Good lord, you sound creepy, if only due to the terms you use.
Tapping somebody on the shoulder is innocuous. “Poking” I’ve never seen from anybody who wasn’t deliberately trying to be an annoying asshole. And “lightly brushing up against them in a way that could be accidental” sounds like a starter move for working up to outright groping while maintaining plausible deniability.
Now, I don’t really believe you’re leading off by jabbing your finger into people or slyly sidling up to them on the subway; you probably just get into people’s bubbles a bit and maybe lightly touching them on their extremities in a completely overt and non-sneaky way. You know, the kind of stuff that would allow you to test the size of their bubbles and their aversion to uninvited contact without getting a restraining order put against you. But damn, man, your wording!
Nope, it’s completely accurate to describe a person hitting another person with a closed fist as ‘lightly punching’ them. The fact that people are resorting to weirdly redefining punch so they can argue that ‘hitting someone lightly with a closed fist’ is not ‘lightly punching’ them just highlight’s the intellectual vacuity of their position. If you’re making a weird semantic argument at odds with common usage instead of addressing any real points, that’s a good sign that you don’t have any real points.
Let’s face it, the ‘hitting with a closed fist cannot be described as lightly punching’ discussion distraction from the fact that people arguing that ‘it is completely unreasonable that hitting someone lightly in the arm with a closed fist would be something that is against company policy to the extent that HR can warn someone that they need to knock it off’.
It is not accurate describing a touch with a fist as a punch in any sense. Obviously you can’t distinguish the difference so anything you say on the subject is suspect. Have you every leaned your head against your fist? Maybe you haven’t but plenty of people have, and they weren’t punching themselves in the head. Please stop trying to distort the issue to match your own distorted perception of reality.
So I can go up to women in my workplace and lightly brush my hand on their knee. And only then, once I’ve seen their reaction (flinch, back out of the way, ignore it) must I determine if brushing their knee with my hand was not innocuous?
It seems better to, you know, not brush my hand on people’s knees.
In our culture, and as LHOD notes possibly with some variation within different environments within our culture, there are ranges of context specific and somewhat fluid norms of behavior associated with communication that the vast majority of society members understand. Touch as part of communication is part of that as is every other means of communication. Some have extreme outlier views of those communication norms and there is also enough variation among those who are not extreme outliers that misunderstandings of intent are possible. “Merry Christmas” as a greeting might offend a few militant atheists but it can be safely given as within the norms within our society. Not saying it but preferring “Happy Holidays” also should not be expected to cause offense. But of course there will be a very few who will take umbrage at either choice. Asking permission to find out which before saying one or the other would be crazy. Most normal people accept either greeting in the spirit in which it was intended and respond in the same spirit.
Hugging strangers on the train is outside the usual expected norm. Touching the hand of someone you know as you offer condolences and empathy is within in. Grabbing the arm of police officer at a stop is outside the norm. Gently tugging the arm of a colleague with an open cupped hand as you lean in closer to a them in a crowded room to tell them something a bit confidential or private is within it. “Aw shucks” gentle tap on the upper arm with a fist is within it; even a moderately forceful punch is not.
Giving touch that is typically within those norms to someone who you have reason to believe, from body language or otherwise, does not want it, is outside those norms. Assuming in the absence of such signs that such typically acceptable touch is not unwelcome is within it. It is analogous to saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” to someone who you did not know was evangelically Religious Right at work (assuming you do not work for Steve Bannon).
Some posters here are the touch equivalent of those who would take offense at “Happy Holidays” (or “Merry Christmas” if you prefer the other direction for your analogy). It is polite to either greet these people in their preferred manner or to avoid giving these people a seasonal greeting at all if you know that somehow. And they are free to inform you that they prefer the other greeting, or their reaction may inform you of such. Their demanding however that everyone else apply that rule to all (without explicit prior consent as to which greeting is desired) to avoid the possibility of offending them is unreasonable.
“Keep your hands to yourself” is mainly about not harming others. There is a big problem with people who actually harm others with their ‘touching’, not the kind of thing we are discussing really.
Not that I disagree with the concept, I don’t touch strangers or people at work, or anybody that I know doesn’t want to be touched, and even with people who I know are the ‘touchy feely’ type I’m still hesitant. I don’t worry about getting touched at work because I am among uber-nerds who can barely make eye contact much less physical contact. I think touching is for the greatest part off limits in the workplace save for the obvious exceptions of mutually acknowledged things like handshakes. But I do know my view, and yours, is not universal, some people are good at picking up the signals, and not every one of them is engaged in dominance behavior. There is not a fine line to draw here, it must remain slightly blurry, but it also can’t be so blurry that people can claim “I was just trying to comfort her when I grabbed her ass”.
And I give you credit for consistency. Mostly. Seriously. At least if I understand you right. You are concerned that what you say/do might be unwelcome and only will say/do that which you are completely confident is welcome. This is not too far off from a “I never touch unless I am 100% sure it is desired.” rule. It is safe. Saying one or the other greeting might be unwelcome so the safe bet is to say neither until you know which is preferred. But here you, I think, at least you allow that someone who says one to someone for whom it might end up being an unwelcome greeting is not behaving in an out of bounds fashion. That giving one or the other seasonal greeting, along with offering neither, are all meant inoffensively in most cases.
You could make one of those ‘social experiment’ YouTube videos where you go around asking women if you can grab their ass. Covers both the grabbing and the verbal consent thing all at once. That is, assuming you do grab their asses if they say ‘yes’. Is it appropriate not to grab someone’s ass if they’ve given consent to your request? Oddly, not doing it sounds creepier than doing it in that circumstance.
Which reminds me of a woman who after a year long fitness binge lost like 30 pounds, got in great shape, and wanted everybody to feel her ass to see how hard it was. I eventually did it to get her to quit bugging me about it. Was that harassment? I’ll bet if I asked women at work to feel my ass to see how soft it was that it would not go well for me.
Sorry, but there is another thread in which it was argued that asking a woman even one time a question like that was “sexual harassment” so that experiment is a no go as well.
I’ve found that women can get away with a lot more in this realm then men.
So, that’s not the lesson in any first grade class I’ve ever encountered. And I just sat through a lesson on safe touch for third graders, and it was taught by people who work with victims of sexual abuse, and that wasn’t the lesson there either. The lesson overall is, “Use only safe touch that you reasonably believe is wanted touch, and distinguish between safe, wanted touch and all other kinds.”
“Keep your hands to yourself” is something teachers sometimes say to a child who is actively engaged in unsafe or unwanted touch. If you heard your first grade teacher say that, and you understood him to mean, “never touch someone,” you almost certainly misunderstood the lesson.
Using this phrase to mock others’ supposed misunderstanding is deeply ironic.
Sorry, but I happen to think that it is good advice.
Perhaps you are teaching a generation of students that it’s okay to touch people without permission as long as you apologize afterward if they claim offense?
That seems way more disconcerting to me than “Keep your hands to yourself”
I respect people who engage in a rich fantasy life in which they imagine a marvelous world that’s profoundly different from ours, and in that sense, well done. In the sense that you’re really trying to understand what I’m saying, not so much respect.
I know exactly what you are saying. Touching is okay as long as you reasonably believe the person you are touching is okay with it. Here, I’ll quote you where you said it - “Use only safe touch that you reasonably believe is wanted touch”
But unfortunately for me and others, in your world, reasonable belief does not seem to include actually checking with the person BEFORE you touch them, and only includes an apology AFTERWARD if they took offense.
