discourages that sort of friendly physical contact. Should people be protected if some bad actor is crossing boundaries? Definitely. But having no physical contact as the default policy? I think thatís an unfriendly policy and disagree with it.
  #508  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:53 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
...I believe thorny locust and others will say that these touches are unnecessary and alternatives are available. Thatís obviously true. The point of the debate is a) whether such touching is inappropriate, and b) if there should be general workplace policies against that type of casual touching. Regarding a), my position is that when someone touches someone else to get their attention, itís because that was the easiest or least disruptive way of getting their attention. And absent knowing that the person being touched is touch-adverse, that contact is appropriate in an office environment. Regarding b), I donít think society should be creating workplace environments where everybody is touch-adverse because some people are touch adverse. ...
Thank you for expressing a view I share extremely reasonably. Others obviously disagree, and I doubt the gap will ever be bridged. Fortunately, I've been able to get through 30+ years of professional life without ever encountering this. Imagine this would be more of a problem for people who were extremely touchy, extremely touch averse, or abusive.

I often wonder what it would be like if I had some area in which I was apparently in a small minority - whether I would expect society to adapt to reflect my preference/sensitivity. I dunno.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #509  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:03 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Full disclosure, I just hugged my boss at an after-work function last night.
Throughout this thread, I've been thinking that anybody who is touch-adverse should never engage in after-work socialising with a cross-European workforce. I generally presume that I have no idea what the social rules are, let others take the lead, and just go with the flow. But I've been kissed (on the cheek) by my female boss and colleague's wives who I'd just met, hugged by both men and women, and had total strangers put their hand on my shoulder while in conversation. And I work mainly with accountants and IT people.
  #510  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:18 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Throughout this thread, I've been thinking that anybody who is touch-adverse should never engage in after-work socialising with a cross-European workforce. I generally presume that I have no idea what the social rules are, let others take the lead, and just go with the flow. But I've been kissed (on the cheek) by my female boss and colleague's wives who I'd just met, hugged by both men and women, and had total strangers put their hand on my shoulder while in conversation. And I work mainly with accountants and IT people.
After-work socializing is a whole different ballgame, which a whole different set of rules.
  #511  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:38 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
I started out this debate as someone for whom touch is as much a part of me as breathing, but that maybe the polite thing to do was to refrain from touching out of an abundance of caution. But, I have to say that your (SmartAleq and others like you) insistance that I not touch anyone ever has convinced to join the other side.
Coming back to this one: do you seriously mean that because someone yelled at you on a messageboard you're going to consider yourself entitled to annoy other people entirely who don't even know that the yelling happened?

And, while it's possible that SmartAleq meant 'don't touch anyone ever', nobody else in this thread has said that.
  #512  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:55 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Does that mean:

"Don't tap someone on the clothed shoulder unless you've previously gotten explicit verbal confirmation that it's okay to tap their clothed shoulder"

or

"When you go in to hug someone, always telegraph it way in advance and be sure to shift to a handshake if their body language doesn't seem to enthusiastically mirror yours"

or somewhere in between? If in between, where?
As I think I posted somewhere in this thread when I was drunk one night, in REAL life, I don't actually care. The few times where touching became annoying (like the guy who liked to playfully punch people and grab them in bear hugs), I just told the guy to quit. Of course, I was in the military, so my words probably meant more.

But, I don't know how other people react to such stuff, so the EASIEST course of action for ME, is to NOT touch, since it involves less thinking and less physical action. I say "Excuse me" in a progressively louder voice if I need to get someones attention. Or I say "Do you mind?" when about to touch them to brush bird poop off their coat. I'm not a hugger, so I would never try to hug someone at work. My boss started the hug yesterday, so I just hugged her. As I said, it's cool with me. I don't really care.

But on this message board, and this thread in particular, it's interesting to discuss the edge cases of such a policy and see what others think on the topic and what they experience in their work place. For me personally, I'd rather work in a place where the rule was "Don't touch until you know they are cool with it" than a place where "hugging was the norm". Because in a place where hugging was the norm, I'm sure I'd get sick of doing it, and tell people to not hug me, and be thought of as a weirdo for not liking hugs (again, see that Seinfeld episode).
  #513  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:56 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,100
I don't mean "never touch anyone ever" I said that in a workplace context it is absolutely inappropriate to initiate physical contact without affirmative permission. I said that if the touch was brief and innocuous there might be no repercussions but that there will always be a risk and a prudent person would refrain from touching in the workplace unless they were absolutely sure they had the other person's consent and even then there's the chance that you will be wrong about that and reap the consequences.

I'm not a very touchy feely person in general and I'm self employed so it seldom comes up, but I do have people who come in to help with big projects on the regular. I'm very lucky because two of my oldest and best friends have flexible schedules and are almost always available to help. Since I've been close to the both of them for over 20 years we're all very comfortable with hugs and working in close and neck rubs and the like--but the other two are both touchy people and they get downright snuggly with each other, which is not a level of physicality I'm comfortable with but they're just fine and it's not my place to decide for them what their comfort level is. They respect my boundaries just fine though and I appreciate that.

When I worked in a call center with several hundred other people, though, I did not have a close personal relationship with my coworkers and there were some I actively disliked. I'm a professional, I can be polite to anyone within reason but if one of the ones I didn't like decided to lay hands on me I'd have been profoundly uncomfortable with it and if my PTSD was exceptionally active someone coming up behind me and touching my shoulder might very well have gotten a reflexive elbow slam. Those reflexes are hard for me to control when I'm in the middle of a panic attack and I don't want to end up in HR for breaking some idiot's nose because they simply HAD to put a hand on me.

So my point is that YOU DON'T KNOW what's going on in a coworker's head or in their life and it's very possible to unknowingly set someone off badly with what YOU think is an innocuous touch. There have been days when I was at work with my clothes hiding multiple bruises and contusions from intimate partner violence and a touch from any person would not be welcome at all but a touch from a man would be quite likely to set off a very violent shitstorm.

Hence my policy of keeping my hands to myself and expecting others to do the same. Inadvertent touches, like in a crowded elevator or if someone trips and falls into you are not the same thing as intentional touches and any sane person knows which is which. With that being said, are you absolutely sure everyone in your workplace IS actually sane at all times? Do you really want to risk your livelihood by insisting on your right to touch people at your own whim? Well, have at it then, but don't expect any sympathy if it goes badly for you.
  #514  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:14 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
my position is that when someone touches someone else to get their attention, itís because that was the easiest or least disruptive way of getting their attention.
If you don't know whether the person being touched minds, then you don't know how disruptive the touch is. And you don't know how easy it is for the person who was touched.

If you do know that the person being touched doesn't mind, then go ahead. But assuming it is not a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
several of the women in the office chose to hug the pregnant woman. The pregnant woman was hugging back, and as far as I could tell, enjoying the attention. I donít want to work at a workplace that forbids or discourages that sort of friendly physical contact.
If the hugs were offered in such a fashion as to allow easily stepping back from them, or if the specific women who did the hugging were generally on friendly hugging terms in other situations, I don't see any problem. But I doubt they did the hugging in the middle of a meeting; what you're describing is essentially a social situation which occured in a workplace*. And I would certainly hope that nobody suddenly hugged her, giving her no chance to avoid it: which touching somebody in order to get their attention must by its nature do, as if the person sees the touch coming, you've already got their attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
But having no physical contact as the default policy? I think thatís an unfriendly policy and disagree with it.
Having no physical contact as the default policy doesn't mean 'no physical contact'. It means 'no physical contact is the default; but, if it's necessary for the job or for safety, or if you're sure that it's welcome, then it's OK.'


-- *it occurs to me that part of what's going on here, though not all of it, is that some people seem to think of the workplace as essentially a social space, in which everyone's ideally close friends with each other and behave towards each other as if they were in a social context. I think this also goes on with workplaces giving social parties which everyone's expected to show up at and which everyone's supposed to think is a treat. But people choose their friends; and, once adults, can choose who among their family they want to hang out with (and can sort out with these people what sorts of touch are welcome.) And most people don't get to choose their co-workers; and may well wind up working with people they have no desire to have a social-hours or social-type relationship with. That doesn't automatically mean that they hate them, or don't want or intend to be civil on the job; but they may have few or no interests in common outside the job, and/or some of the interests they have may be contradictory (drastically different political or religious beliefs, for instance), and/or they may have the time and energy available for social relationships already filled up with people they chose to be friends with. Genuine friendships can start in the workplace, or continue there when started elsewhere. But it's optional: your co-workers don't have to be friends with you; and some people just want to get the job done.

-- SmartAleq, I thought most likely you didn't mean 'don't ever touch anybody', but decided not to get into that level of detail in the particular post. Apologies if you think I misrepresented you.
  #515  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:58 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
No, it doesn't. If the workplace policy is "default to never touching anybody", you are still free to exercise your individual "interpersonal responsibility" by specifically asking a co-worker for permission to touch them in circumstances where you think it's warranted.
...

AFAICT, what it boils down to in most cases is that the pro-touch people don't want to run the risk of seeming "weird" by asking to touch someone, but they don't really notice or care that the anti-touch people have to run the risk of seeming "weird" by asking not to be touched.
Because tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention is not something you ponder. It's just a normal thing everyone does.

Sure, now stuff like hugging- you have to ask first , even if not in so many words.
  #516  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:00 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention is not something you ponder. It's just a normal thing everyone does.

Sure, now stuff like hugging- you have to ask first , even if not in so many words.
Well, not everyone does it, but it's certainly in a different category from hugging.
  #517  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:31 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
-- *it occurs to me that part of what's going on here, though not all of it, is that some people seem to think of the workplace as essentially a social space, in which everyone's ideally close friends with each other and behave towards each other as if they were in a social context.
I wonder if some workplaces by their nature lend themselves more to social interactions. An accounting firm might be less like that than an elementary school.

A major part of my job--in addition to teaching equivalent fractions and the punctuation of dialog and the difference between culture and population and how to use a telescope and how to write a persuasive letter--is to provide social and emotional guidance and support to my students. It's emotionally very draining. I get yelled at, screamed at, on a nearly daily basis, as do some co-workers: our student population includes a fair number of students with serious emotional disorders, as well as kids who live in near-constant crisis.

A co-worker came to my room yesterday to ask a question about a student's note that she'd found. Her question was about some disturbing pictures on the note, and what she should do; she's a first-year teacher and doesn't always have a great sense of what's within the realm of normal kid behavior, and what needs help. (She has the great sense to check in with other people about it, which is what good experienced teachers do as well).

Another aspect of the note was that the student mentioned hating the teacher. The teacher laughed wryly about it, but it was one of those I'm-exhausted-and-making-an-exaggerated-distress-face wry laughs that generally mean you're covering up being upset. Does that make sense? She's not used to people talking about hating her, and that shit sucks, especially if you haven't developed a thick skin about it.

When she mentioned that it was her first time having a student say they hated her, when she made that face, it seemed to go from "give me your professional feedback" to "I could use some emotional support." So I put a hand on her arm for like half a second and said something like, "Yeah, it sucks, I'm sorry. But it's not personal."

I dunno--maybe she didn't want to be touched on the arm like that. Or maybe she wanted a hug. It's what, at the moment, seemed to be the best thing I could do for her.

Point being, the emotional stress of some workplaces may result in workers acting as emotional support for one another, in a way that they don't in other workplaces. May partly explain the different experiences folks have.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 05-10-2019 at 02:32 PM.
  #518  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:00 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I wonder if some workplaces by their nature lend themselves more to social interactions. An accounting firm might be less like that than an elementary school.

Point being, the emotional stress of some workplaces may result in workers acting as emotional support for one another, in a way that they don't in other workplaces. May partly explain the different experiences folks have.
And there you have it--some workplaces, like teaching and health care related fields, are staffed by people who tend to be helpful and caring individuals and also be places where touching, both intentional and inadvertent, is more likely to occur and be well tolerated.

Other workplaces, like law firms and financial institutions, are very much NOT staffed by these sorts of people and will very likely have a hands off policy--whether implicit or explicit--and not be the sort of places where people are hugging willy nilly and you get someone's attention by knocking on their office door and waiting to be invited in.

And some places, like call centers, employ hundreds of people from myriad walks of life, educational levels, ages, races, genders and social competency levels and are, as such, the sort of place where it's much easier to step wrong than right so prudence is needed and bright line rules enacted and enforced. Call centers generally do NOT have a homogenous staff and the ways you can go wrong in dealing with others are fairly mind boggling. For instance, have any of you ever had to pull an employee off the floor to explain to them that coming to work dressed in full length latex fetish gear with visible whip marks on their skin and smelling like a zoo exhibit is not acceptable dress or deportment? I have. Do you really want to have a super touchy feely environment where someone like I've described has full rein to sling you into a full body stinky, sweaty, cum covered embrace? Uh huh, didn't think so. Bet you wouldn't want to work a ten hour shift sitting next to that person either.
  #519  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:00 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention is not something you ponder. It's just a normal thing everyone does.
That is obviously not true.

It does appear to be a thing some people normally do. Others never do it. Yet others never do it in business meetings, but might to a friend. I don't know, and don't know how to find out, what percentage of the population comes into which category, either in general or specifically in the context of a business meeting. If you do have a way of knowing what those percentages are, cite please?

-- Left Hand of Dorkness, I think it would have been entirely appropriate, in the context you just gave, to have asked your co-worker if she wanted a hug (presuming that you wanted to give one); and to have done so if desired.

I will however point out that the context you're describing isn't a standard business meeting. But I do agree with you that the type of work being done can affect the general attitude of the workplace.
  #520  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:04 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
For instance, have any of you ever had to pull an employee off the floor to explain to them that coming to work dressed in full length latex fetish gear with visible whip marks on their skin and smelling like a zoo exhibit is not acceptable dress or deportment? I have. Do you really want to have a super touchy feely environment where someone like I've described has full rein to sling you into a full body stinky, sweaty, cum covered embrace? Uh huh, didn't think so.
So, what's it like to work in Congress?

Regards,
Shodan
  #521  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:20 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,100
Excuse me, I have STANDARDS!
  #522  
Old 05-10-2019, 06:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
There's been pages of posters repeating the same points back and forth here. I wonder if we can go through a list and see where the disagreements begin? So for each please opine agree or disagree.

1) Non-sexual non-aggressive touch CAN be an effective, even powerful, tool of communication.

This to me is hard to argue against. It is in this way often used as an adjunct to other communication channels, verbal and non-verbal both.

2) Any communication that is received as conveying a negative or unwanted message will cause displeasure, no matter what the intended message was, no matter if the message was misunderstood or quite correctly understood.

Also hard to disagree with this I'd think. And a powerful tool amplifies the negativity as much as it might enhance anything potentially positive.

3) There are some number of people who receive virtually any touch in a workplace setting as a negative message, at least barring prior explicit consent for said touch.

This also seems pretty self-evident. There will be strong disagreement over how many experience things an intended "excuse me and sorry but ..." gentle touch on the wrist, or a brief hand on an upper arm in good bye, in that manner, but clearly some do. And no debate from most of us that they are entitled to feeling that way and that their feelings should be respected in ways that are reasonable to do.

4) For the typical use of non-sexual non-aggressive communicative touch (typically used as an adjunct to other channels in use) asking permission would obviate any of its potential strength as a tool. "Excuse me but may I touch your wrist so I can gently get your attention without verbally interrupting you?" kind of defeats the intended purpose (if that is the intended purpose).

This seems pretty obvious to me but I suspect some here disagree.

5) The discomfort caused to and negative messages experienced as received by (intended in that way or not) that "some number of people who receive virtually any touch in a workplace setting as a negative message, at least barring prior explicit consent for said touch", prior to them communicating that they want to be not touched at all, is common and/or severe enough that it outweighs and offsets the potential benefits of the use of such touch between others (without prior explicit consent).

I think this is where the sticking point is. What is reasonable? Clearly it is very reasonable to respect their wishes when expressed or even if understood by non-verbal cues without being said. Is a no non-sexual non-aggressive touch without explicit consent rule applied throughout at least most workplaces, as the default, a reasonable thing? Some here think it is and some do not.

And I very few minds are going to be changed I suspect.

Am I right with where the actual disagreement lies?
  #523  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:09 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,964
EDIT: Got two posters confused in my reply.

Last edited by Pantastic; 05-10-2019 at 08:11 PM.
  #524  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:19 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
I don't think I agree with this statement, that touching someone is necessarily aggressive, at least if you do not know someone does not like to be touched.
So you think that touching people who do not want to be touched by you is non-aggressive, at least as long as you avoid putting in any effort to learn if your touch is welcome or not? That as long as you make sure you don't know the person's preference, you just touch away and there's nothing at all aggressive? And (the especially interesting one) even if you go so far as to frame the touch under a threat of 'if you mention this to anyone in HR I will destroy your career' the word 'aggression' still isn't warranted?

I disagree. Putting your hands on someone who doesn't want them there is certainly aggressive, and trying to say that it's non-aggressive if you maintain ignorance of the person's preferences is pretty clearly twisting responsibility around. The forced intimacy that some people try to shove into office environments is most certainly aggressive, and I don't see how one can seriously argue otherwise. And trying to say that it's non-aggressive when it's accompanied by explicit threats to control how someone is allowed to respond really takes the cake!
  #525  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:34 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
There's been pages of posters repeating the same points back and forth here. I wonder if we can go through a list and see where the disagreements begin? So for each please opine agree or disagree.

1) Non-sexual non-aggressive touch CAN be an effective, even powerful, tool of communication.

This to me is hard to argue against. It is in this way often used as an adjunct to other communication channels, verbal and non-verbal both.
No one here is objecting to non-aggressive touch. But people are objecting to labeling unwanted touch on an unwilling person as 'non-aggressive', and especially the contention that as long as one makes sure not to ascertain the other person's preferences, they can assume that any other person is willing, and that therefore their hands on them are not aggressive.

Further, it becomes even sillier to call the touch 'non-aggressive' when viewed in the context of responses in this thread, where people express their extreme contempt for anyone voices an objection to being touched, describe offices where a person would hurt their career by objecting to being touched, and explicity state that they will attempt to get someone fired who objects to being touched.
  #526  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:01 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Yes, I am in error about Spifflog's story in the other thread. When I used his story as a springboard for this discussion, I was also thinking of two other incidents with different wording, and tried to avoid directly referencing the other thread. Since people have been discussing that directly, I really should only refer to his posts from here on. I will note that the post in question includes "I was there and barely remembered it," which I think calls into question his ability to be certain that he saw both all of the touch that occured and that he timed it down to half-second accuracy and remembered that specific timing.

Quote:
I believe thorny locust and others will say that these touches are unnecessary and alternatives are available. Thatís obviously true. The point of the debate is a) whether such touching is inappropriate,
So you are arguing that it's generally appropriate to touch people who don't want to be touched? That's what's most bizarre to me about these discussions, the aggressive insistence by people that *even when they know their touch isn't wanted* that it should be considered appropriate and reasonable.

Quote:
I donít think society should be creating workplace environments where everybody is touch-adverse because some people are touch adverse.
In my experience, environments where people only touch people who want to be touched lead to a lot more friendly touching than environments where the aggressive touching is the norm. Trying to frame a discussion aggressive touch accompanied by direct or indirect pressure to tolerate it as being a dispute between 'touch averse' versus 'friendly touches' misses the point. There are lots of people who are not averse to actually friendly touch but also don't like strangers laying hands on them.

Quote:
I donít go around hugging my co-workers. A few weeks ago, I co-worker Iím friendly with but not close to came in with a ďBaby On BoardĒ badge on her coat. (Women wear these so they can get a seat on public transport.) I smiled and said congratulations. However, several of the women in the office chose to hug the pregnant woman. The pregnant woman was hugging back, and as far as I could tell, enjoying the attention. I donít want to work at a workplace that forbids or discourages that sort of friendly physical contact. Should people be protected if some bad actor is crossing boundaries? Definitely. But having no physical contact as the default policy? I think thatís an unfriendly policy and disagree with it.
I think that's an extremely friendly policy, and what anyone who actually respects boundaries should adopt as their default. Which is more friendly: A) Put your arms out for a hug, and drop them if the other person doesn't move in to it or B) Go up to someone and hug them assuming they're fine with the hug unless they actively vocally object. or for bonus points C) Like B, but also make it clear that you will work to get them fired if they object but don't do so directly to you at the time.
  #527  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:49 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,152
I hugged someone in the workplace today. Well, to be specific, their workplace.

I went to meet with financial advisor and I shared a brief hug with his assistant, a woman about my age. I probably would have paid much attention to the specifics of interaction if not for this thread.

Before we touched, we made eye contact and through body language and other non-verbal cueing, we both agreed that we would welcome a hug. If I didn’t welcome it or she didn’t welcome it, the body language and the interaction would’ve been different and we would’ve said hello, made eye contact and stepped back.

Now I can’t imagine hugging someone at work without being absolutely sure they’d welcome it. This might be based on a combination of factors including but not limited to my assessment of their personality, the way they behaved around me and others and the exact circumstances of the moment ( does one of us need consoling or congratulating ). I might verbally offer a hug or the other person might ask for one. Or it could be a fairly specific but non-verbal exchange ( you smile and hold out your arms a little to offer, and the other person either reciprocates or doesn’t.

I make similar decisions with regards to things like touch and proximity. I’ve been communicating both verbally and non-verbally for a long time now and it’s a highly intuitive process. If I had to describe every single factor that came into play during my interactions with people at work, it would be overwhelming. It would be like trying to describe every muscle movement of a complex dance move.

But I think people with a social sense that also have good intentions can navigate the workplace pretty well. And I think the second is way more important than the first. I believe most of the problems are caused when there is at least one party that is acting with bad intention and they frequently try to throw shade and spread false equivalencies to confuse the issue and excuse their behavior.

And I haven’t heard a lot of tales of real problems in this thread either, mostly just a lot of hypotheticals plus one initial story that frankly, I find suspect. That leads me to believe this is not a huge issue IRL.
  #528  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:51 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
No one here is objecting to non-aggressive touch.
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH. DON'T TOUCH.

See how simple it is? Do. Not. Touch. People. Keep your hands to yourself. Don't touch. Get it? Don't.....touch.... Do Not Touch. Why do you have such a hard time pretending you don't understand this? Do you even see how ridiculously you're pretzeling over this?
  #529  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:53 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,183
Yeah, that response from SmartAleq had me wondering if those American cashiers who apologized so profusely for any accidental touch had received that kind of message as part of their training. One of the biggest divisions in this thread is, as LHoD and I have mentioned, due to local or corporate cultures, but another one is that some people appear to have classifications of "touching" while others treat an accidental brush as equal to a double-handed grab; these two groups might as well be speaking two mutually incomprehensible languages.

Last edited by Nava; 05-11-2019 at 02:55 AM.
  #530  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:11 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So you are arguing that it's generally appropriate to touch people who don't want to be touched? That's what's most bizarre to me about these discussions, the aggressive insistence by people that *even when they know their touch isn't wanted* that it should be considered appropriate and reasonable.
I'm arguing that every touch I described in post #507, as well as several other posts was, to use your terminology, a non-aggressive touch. Absent further information, so was the touch described by spifflog and re-posted by me. I'll further argue that a brief, casual touch on the arm, including the wrist and hand, to get someone's attention or as a form of non-verbal communication is a normal human interaction and appropriate in an office workplace. If someone is signalling, or has signalled in the past that they don't want to be touched, then their wishes should be respected. I've seen women defer from handshakes. They've put their hands together and nodded their heads. Nobody then tried to force them into a handshake. But should the fact that I've seen some women defer from handshakes mean I should not offer a handshake to the next woman (or man-equal treatment?) in the office I'm introduced to? No. Similarly, if I'm queueing behind someone in the office kitchen and they've got earbuds in, I probably will tap them on the arm to let them know the coffee machine's free, rather than speaking loudly or stepping around them , regardless of thorny locust's preferences. It will be a judgement made in the moment, similar to Ann Hedonia's fifth paragraph.

Would you care to describe aggressive touching that you see happening in your office on a regular basis that you think should be sent to HR but isn't because of scoial pressure? I'm sure it happens, but I doubt it's as innocuous as the examples of "appropriate" touching that I and others have been describing.
  #531  
Old 05-11-2019, 09:30 AM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
And there you have it--some workplaces, like teaching and health care related fields, are staffed by people who tend to be helpful and caring individuals and also be places where touching, both intentional and inadvertent, is more likely to occur and be well tolerated.
I doubt you meant it that way; but not wanting to be touched in business contexts or without having given indication that the touch is welcome doesn't mean not being a helpful and caring individual.

I think it's more accurate to say that people who aren't comfortable being touched in the workplace are likely not to choose to work in teaching (especially teaching small children) or healthcare. They might still spend their off hours doing all sorts of helpful things, whether for individuals who they care about or for strangers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I'm arguing that every touch I described in post #507, as well as several other posts was, to use your terminology, a non-aggressive touch. Absent further information, so was the touch described by spifflog and re-posted by me.
The touch described by spifflog was clearly unwanted. We don't need any further information to figure that out.

The discussion about aggressive touch is about whether it's in general aggressive to touch people who don't want to be touched. While I can readily see that someone to whom it's never occured that some people don't want to be touched might not have aggressive intentions, the determination to insist, even having that information, on continuing to touch people without bothering to find out whether they want the touch or not is disturbing. And I do think that insistence, which I see in some but not all posts in this thread, is aggressive.

I don't think it's necessary to ask each time before tapping somebody's shoulder to get attention -- as has been pointed out, the asking would get their attention in itself. But it's possible to say something like, 'I might need to catch your attention during meetings -- what's a good way to do that? You can tap me on the shoulder if you need to'.
  #532  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:35 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I don't think it's necessary to ask each time before tapping somebody's shoulder to get attention -- as has been pointed out, the asking would get their attention in itself. But it's possible to say something like, 'I might need to catch your attention during meetings -- what's a good way to do that? You can tap me on the shoulder if you need to'.
Just curious, have you ever actually asked someone their preferred method for someone to get their attention? Has anyone? I can imagine someone who's touch-adverse giving a heads-up to co-workers as a pre-emptive measure to avoid getting touched. But if someone went up to me and asked your above question; I'd find that odd. I think I'll stick to my own oddities, rather than adopting one you suggest.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 05-11-2019 at 11:36 AM.
  #533  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:43 AM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Just curious, have you ever actually asked someone their preferred method for someone to get their attention? .
No; because it never occurred to me to touch someone for that purpose. Certainly not at a business meeting.
  #534  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:47 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
No; because it never occurred to me to touch someone for that purpose. Certainly not at a business meeting.
So I'm not sure if "say[ing] something like, 'I might need to catch your attention during meetings -- what's a good way to do that? You can tap me on the shoulder if you need to'." is a suggestion or an idea, but either way, it's untested. I'm sure readers evaluating the concept will take that into consideration.
  #535  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:56 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
No one here is objecting to non-aggressive touch. But people are objecting to labeling unwanted touch on an unwilling person as 'non-aggressive', and especially the contention that as long as one makes sure not to ascertain the other person's preferences, they can assume that any other person is willing, and that therefore their hands on them are not aggressive.

Further, it becomes even sillier to call the touch 'non-aggressive' when viewed in the context of responses in this thread, where people express their extreme contempt for anyone voices an objection to being touched, describe offices where a person would hurt their career by objecting to being touched, and explicity state that they will attempt to get someone fired who objects to being touched.
I think I've been reading a different thread!

But be that as it may, let's try to use this for that agree/disagree list ...

I think that most of us would agree that touching someone who you know, or have strong reason to believe, dislikes being touched, even gently on the wrist to shoulder, is a Not Good Thing.

And that expressing extreme contempt for anyone who voices an objection to being touched, let alone trying to get same person fired, is also Bad.

So let's focus on main area of disagreement:

Is it "aggressive" to assume that, barring understanding otherwise (by way of previous understanding, verbal expression previously made, or current non-verbal communication, or whatever), a given co-worker will receive a non-aggressive non-sexual message communicated at least in part by using touch (generally as an adjunct to other verbal and/or non-verbal communication channels) as intended and without a negative, nay perhaps an effective, impact?

Or is it unreasonable to expect that everyone refrain from using such touch (barring previous explicit consent) in their communication in order to avoid touching the person who finds touch that is in general considered culturally appropriate to be objectionable?

We can perhaps make it even more abstract and replace "touch" with X. Is any non-zero number finding X objectionable (not health threatening and explicitly not you), for any X, enough to prohibit all from doing X? Or does it matter how small or how big the number is?
  #536  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:35 PM
Teddie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 47
As a woman I’m totally fine with meeting someone and having a handshake, I believe there has been threads on here where a poster believes a handshake is not acceptable.

If I’m working side by side a work colleague daily and have a long standing relationship with them, a man or woman, then touching can be ok.

A hug if I’m obviously upset, a birthday hug, a congratulatory hug is cool.

A hand on the shoulder to give me “It’s ok” if they can see I’m having shit day at work & struggling is also fine.

It’s just very personal though. You get a feel with people who you can/can’t give that personal touch to.
  #537  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:24 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
touch that is in general considered culturally appropriate
I don't think we're in agreement as to what touch is "considered culturally appropriate".

And that can get really tricky. To take what I hope is a less loaded example, though about what's often a very loaded type of touch:

Back when I was in school*, it was considered entirely appropriate for two girls who were good friends to mess around with each other's hair, putting it in different hairstyles, etc.

It would have been very inappropriate for them to do so in class.

I got informed, in no uncertain terms, that it was not acceptable (in any context) to pat other girls on the head. I quit doing that. I didn't just stop patting the specific girls who objected; I stopped doing it to anybody.

It would have been very odd, and almost certainly not accepted, for boys to do this. Boys who touched girls' hair were presumed to be trying to be annoying. (Or, when we were older, sexual. But I'm talking about the non-sexual version.)

And it was something done between friends. A girl who didn't like another girl wouldn't allow the second to mess with her hair.

(All of that's without getting into the entire issue of white people touching black people's hair; we were just about all white.)

So you tell me: was touching another person's hair considered acceptable in NYState in the 1950's and 1960's? Certainly some people did a great deal of it, with the people who they touched finding it entirely unobjectional, and with the general acceptance of society that they were doing so.

But you had to follow the rules. Some of what's going on in this thread is that we're discussing the rules; which pretty obviously vary quite drastically in the experience of people commenting, and which may be changing -- as nearly everything in society does, over time.





*all this may still be true now, in some places. I don't know.
  #538  
Old 05-11-2019, 04:22 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I don't think we're in agreement as to what touch is "considered culturally appropriate". ...
And I think we are in agreement on this!

FWIW (and again) I touch co-workers rarely myself, even ones I know are touchers and touched by others and that I know well, but do not recoil from the touch of others either. I've really no ... skin in this game, so to speak.

But I observe the touching around me and in the professional circles (both the healthcare providers and the business people) I frequent it is common, and it is easy to identify those people who would NOT respond well to it. Those who touch as part of their communication do not touch those people and never had to be told not to.

There are bad communicators and some of them use touch and use it as badly as they use the spoken and the written word, and other non-verbal cues too. Not sure if those failed communications are more cringe-worthy that the others but maybe.

No question that there is touch that is acceptable between school girls that is not appropriate for women CEO, COO, and CFOs, or VPs dealing with each other, let alone with subordinates. And as touch can amplify a received message, including a message not intended, some caution is prudent.

But yeah, that's a big part of this: some here have personal experiences that a brief touch wrist to shoulder very much IS and a few very much IS NOT culturally appropriate. Of course YMMV in each workplace.

I'm not sure there is good data to bear.
  #539  
Old 05-11-2019, 05:08 PM
Teddie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 47
If a co worker touches you, with some kind of hug, handshake, hand on the shoulder, then surely you know itís OK to reciprocate with said touch when needed/applicable.

If youíre not sure weather a touch is ok then donít touch.

Is this not clear to everyone?

Last edited by Teddie; 05-11-2019 at 05:09 PM.
  #540  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:03 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I went to meet with financial advisor and I shared a brief hug with his assistant, a woman about my age. I probably would have paid much attention to the specifics of interaction if not for this thread.

Before we touched, we made eye contact and through body language and other non-verbal cueing, we both agreed that we would welcome a hug. If I didnít welcome it or she didnít welcome it, the body language and the interaction wouldíve been different and we wouldíve said hello, made eye contact and stepped back.
Ann Hedonia, will you concede that some people (including me) are completely completely clueless about body language and non-verbal cues? Certainly Joe Biden has no clue of anyone not being comfortable with his enthusiasm, nor did George W. Bush when he decided to rub Angela Merkel's neck. (I can't believe Bush couldn't feel her freeze up, but maybe his hands have no clue, either.)

When I was working, I couldn't believe that any employee could possibly uncomfortable with my casual touching. And when a Headhunter was briefing me after an interview, she told me the HR person felt when I put my hands on her desk, she felt I was violating her work space. Overreaction, perhaps, but I want to put it out there.

Quote:
And I havenít heard a lot of tales of real problems in this thread either, mostly just a lot of hypotheticals plus one initial story that frankly, I find suspect. That leads me to believe this is not a huge issue IRL.
I've now listed two incidents that happened to me.

Overreaction on both their parts IMHO, but it exists.
  #541  
Old 05-11-2019, 07:45 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And I think we are in agreement on this!
.
OK. I took you to be assuming in the post I was quoting that there is such a thing as "touch that is in general considered culturally appropriate". Maybe I misunderstood you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
No question that there is touch that is acceptable between school girls that is not appropriate for women CEO, COO, and CFOs, or VPs dealing with each other, let alone with subordinates. .
You missed my point; though that may well be my fault for not making it clear.

What I was trying to say was that even among agemates in the same social circle at the same time, it was nowhere near as simple as either "people can touch each other's hair, it's generally culturally appropriate" or "people shouldn't touch each other's hair." It was really "some people can touch each other's hair in some situations. Nobody should touch somebody else's hair in other situations. Even in situations in which some people can touch other people's hair, not everybody can touch everybody else's hair. And even in situations in which a particular person can touch another particular person's hair, they should only do so in certain ways."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I observe the touching around me and in the professional circles (both the healthcare providers and the business people) I frequent it is common, and it is easy to identify those people who would NOT respond well to it. Those who touch as part of their communication do not touch those people and never had to be told not to.

There are bad communicators and some of them use touch and use it as badly as they use the spoken and the written word, and other non-verbal cues too. .
kunilou's got it, or at least part of it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
will you concede that some people (including me) are completely completely clueless about body language and non-verbal cues? .
I had to learn them from the outside, so to speak. Cues which appeared to come so utterly naturally to most of my schoolmates were utterly invisible to me. (I once asked to be taught. I got a batch of blank unbelieving stares. You weren't supposed to need to be taught, you were just supposed to know.) I had to learn those cues the hard way, bit by bit, over years.

I think that having had to do so, however, means that sometimes (not always, sometimes I'm still clueless), I can see them better than the people who are using them instinctively. And one of the things that I see is that many people who think they are good at this aren't as good as they think; and are missing a lot more clues than they think.

I remember trying, and failing, to explain to Friend A that the fact that Friend B had smiled while telling Friend A something A didn't want to hear didn't mean that B was happy about it; but that B had dreaded telling A this and was afraid of A's reaction (both of which I knew from B). A refused to believe that there's such a thing as a nervous grin. There is, though. Some cats purr when they're scared. Some people smile when they're scared, or when they're nervous.

Do people smile when you touch them? That might mean they're happy about it. But it might not. It's not quite the same smile; but not everybody can tell the difference, especially if they're not looking for it.

Are some people good enough about reading non-verbal cues that they can easily tell whether others -- even others of different cultures, genders, and life history -- are willing to be touched? That's certainly possible. But a whole lot of others aren't.

-- kunilou, I think your link is broken. Doesn't work for me, anyway.
  #542  
Old 05-11-2019, 08:47 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
-- kunilou, I think your link is broken. Doesn't work for me, anyway.
Post #480, a page or so back.
  #543  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:49 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
I just want add to this, I dont even like shaking hands when I greet people. Men or women. I had a coworker constantly wanting to shake hands or give bumps but I told him I didnt like it.
  #544  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:54 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Just curious, have you ever actually asked someone their preferred method for someone to get their attention? Has anyone? I can imagine someone who's touch-adverse giving a heads-up to co-workers as a pre-emptive measure to avoid getting touched. But if someone went up to me and asked your above question; I'd find that odd. I think I'll stick to my own oddities, rather than adopting one you suggest.
I have in fact had conversations with coworkers about "preferred methods to draw someone's attention" but it was in a specific "cultural awareness" context (highly international project). One of the things I had to explain was the difference between different levels of touch: most of my coworkers had the subtlety of a steam-powered ram when it came to touching someone. I'd rather be touched lightly than addressed verbally, but I'd rather be addressed verbally than shaken or grabbed. And FFS, if you address me verbally begin by saying my name because otherwise I have no idea which of the six people sitting at the same table are you addressing and I will assume it is not me until you do say my name.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #545  
Old 05-12-2019, 12:20 PM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention is not something you ponder. It's just a normal thing everyone does.

Sure, now stuff like hugging- you have to ask first , even if not in so many words.
I'm not sure that I've ever done that at work to someone - unless I have a touch relationship with them. Partly because back in the day I was a sexually harassed admin - and I know that some men will use any excuse to stick their grimy hands on a good looking young woman. Generally, I knock on their desk or cube support if I need their attention. The possible exception might be when I was doing physical labor in a data center, I might have tapped someone at that point in time, but generally saying "John! Can you give me a hand?" would be what I remember doing. I'm not a touchy person and with my own history, I assume as a default that people aren't touchy either. Heck, I pull back from touching people to get their attention on a personal level, the first thing I try is their name, or "excuse me...."

I do remember times when people would walk up and put their hand on my shoulder to get my attention - long past my admin days - it was seldom something I was comfortable with and those things stick in my brain as "uncomfortable moments at work."
  #546  
Old 05-12-2019, 02:40 PM
TheMysteryWriter's Avatar
TheMysteryWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 213
I once had someone lean on me during a group meeting. He wasn't a friend or even someone I spoke to on a regular basis. I felt safe and more in control back then, so my social skills were at their highest, and I didn't actually mind. Though I thought it was weird.

If that happened to me now I would prolly quit on the spot and never return. I would be really annoyed with shoulder pats or wrist grabs and I would try very hard to avoid those people who insist on touching everyone. I may or may not say anything depending on how safe I feel, and if the words would come out. But really this is why I don't work anywhere because I'm not sure I could handle navigating that sort of environment anymore. Online only for me now.

The world is a scary place full of aggressive extroverts who always win because they're the majority, although I do my best to not play their games and not give them what they want. But I have pretty severe anxiety disorder and so am not normal. Before sad cut in I wasn't averse to normal touch, and would even touch my friends when I was a kid. But I just can't handle it now.
  #547  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:05 PM
TheMysteryWriter's Avatar
TheMysteryWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 213
Oh wow, I killed the thread! I had threadkiller listed as one of my superpowers on another forum. I wanted to add that I was in a bad mood when I used my powers. I realize my reactions are extreme and inappropriate, although, it also makes me feel better knowing that other more normal people also experience a much more appropriate dislike of being touched, also.
  #548  
Old 05-13-2019, 08:53 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,440
I've been away from the forum for a few days and was afraid to revive the thread, but since TheMysteryWriterhas been flexing their superpowers, I just have a cople of notes:



Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
I don't mean "never touch anyone ever"
I came down kinda hard on SmartAleq so it's nice to hear them say this.

Quote:
. . .they get downright snuggly with each other, which is not a level of physicality I'm comfortable with but they're just fine and it's not my place to decide for them what their comfort level is. They respect my boundaries just fine though and I appreciate that.
And this is why I am vehemently against draconian no touching policies. It takes away a form of communication and intimacy from those who are comfortable with it. But the key here is respect for others wishes.

Quote:
I said that in a workplace context it is absolutely inappropriate to initiate physical contact without affirmative permission. I said that if the touch was brief and innocuous there might be no repercussions but that there will always be a risk and a prudent person would refrain from touching in the workplace unless they were absolutely sure they had the other person's consent and even then there's the chance that you will be wrong about that and reap the consequences.
very well said. but we have to remember that in American society up until very recently, permission for certain kinds of touches (ie: handshakes and attention getting taps) was assumed, and if someone was uncomfortable with these kinds of touches, it was incumbent upon them to let others know. It was an "opt out" type of situation. Maybe it shouldn't have been this way and a change is appropriate. But, there is bound to be some that are slower than others to get on board.

Quote:
So my point is that YOU DON'T KNOW what's going on in a coworker's head or in their life and it's very possible to unknowingly set someone off badly with what YOU think is an innocuous touch. There have been days when I was at work with my clothes hiding multiple bruises and contusions from intimate partner violence and a touch from any person would not be welcome at all but a touch from a man would be quite likely to set off a very violent shitstorm.
To be very honest, I never even considered something like PTSD. I'm Sorry.

mc
  #549  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:57 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadgerDC View Post
I am a hugger regardless of sex and depending on the situation, I usually will offer a hug as congratulations or support. I never just go for a hug but open my arms and wait for a reciprocation. I can proudly say I have converted a lot of non huggers to huggers

Who knew that Joe Biden posted here?
  #550  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:26 PM
TheMysteryWriter's Avatar
TheMysteryWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Who knew that Joe Biden posted here?
Thank you for giving me an excuse to post this Joe Biden SNL skit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKeG1iJNxGs&t=136s
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017