No one is saying that friends and family can’t hug. This is the claim being made:
“If a child actively resists hugging relatives, one ought to respect that and allow them to substitute a handshake, a fist-bump, or a polite phrase instead.”
What, exactly, in that claim is objectionable? It’s unfathomable to me that anyone would disagree.
You can feel however you need to, it just isn’t the norm for everyone. I hug and kiss people on the cheek all the time and I almost always let the women initiate it. Some of them are friends, some are family members and some are dates that I just met. I just consider it a sign of affection and there is nothing sexual about it.
You live in Minnesota right? The social norms there are different than someone that is from Louisiana or Spain and Italy for example. I think the real problem isn’t hugs. It is molesting people in general but that is very context dependent so it doesn’t make sense to declare it as a universal rule.
There is nothing wrong with that specific claim and I agree with it. However, it is untrue that no one is making a more extreme one. We have people on this board that believe handshakes are rape and hugs are about breasts. There is a whole range of viewpoints on this.
My point was that it is more nuanced than a general rule can cover. I don’t want my boss hugging me but I have hugged some coworkers that I like. I hug my daughters and other family members all the time. I have hugged my male friends but I don’t want some random guy I just met doing that at a bar. Those are just starter examples. I don’t think hugs are inherently sexual in general but it completely depends on the relationship and context.
OK, and if any of those people say “No” or “Stop” or similar, or they move away, the hug ends there.
Expressed preference overrides context. That part isn’t complex. The etiquette surrounding who you generally get to hug and for how long is complex, but general rules can’t override anything else, especially an expressed preference.
Yeah this thread has been a head-shaker for me. The message is so simple yet some here want to make it all about them. “How dare you act like I am a pedophile when I just want a hug”. They just don’t get that it’s not about them, at all. It’s only about teaching children that, while they shouldn’t be rude about it, they are allowed to substitute a hug for a handshake if they feel uncomfortable with the hug.
Somehow that is controversial and offensive to some. 
No it isn’t the norm for everyone, but I should not feel obligated to hug, nor should anyone else. If I want to say “no hugs” that should be respected.
I used to be a theatre person, and I left it in part because theatre people tend to be very huggy - something I wasn’t comfortable with.
I think something that is being overlooked is that there are different types of hugs. I typically hug my friends and family, but it’s the one arm, only for a second hug. No one’s ever said anything to me about it. I will say that I’m more likely to hug a female friend/family member that way to greet them. Although that’s because that’s the only equivalent to the handshake and back pat guys do. If you try to shake your female friend or family member’s hand, in my experience, they’ll usually think it’s weird and/or give you an awkward fish palm.
But, yeah, the message really shouldn’t be that controversial. I think some people vehemently opposing it might just be defensive: they don’t have lecherous intentions when they hug a child and they think that’s what this message is implying. Of course, it’s not but this is an area where people can often be irrational.
Rare??
Shaking hands is perfectly acceptable in the maghreb. The Saudi-Salafi aversion is not Muslim, it is their aversion.
You seriously think that ‘don’t grab people and pull their body into yours unless they’re cool with it’ is “oppressive and overly paranoid”? And it makes you feel like you’re walking on eggshells to pay attention to whether the person you’re trying to hug wants to hug? It’s REALLY easy to move your arms up for a hug, look for body language reciprocating, then stop if it’s not there. It really sounds like you force a lot of unwanted physical contact on people, and are upset that you’ll get called out on it now.
I said nothing even remotely like that so I am not sure where you got that from. What I said was that I get lots of hugs and kisses and I almost always let other people initiate it. I don’t mind being hugged or kissed unless it is an inappropriate situation.
What people aren’t understanding is this is completely cultural and there is nothing sexual about it. I have hugged and kissed my ex-wife’s friends and coworkers on the the cheek many times in full view of everyone because all we are doing is greeting. My daughters snuggle with me on the couch because they want to. It is just general affection and that is a basic human need.
It is fine if someone doesn’t want to do that but it isn’t sexual assault if both people are in agreement. I understand the general argument. Don’t be lecherous but it starts to go off the rails when it is implied that all such actions are equal. They aren’t. My daughters sometimes want me to lay with them in bed and talk. Of course there is nothing more to it than that but the paranoid PC patrol may not not see it that way. The situation would be very different if it was their uncle or someone they didn’t know well. I am their father and it is my job to protect them
Most men are not sexual predators. It is the same thing as claiming that black men are all criminals.
I swear to god people will argue about any damned thing. It seems so bloody obvious to me. The intent is to make sure adults understand that we shouldn’t demand that our daughters hug relatives or other adults because it might make them feel uncomfortable. How can this be so corrupted other than people needing to push their own agenda. I mean really? “But what about the boys?!” What about the boys? How about the BSA take a stand. This is a girls’ organization. “I see girls hugging each other all day”. Duh. By choice. The initial sentiment is SO simple, and so obvious, why are some people trying to turn this in to something it’s not? Are they THAT desperate for something to argue about?
I have spent the past 10 years explaining to people that my daughter doesn’t like to be touched. And it pisses some of them off, especially the elders who want to pinch cheeks and ruffle hair. I guess they think that’s their right and I am deliberately crossing them not letting them play with my kid like a doll, but I have to be firm because I know. I remember what it feels like because I was the same way. And you know what else? Most of the little girls I knew will now say it made them uncomfortable too. But we had to put up with it, right? Because even though Uncle Ken’s hand went a little too low or Auntie Irene smelled like onions and cheese we were expected to tolerate it for family’s sake. It’s time to end this tradition and people need to stop bitching and whining when it comes up, like these young girls (and boys OBVIOUSLY) don’t deserve to have their feelings respected. We do not have to be physical to show our love to our relatives, especially when we don’t want to. What good does it do to put a kid through that misery?
Yikes. No, not at all. Teach kids that their body is theirs, so what they decide to do with their body is their decision (within the obvious limits, natch). Especially that how they use their body to show affection, friendship, love is in their control. It’s not at all suggesting that if they hug their uncle, they’re giving their body to him; that’s an appalling misunderstanding. It’s suggesting that if they choose to hug their uncle, it’s their choice to show affection in this manner with their body, not anyone else’s choice.
What the heck does ANY of that have to do with the subject though? I have read several posts now by you in this thread and none of them have to do with the OP unless you or your former sister-in-law are children. What do the idea that all men are sexual predators have to do with this? The message wasn’t even about men. It was about making sure adults understand that some children don’t want to hug them, and it’s not because the adults might be predators but because the kid might have some issues that the adults don’t yet know.
For instance, my kid is both autistic and a survivor of rape. She does not like to be touched by anyone on the planet but her mama. Not every adult in our lives knows this, and I sure don’t enjoy reminding them every time she flinches from their touch or hides in the car because she knows the goodbyes can be uncomfortable. What would be the harm of just smiling and saying, “I love you and I hope to see you again soon” instead of demanding to be hugged by someone who clearly does not want to hug you?
East Asia is much less touchy feely so it’s not a big issue for us. My expended family wasn’t really a huggy group either so if we were to live in the States, I would not have my children go give Uncle Soandso a hug, just because he’s your uncle. I know that not all adults are predators, but I still don’t like the idea of making children hug someone if they don’t like it. I think that’s a more important notion than the question of hurting people’s feelings. ISTM that girls are given too many messages about not saying “no” to people because you need to be nice. There’s a difference between basic politeness and questions of hugging.
Right there is exactly why there is an argument. You just added the baggage that makes the statement controversial. It’s the very thing that people are afraid of: giving up their traditions and showing affection. Rather than stick with the message of “if the kid is uncomfortable, it’s okay to decline,” you’ve just argued that the entire concept of hugging family members is wrong and that people should stop doing it.
Let’s be clear here. Touch is an inherent part of humanity. There is a hormonal reaction that happens with touch. If a baby does not get ample physical contact, they grow up with psychological deficits. Not holding your baby is considered a form of neglect and abuse. It is perfectly understandable that this is a way people show affection.
Your kid doesn’t like to be touched. Fine. She doesn’t have to be. That is exactly what the Girl Scouts are saying. She has autonomy. But that doesn’t give you the right to tell other families to stop hugging.
It is a simple message. But you are adding the same baggage that Absolute is adding, which only makes it less palatable.
Oh, and Shagnasty’s post is relevant because you just got through telling him that what his family did was wrong and that he should stop.
I think she means the tradition of nagging/pushing young kids to “come give me some sugar” and the “oh, come here. Don’t be shy. Mama, make that boy give me some love!”, not the whole idea of hugging.
Exactly. The title of this thread directly attacks any person who wants a hug from a kid, calling them entitled. That’s not reading anything into it.
(The actual title from the Girl Scouts themselves is a lot better. “Reminder: She Doesn’t Owe Anyone a Hug. Not Even at the Holidays.” It’s directed towards the parent, phrased as a reminder, not a command, and
avoids using “entitled” [even if “owe” isn’t the best, either. “She doesn’t have to hug everyone” would be better.])
You guys ask why people are reading into this. Some of us are trying to answer that question. The statement is one that comes with a lot of baggage, and the best statement should try to avoid that baggage.
You guys paraphrase the message, and then ask why people have a problem with it. But they don’t have a problem with the paraphrase. They have a problem with the original.
And now that I’ve seen the actual Girl Scout Post, I will pick it apart a bit. It does actually seem to be saying “Don’t tell your kids to hug their relatives.”
That is adding baggage that is completely unnecessary. The good message is that the kid has the right to decline if they are uncomfortable. That is definitely something the kid needs to be taught.
But this is saying you shouldn’t teach your kids in the first place that showing affection in these ways is appropriate. And, yes, I do see why people would object to that.
I like the paraphrased messages you all keep saying. I agree with them. But they don’t seem to 100% align with what the Girl Scouts are saying. I do get those who interpret it as saying their traditions are wrong.
The only reason I ever started hugging my grandpa was because I was told to. It would not have occurred to me otherwise. And I am very glad I was told to, because hugging him is something I so fondly remember. I never at any point felt forced to do it.
So… is there a basis for saying forced hugs is a type of harassment that men are subjected to, and should stop?
Note I say forced - consent by both parties makes hugs OK.
And it’s not on the same level as demanding sexual favors for a job, but if women can object to someone touching their ass without permission then certainly men can object to unwanted touching, including hugs. And it would be just as wrong to tell a man who doesn’t want a hug to “get over it” as to tell a woman who doesn’t want her ass touched to “get over it”.
If men have to learn that what they might not think is a big deal IS a big deal to women (or a large subset) then women need to learn that what they think is no big deal IS a big deal to men (or a large subset of them).
It may be new to YOU, but it is quite old in some cultures.
My father’s family is Orthodox Jew, and for centuries touching has been very, very restrained between family members. That doesn’t mean there is no love there, or caring, or kindness. Very young children get touching and physical contact, but adults do not except in very private circumstances. It’s not oppressive, and it’s not paranoid. It’s not wrong, it’s just different.