Predatory men often claim they were only engaging in “innocuous touching” or that they had “non-verbal” consent.
But–not men–it’s women who–I just said that–
ahhh, forget it.
That’s cool. So there are studies that show that most people don’t find it offensive. Guess the people who DO find it offensive should just shut up and take it then.
Do you feel similarly about the thoughts of other people that may be a minority in their situations?
Do you feel there is a difference between poking someone in the shoulder or poking someone in the knee? Why or why not?
I once worked with a guy who I think was severely autistic, I’m not sure, but he hated eye contact and chitchat. I learned not to engage in it with him. I didn’t adopt a rule of “no eye contact or chitchat unless I have prior verbal consent.”
People who DO find touch offensive shouldn’t shut up and take it. They should speak up and not take it: “Hey, I know you’re trying to be friendly, but I don’t like to be touched like that.” Ferchrissakes, don’t take a tap-on-the-shoulder, or a hand-on-the-arm, or the Deadly Fighting Cobra Punch that my co-worker gave me, to HR unless you’ve spoken up and it continues.
Do I think other minorities should speak up, if their minority status isn’t visible, but they need some special treatment? Fuck yes I do.
I see. So I should accept touching from people first, and then complain? It seems better to me to work in an environment that touching is asked first, and not relied upon the person to say “stop touching me” so that the person who doesn’t like a tap on the shoulder, or a hand on the arm doesn’t feel like they are weird for not wanting that.
Look, you’re really bad at paraphrasing me. That’s not what I said. You don’t have to accept it. You can tell everyone you don’t want to be touched. You can wear a sign that says, “Don’t touch me!” You can ask HR to send out a bulletin. I don’t give a crap–but you should take responsibility for your own quirks, not expect the world to change for them.
…but they ARE weird for not wanting that. It’s okay to be weird.
Strange to me that HR should send out a bulletin that says “Don’t touch people without their permission” Oh wait, they do that already.
Some people feel the same way about shoulder rubs. Are the people who don’t want that also “weird”?
I have worked at about a dozen different locations. I have never seen such a bulletin. Given your poor paraphrases of me, I’m deeply skeptical that you’re accurately paraphrasing such a bulletin. In other words, cite?
Christ. No, they’re not.
If you’d like some more examples:
-People that object to any eye contact: weird.
-People that object to others saying their name: weird.
-People that object to clothes with bright hues: weird.
-People that object to seeing people lick ice cream cones: weird.
-People that object to prolonged staring eye contact accompanied by ostentatious lip-licking: not weird.
-People that object to being called by a nickname they didn’t choose: not weird.
-People that object to clothes with racist slogans: not weird.
-People that object to seeing people chew with their mouths open: not weird.
“Weird” is a matter of how common something is. If you’re bothered by something but it’s fairly uncommon to be bothered by it, especially if a lot of people appreciate it in a way that harms no one, take some damn responsibility.
No, they needn’t “shut up and take it”, but, as LHOD explains, it would be unreasonable and unfair to expect everyone to treat everyone differently than how the vast majority prefer in oder to preemptively meet the preferences of the very few. Of course those people should (politely) communicate what their preferences are and those preferences should be respected to the best others’ abilities without judgement passed.
As to “poking” on the shoulder or the knee … not crazy about poking at all. There are few social circumstances within American culture in which poking anywhere is not … unusual … and likely inappropriate. But clearly some body parts are more acceptable than others to touch. They, and the sort of contact to the areas, are arbitrary cultural norms perhaps but they are widely understood.
Heh. I agree with this. Every year I’ll have a kid who wants to get my attention by poking me while I’m talking with someone else. I put on my AngryEmu face, turn to them with rigid index finger, and start jabbing it violently at them.
No need to make contact–they shrink back, then giggle and get the picture.
But by then it’s too late. I send a note to HR and get them fired.
Funny, but none of those involve you putting your hands on me.
This is a really weird stance to take. Especially on this board. There are several topics where people are in the “uncommon” category that feel bothered by something. Pronoun usage comes to mind. Gender is another one. Do you feel that it harms no one, and they should take responsibility?
I still can’t understand why you guys are fighting so hard just so you can touch someone on the arm. Really weird to me.
Of course they should: THEY SHOULD TELL PEOPLE. What folks with unusual pronouns shouldn’t do is to declare, “If you want to use a pronoun to refer to someone, it’s up to you to ask permission first.”
This, of course, is like part 28 in your paraphrasing me incorrectly. That’s not what I’m fighting for, so no wonder you don’t understand it.
And without context. Manson wasn’t arguing what you imply he was in that statement.
So they do need to either shut up and take it or wear a scarlet letter telling everyone that they don’t want your creepy hands ‘grasping’ them to emphasize a point. And your ‘vast majority’ claim is wildly unsupported; you have offered zero evidence that people like receiving touch from arbitrary strangers, just evidence that people generally enjoy receiving touch from people they are OK with being touched by. And you certainly haven’t offered any evidence that people like the kind of workplace touching you’ve advocated in this thread, that is some dude they’re not close to “grasping” their hand to emphasize a point or show a connection. You just repeatedly assert that your fondling is the majority without anything to actually support it.
We’ve already seen how the creepy “I will touch you, it’s so harmless, how dare you object or expect me to obtain consent” crowd treats people’s preference not to be touched by strangers. The open contempt, sarcastic non-apologies, endless reiteration that it’s abnormal behavior, objection to accurately discussing the touch (insisting that a closed-hand hit cannot be described as a punch), and so on. Just within this thread, you personally have repeatedly insisted that anyone who doesn’t want strangers putting their hands on them is opposed to touch in general.
My position is that if someone, say a hot young woman in an office, doesn’t want other people, say a bunch of horny young dudes and creepy old dudes walking up to her and giving a ‘comforting’ shoulder rub, she shouldn’t need to declare anything to avoid dudes fondling her with the excuse of ‘it’s comforting’. Your position is that she needs to make a formal declaration of non-touching, and be subject to all of the negative opinions that being the one person objecting to allegedly innocuous behavior brings.
It’s interesting to me that the ‘I should be able to touch who I want unless they do a very specific thing’ crowd expect to be fired in a typical office setting. After all, HR doesn’t just arbitrarily fire people for a minor incident of breaking rules in normal circumstances, they just tell you not to do it again and note that they warned you. Firing typically only occurs when the person repeats the behavior after multiple warnings, and usually it requires more than one person complaining. So while they will deny it vehemently, it appears that the ‘touch ‘em if I want to’ advocates know very well that their grasping, rubbing, punch-that’-not-a-punch, and the like are generally unwelcome, and that they keep doing them to people that don’t want it.
I’ve only read a few posts of this thread & i don’t think I’d wanna get too close to you. surely some type of global policy change wasn’t needed to make others not want to invade your personal space.
It is “interesting” in the same way that it’s interesting that unicorns love eating marshmallows but hate candy corn.
Dude, I get that changing what people say gives them a stupid position that you can argue against more easily and score a victory. I don’t get why that victory is any fun for you. Imagine if you paid attention to what folks said and addressed them respectfully and recognizing the nuance and possible merits of their position–imagine how much more fulfilling that could be!
I do not think that you are like another poster here, intentionally stating untrue statements, and simply making shit up. I think you are honestly not understanding what has been stated very clearly.
I would encourage you to review the thread and try again.
Or not. In which case have a great day!
I did not want to let this shared link go without comment. It really does illustrate the points that each side of this discussion have been trying to make.
As is seen in the clip Matt Bradford uses a touch on the forearm in conversation. Daryl Metcalfe is one of those who finds such touch very objectionable. Clearly those who feel that way are a nonzero number.
Bradford would avoid the possibility of causing such offense as he caused if he had a rule to not touch without explicit consent, as is advised by some in this thread. And Metcalfe clearly had the right to communicate that he does not want to be touched, at least by another male.
Was Bradford assaulting, groping, or “taking advantage of” Metcalfe? Was Bradford making repeated sexual overtures, as Metcalfe apparently believes? Was the verbal hostile and homophobic verbal attack by Metcalfe the appropriate way to respond to what turned out to be very unwanted touch on the forearm in conversation?
Now on the one side there will be those of us who do not see Bradford’s use of touch in the way he did it as inappropriate in the general case (even though we personally do not use touch in that way) and think that the inappropriate part of the interaction was Metcalfe’s lack of a simple “Please do not touch me again. I dislike it.” (which 100% should be then respected) and instead exploding into a homophobic attack. And on the other side are those who feel that the problem was Bradford presuming to touch without explicit consent and the consequences of that are therefore his responsibility.
And I doubt any amount of discussion, even discussion which does not include some making up what others have said, will result in much.
Here’s my takeaway on that incident and touching in in general.
Without knowing the background, Bradford’s touch seemed entirely benign. Metcalfe overreacted and threw in a homophobic attack in the process.
And this is why I say that to the extent possible, keep your mitts to yourself in the workplace. If only to avoid having assholes like Metcalfe overreact and make something out of nothing.
Finally, “Why don’t you ever touch or hug me?”, is a question nobody has ever asked or complained about in the workplace, ever.