A bit hyperbolically expressed maybe but not too far off from the position being taken that all touch requires explicitly given permission first and that any touch without such explicitly given consent first is minimally a step towards assault. That’s absurd.
Let’s start off a bit farther back maybe. We live in society that is perhaps even increasingly multiculturally diverse. Some cultures, some subcultures, have varying conceptions of what is assumed as acceptable touch and what touch should be understood as not wanted without explicit permission. For example there is fairly little casual touch traditionally in Germany, England, or Japan, but quite a bit in various parts of Africa, parts of Latin America, China, Italy, and France. Subculturally casual touch is a big off limits between the sexes among Orthodox Jews and many observant Muslims, but among many secularized Jews in Israel casual touch is very common. So on.
Circumstances certainly occur in which one person is touching in a manner that is very standard within their subculture and it is perceived minimally as overly familiar or as unwanted touch by the other.
Should the subculture with the most restrictive rules regarding touch, be it Orthodox Jews or Muslims or say a hypothetical Aspergerish tech support or Sheldonesque person, set the rules for all? Should a perception of ill intent be assumed to be correct in all circumstances? Trying to be aware and respectful of the rules of others is all well and good - a woman dealing with an Orthodox man who understands their rules should of course be respectful of avoiding contact if possible for example - but applying that standard to everyone because some are touch averse and out of fear that any touch is potentially unwanted and is potentially viewed as harassment? The Orthodox standard would be for a woman at at cash register to put money on the counter to avoid accidental contact and unwanted touch with an Orthodox male. Should that standard apply across the board to all? The touch that occurs when giving change will be unwanted some few, so verboten it is to all? Give a wide berth just to be safe?
Forbidding all touch (or minimally requiring explicit permission before any touch) because some have touched grossly inappropriately and out of fear that any touch could interpreted in a bad way and that such interpretation will automatically be accepted by many as the reality … that might make those at that end of the personal space needs spectrum happy but IMHO making society touch free is not a desired outcome.
Nurses are advised to use touch compassionately and to communicate empathically. It is most often discussed in the context of elder care but is across the board. Skilled nurses commonly utilize touch appropriately without any conscious thought. Is that something that should be disallowed? Should it be okay for a female nurse but disallowed if the nurse is male? Is the male’s touch more at risk of being perceived negatively?
Again, some touch is part of normal communication and requiring explicit permission first for that is not far off from getting permission before talking to someone.
Returning more to the subject of the thread -
No question that blaming a victim is A Bad Thing and that victims need to know that the workplace structure supports their coming forward without fear of retribution or consequence to them, but that badness does not justify assumptions of guilt before one even knows what the individual is accused of. And that is what many here seem to be doing with Keillor: “He’s been accused … of something … by one person with no pattern identified … so he must be guilty, heck he looks like someone who would, never liked the guy.” No, MPR’s lawyers reviewing and advising them that their safest option with someone whose value is now minimal to them, in the current context of Minnesota, is to sever ties, is not enough to assume guilt of something horrific without even knowing the charge. He may be guilty of rape for all I know, but assuming such based on what we so fa know? That is also A Bad Thing.
Maybe I am blind. I’ve reviewed your posts and I do not see that. Seriously, maybe I missed it like when I look for something in my fridge and can’t find it when there it is right there behind the mayo. So help me out. In which post did you do that? Or are you one of those who use “literally” to mean “figuratively”? Because I literally quoted the actual MPR press release in which they explicitly stated that they know of no other similar allegations.
It does seem to be the standard that some here would want. All men, okay you are limiting it to those over 40 and of almost any degree of power or celebrity, generous of you, can be, should be, assumed to be guilty.
And of course when all are guilty then none are. Why be upset over men who walk in naked, demand massages or sexual favors, masturbate in front of women, molest 14 year olds, boast about how they get away with grabbing pussy, when all men (over 40 and with almost any degree of celebrity or power are guilty too?