I see. And touching me without my consent is NOT illegal?
I suspect now the answer will be “I don’t mean any of THOSE types of touching. I mean other touching, that’s not on that list, that normal people don’t object to”
I’m pretty confident that any argument that uses these silly lists in any way at all is both absurd and invalid.
"Touching too much or in unwanted ways. “Touchy-feely types” who poke, hug, tickle or grab their fellow employees or who reach out and touch or pat pregnant bellies commonly drive co-workers crazy, says Miller. Remember your co-workers aren’t necessarily your friends and even those who are may not enjoy being touched.
And indeed you are correct in that tapping someone on the shoulder or arm to get their attention is not what they are talking about.
But yeah, congrats, out of three lists you found one that includes some sorts of annoying touching!
No, it is not illegal.
Called it! 
Wow, my Metro ride home is going to be a lot more fun tonight then. Touching for everyone!
I find myself wondering how much this depends on whether people press charges.
‘But nobody would ever press charges over merely being mildly groped at the office - they’d fear office-politics reprisals!’
Exactly! Touching for everyone!
Who gets to decide what’s too much or unwanted? You? Me? Thorny locust? Ultravires? Surely not HR- after all, they aren’t my friend.
It seems reasonable to default to not touching people you don’t know well, and no matter what, my coworkers don’t know me"well," as a general rule.
No it doesn’t:
No poking, god no. No hugging unless you’re really good friends. Tickling, are you freakin’ kidding me? Grabbing? Barely within the realm of the thread. Patting pregnant bellies? For fuck’s sake!
What doesn’t appear on the list is tapping someone on the shoulder, as just happened to me five minutes ago when I was talking to a student about her writing and another student was getting ready to close a door on me and another teacher wanted me to move without interrupting the kid who was showing me her writing.
I don’t particularly object to being tapped, but I’m aware that others may. So I don’t generally touch people I don’t know well. I don’t lightly touch their wrist, I don’t grab their arm, or punch them in the arm or poke them.
In some workplaces it’s quite normal, but I would say in many office environments there are other options that don’t invade personal space.
This is something interesting to me. “Invading personal space” to me is related to, but not the same thing as, touching. If someone leans in close to whisper something to me, my personal space feels more invaded than if someone reaches out to tap me on the shoulder.
Could you perhaps understand how other people, who are not you, might consider those two things similar?
Edited to add: This conversation has taken a weird turn. I feel like you are me, and I am you, in other topics where people do things differently than I do. You even say “This is something interesting to me” which is something I say in other topics where people do things differently than me. Hmmmm…
This seems to have morphed from the original light touch on the wrist (over or underside, I wonder? One definitely feels more intimate to me than the other) to tapping somewhat impersonally on the shoulder (which is usually clothed, as opposed to a waist).
One seems more invasive to me, and leaning over to whisper more invasive yet. It’s all about where different people draw the boundary I suppose.
DrDeth is right.
There is a lot of equivocation here in this thread. Just because a tap on the shoulder or a touching of an arm or a wrist to get attention is legal doesn’t mean you can “grope” someone. That is a complete strawman. Not all touching is the same.
Common law battery expressly excludes those types of touching that a reasonable person would not find harmful or offensive. The law does not require a contactless society or affirmative consent before a handshake or a touch of the wrist.
The law does not require that woman in the original story to speak to the man who touched her before going to HR. But she was chastised just the same.
But that’s cool. I’ll just lightly tap everyone on the shoulder and when they look at me, I’ll say “A guy on the Internet said this is legal, so there!”
As opposed to a wrist, damnit.
In some places touching someone who has made it clear they do not want to be touched, especially a younger person or someone of another sex, is a crime. It can also result in some nasty physical responses (an elbow to the eye, a knee to the groin) that are not illegal as forms of self-defense. I’ve taught several men this the hard way.
If you want to create a “no invading personal space in the workplace” initiative, I’ll support you. No touching and no leaning in close to whisper–sounds great to me! If you want to get my attention, say “Excuse me”. If you are worried about making noise, get my attention in a visual manner. Paradise!
Oh good, here you are again! Could you explain to us how you know that she had never had a private peer-to-peer discussion before taking it to HR?
This is my third request; and at least one other person has asked also.
And while we’re at it, if she went straight to HR, how did this become a topic for discussion among everyone who’d been at the meeting?
(Other people have also explained, repeatedly, why someone might go straight to HR. I’m not going to get into that now.)
No. People are not arguing that tapping people to get their attention in a business meeting is bad because allowing that will lead to allowing sexual harassment. That would indeed be a slippery slope argument.
People are arguing that tapping people, or otherwise putting one’s hands on them, in most (but not all) workplace contexts should not be the default assumption for normal behavior because it is, in itself, annoying and distracting and sometimes further degrees of upsetting for a significant number of entirely normal humans. Arguing that something is bad in itself is not a slippery slope argument.
Might depend on your definition of “met”, I suppose. You’ve certainly met quite a few such in this thread.
I’ve never met anybody who made a habit of doing so in business meetings – until I read this thread.
Who, precisely, have claimed here that a desire to not be touched in that fashion is nigh universal? Cites please?
Seems to me that what we’re dealing with is a few people who are claiming that a willingness to be touched in that fashion is nigh universal. And it also seems to me pretty clear that that’s not true.
I’m not going to argue about the technical definition of “mental disorder”. You told me, quite possibly based on a drastic misinterpretation of one or more of my posts, that I have a phobia.
It’s entirely normal human behavior not to want to be poked by people at a business meeting; or in most other situations. It is apparently also entirely normal human behavior to be willing to be poked in an extremely wide range of circumstances. Humans vary. This is also normal.
Having refreshed the thread: Maybe I should throw in here that I don’t really see a useful difference in this context between “tapping” somebody and “poking” somebody. You’re abruptly touching somebody, probably with your fingertip(s.) Aggressively jabbing at somebody with one finger is different, yes, and can also be described as “poking”; but I don’t think that’s the only sort of action covered by the word. Some of the definitions I just looked up include “tap” as a synonym for “poke”.
And I, also, would find whispering less invasive than tapping/poking; at least, unless the person’s whispering so quietly that they feel the need to put their mouth up so close that it’s touching my ear. That would certainly be more invasive, as would cupping hands around the ear so that they touch the head – but that’s because either of those would cause physical contact.
Why whisper, though? What’s wrong with just speaking in a low voice?