Excuse me, I have STANDARDS! 
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
EDIT: Got two posters confused in my reply.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Really?
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If a co worker touches you, with some kind of hug, handshake, hand on the shoulder, then surely you know it’s OK to reciprocate with said touch when needed/applicable.
If you’re not sure weather a touch is ok then don’t touch.
Is this not clear to everyone?
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.
I’ve now listed[two incidents](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?
p=21634220&postcount=480) that happened to me.
Overreaction on both their parts IMHO, but it exists.