what touching is appropriate?

[Pantastic]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

It has nothing to do with the scenario I described. If you mistakenly believe it does, you need to reread the scenario.

It most certainly does have to do with the scenario you described; you described someone giving a playful punch, and the example is of a playful punch. A scenario with a playful punch and a scenario with a playful punch that has unexpected complications are clearly related. I don’t know whether you’re being willfully obtuse or not, because I really can’t see how someone who understands basic English could fail to see how playful punching and playful punching are related to each other.

As I said earlier, either you’re deliberately misrepresenting the actual situation for your own rhetorical benefit, or you’re recklessly disregarding it; either way, it’s not worth the effort to repeat myself. Your “brittle bone” nonsense is irrelevant.

The actual situation is that you claimed that it was unreasonable for HR to be able to issue a warning for behavior that is criminal in many areas, that exposes you personally to significant civil liability, even though that the workplace would only only be liable for if they followed your idea and treated playful punching as something that HR could never take action on.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Pantastic

It most certainly does have to do with the scenario you described; you described someone giving a playful punch, and the example is of a playful punch.

One more chance to read:

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Yesterday, my co-worker laughed and bumped my arm with her fist in response to a story.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Yesterday, I was commiserating with a co-worker about events of the day. I told a wry anecdote, and she laughed and punched my arm–more of a light fist-bump against my arm, not really a punch.

[Pantastic]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

One more chance to read:

Not sure why you’re quoting material that backs my description of the act in your example as a “playful punch”. You even called it a punch yourself!

[k9bfriender]

@Pantastic

The fact that criminal codes show that the behavior is not considered harmless by the legal system is relevant. Pointing out a legal fact is not, however, the same thing as saying that I “feel that LHOD’s assaulter should have been fired and brought up on charges then” to use your words. I don’t know why some people in this thread post as though there is zero middle ground between ‘completely OK, HR can’t warn you about that behavior’ and ‘fired and brough up on charges’, it just doesn’t match reality.

Read your own posts. It is you that is insisting that there is no grey area. That the unwanted touch is “behavior that is criminal in many areas” is your words.

LHOD is explaining the middle area to you, and you are refusing to acknowledge it, and instead explain that it is criminal behavior that is going on.

How about this for a middle area? “Haha, you hit me in the arm, now I hit you back!” Punch

Or this, “Hey, I liked your story, but could you not hit me in the arm?”

Or even, “Ow!!! I bruise easily, please don’t do that.”

Maybe, “Please don’t do that, or I will report you to HR.”

There is a near infinite amount of “middle ground”, but it is you that is ignoring it, not LHOD.

@Pantastic

behavior that is criminal in many areas, that exposes you personally to significant civil liability, even though that the workplace would only only be liable for if they followed your idea and treated playful punching as something that HR could never take action on.

Then you make your own “no middle ground” statement of “if the followed your idea and treated playful punching as something that HR could never take action on.” which is something that you just made up.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Pantastic

Not sure why you’re quoting material that backs my description of the act in your example as a “playful punch”. You even called it a punch yourself!

Oh for Chrissakes. Did you read to the end of that sentence?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@k9bfriender

How about this for a middle area? “Haha, you hit me in the arm, now I hit you back!” Punch

Or this, “Hey, I liked your story, but could you not hit me in the arm?”

Or even, “Ow!!! I bruise easily, please don’t do that.”

It’s not even that. As I said, it was “not really a punch”. It was only a punch inasmuch as it involved a fist touching my arm. Have you ever had a house cat nudge you with its head? Yer average cat head-nudge involved more force than that fist against my arm. For my bones to be brittle enough to be damaged by this contact, I’d be unable to open doors, as the pressure of my fingers against the knob would snap them.

[Slash1972]

@k9bfriender

There is a near infinite amount of “middle ground”, but it is you that is ignoring it, not LHOD

It’s funny how all of your middle ground suggestions involve the person getting touched actively doing something.

None of them seem to be “Hmmm, I’m not sure if that person will like me touching them, therefore I’m not going to lightly bump their arm with my fist”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Slash1972

It’s funny how all of your middle ground suggestions involve the person getting touched actively doing something.

None of them seem to be “Hmmm, I’m not sure if that person will like me touching them, therefore I’m not going to lightly bump their arm with my fist”

That’s not the middle ground.

[Pantastic]

@k9bfriender

How about this for a middle area? “Haha, you hit me in the arm, now I hit you back!” PunchOr this, “Hey, I liked your story, but could you not hit me in the arm?” Or even, “Ow!!! I bruise easily, please don’t do that.”

I have no idea what you’re saying or what on earth gave you the idea that such things don’t exist? Or that someone can’t do them? Or whatever it even is that you’re trying to argue. Seriously, the statements you made don’t form a sensible enough whole that I can even determine what you’re trying to say, and it certainly doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I posted. My best guess is that you’re confused and think ‘could go to HR and have them take action’ means something like ‘could only go to HR, that’s the only possible option ever’, but I feel like it’s pretty insulting to suggest that your argument is that awful.

Maybe, “Please don’t do that, or I will report you to HR.”

Side question, what would be the point of that if, like LHOD argues, HR shouldn’t actually do anything about it, especially not say “knock it off or you’ll get in trouble” (as that would be a warning, which would make the offense ‘warnable’)?

Then you make your own “no middle ground” statement of “if the followed your idea and treated playful punching as something that HR could never take action on.” which is something that you just made up.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

A light tap on the arm that doesn’t hurt? No way should that be a warnable offense.

No, LHOD asserted that there is no way that punching someone lightly should be a ‘warnable’ offense. I took the term ‘warnable’ in this context to mean ‘an offense that HR could issue a formal warning about’, and included the logical followup that if something should not be a ‘warnable’ offense it also shouldn’t be a ‘issue more severe punishment without any warning’ offense. If warnable means something else LHOD then LHOD should probably clarify that, but I can’t really think of any other meaning it could have in this context.

[Slash1972]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s not the middle ground.

Yes it is.

[Pantastic]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Oh for Chrissakes. Did you read to the end of that sentence?

Are you seriously arguing that it’s so wildly inaccurate to use the term ‘punch’ to refer to ‘hitting someone with a closed fist’ that you felt the need to throw a giant hissy fit over it? Hitting someone with a closed fist, however lightly, is punching them, plain and simple. Acting like I’m wildly misinterpreting your post for calling hitting someone with a closed fist ‘punching’ them makes no sense at all.

[MandaJo]

@Pantastic

Are you seriously arguing that it’s so wildly inaccurate to use the term ‘punch’ to refer to ‘hitting someone with a closed fist’ that you felt the need to throw a giant hissy fit over it? Hitting someone with a closed fist, however lightly, is punching them, plain and simple. Acting like I’m wildly misinterpreting your post for calling hitting someone with a closed fist ‘punching’ them makes no sense at all.

No, it’s not. Two people “fist bumping” each other are not engaged in fisticuffs. There is a type of 'fist bump" that carries none of the violent connotations of “punch”.

[Slash1972]

I think this thread is about over since now “Hitting someone in the arm with your fist” is somehow not a punch.

Plus the fact that some people believe that I need to actively tell people not to touch me in the workplace, instead of it just being understood.

Ridiculous.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Pantastic

Are you seriously arguing that it’s so wildly inaccurate to use the term ‘punch’ to refer to ‘hitting someone with a closed fist’ that you felt the need to throw a giant hissy fit over it? Hitting someone with a closed fist, however lightly, is punching them, plain and simple. Acting like I’m wildly misinterpreting your post for calling hitting someone with a closed fist ‘punching’ them makes no sense at all.

You’re equivocating. I said it wasn’t really a punch, because a punch implies force. You take this thing that maybe can possibly be described as a punch, then connect it to an article that mentions a playful punch that breaks a collarbone.

If my collarbone were made out of balsa wood, it would not have been broken by the force of that action. Which is why I said it was not really a punch.

Either one of two things are true:

1. This wasn’t really a punch, AS I SAID, or
2. There are some punches that cannot possibly deal damage, no matter what, contrary to your implications.

And of course I never said that no playful punch should result in an HR referral. You made that up.

Edit: “Hissy fit” is another of your exaggerations that makes dialogue with you pointless.

[Urbanredneck]

I think alot of the confusion comes down to at work, women are generally allowed to touch men as much as they want but men rarely can do that in return. For example a female boss can touch a subordinates arm, back, head, but if a male boss does that it is probable grounds for trouble.

I remember for example, back when I was teaching female teachers had no trouble touching students but not male teachers.

[Pantastic]

LOL now calling ‘hitting another person with a closed fist’ a “punch” is so controversial that people want to argue about it. I’m not going to argue that, if you think that hitting someone in the arm with your fist cannot be called a punch, you’re speaking a dialect too far removed from standard English for me to hold a discussion with you.

[Pantastic]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You’re equivocating.

I’m not equivocating, hitting someone in the arm with a closed fist is accurately described as punch.

A light tap on the arm that doesn’t hurt? No way should that be a warnable offense.

And of course I never said that no playful punch should result in an HR referral. You made that up.

You explicitly said that a light tap on the arm that doesn’t hurt should in ‘no way’ be “a warnable offense”.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Pantastic

You explicitly said that a light tap on the arm that doesn’t hurt should in ‘no way’ be “a warnable offense”.

Yes, I did. I did not say that no playful punches should be warnable offenses. More equivocation.

edit: if it’s necessary to clarify, I’m assuming the light tap doesn’t have aggravating factors–e.g., the person who receives it has previously objected to such taps. Change the context, change the answer.

[TriPolar]

@Pantastic

LOL now calling ‘hitting another person with a closed fist’ a “punch” is so controversial that people want to argue about it. I’m not going to argue that, if you think that hitting someone in the arm with your fist cannot be called a punch, you’re speaking a dialect too far removed from standard English for me to hold a discussion with you.

They are speaking standard English. You are not. Contact with the front of a fist is not by definition a punch. Contact with the palm of the hand is not by definition a slap. Some of these words you don’t understand are complex, they require more than one part, such as a punch which requires more than simple contact with a fist, it requires a certain amount of force that can cause physical harm. And irrational fears do not constitute physical harm either. Perhaps you could learn a bit more about the English language before returning to the thread.

[BigT]

Why do I continue touching? The benefits of touching outweighs the benefits of not doing so. Yes, I may encounter someone who doesn’t like it. These people are rare, and that fact is apparent instantly, and I don’t touch them again. I always start small so that the offense is small, and I know how to flinch properly to make it seem like I agree with them.

It’s like most other human interactions. You try something innocuous. In this case, maybe poking them lightly to get their attention. Or lightly brushing up against them in a way that could be accidental. Do they flinch? Do they back out of the way? Do they just ignore it? Heck, do they push themselves up against it or start touching you back?

It’s like how you start up a conversation. You don’t ask someone for permission to talk to them. You talk to them with small talk, and see how receptive they are. Do they give mumbled or extremely short answers? Or do they talk your ear off? Furthermore, as you get to know them better, you put out feelers for whether you can be more personal. If so, great. If not, that’s also fine.

Sure, it would be nice if we could just ask. But that makes you out to be some creepy weirdo, because that’s not how it works. There are specific situations where you can ask, e.g. “Do you need a hug?” when someone is upset. But asking “May I poke you to get your attention?” or “May I put my arm on your shoulder to show compassion?” “May I shake your hand to seal this deal?” That’s just not done.

Touching has all these benefits when it’s consensual. Asking verbally is not an option. So the choices are to ask nonverbally, often with light touches, or to never touch anyone. And that means giving up the benefits.

I’ll also point out that, for every girlfriend I’ve ever had, I’ve been touchy-feely with them, from the start. And they’ve even told me that touching was why I stood out, how it made them feel good. Or they even bragged about it to others. I’m not going to give that up just because there are some people who don’t like touch.

And, yes, a work environment is different. I’m not saying to look for girlfriends at work. But the idea still holds: lots of people really like being touched. I am one of them, and I want to find other people like me so we can enjoy it together. I will do what I can to minimize any discomfort this can cause, but I’m not going to give up on the idea.

Finally, yes, I do know that you can sometimes tell without touching anyone. There is body language that makes it very clear. This language, however, usually is not just about touch. It’s about keeping a bigger area of personal space. Or it’s just about not having a generally “cuddly” disposition. My comments above are about people who otherwise seem amenable to touch. I’m pretty certain I could tell from a distance that, say, ZPG Zealot would not want to be touched in any way.

Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if I could tell she would find offering a handshake offensive. People who get that offended tend to let it be known in little ways. Though, frankly, I assume she tells people who offer, so I’d probably hear about it before I’d encounter her. “Don’t offer to shake hands with that lady. She finds it offensive.”

Sure, whatever. I’m not here to offend.