Absolutely. Thank you.
Just got back from the memorial service, well, went out with friends for a bit after, but now I’m back at work, and I gotta clean this place up and close it down.
Anyway, data point. There were quite a few people touching and hugging, even among strangers, and I don’t know that anyone asked for consent.
It does seem that context is important.
Can’t believe I missed this article that came out as this thread was in progress: NYT 12/5/17 “The Power of Touch, Especially for Men” -
Just for mutual interest.
Wait, did it really say “a phenomena”?
Blech.
Can’t believe you still post articles about the benefits of WANTED touch in a thread about UNWANTED touch. Get back to me when there’s an article that shows benefit from some rando grasping people’s arms to make a point, or from a roomful of strangers putting their hands on the back of someone who’s already trying to deal with a bad situation.
Except he just did it again, dude. I’m not ‘changing what people say’, I’m assuming that they are posting something they think is relevant to the thread. Why keep posting articles that talk about the benefits of touching in this thread, when no one is arguing against touching as a whole, just against unwanted touching?
You know, that’s exactly the sort of ‘grasping’ for emphasis that I pictured when you described grasping an arm for emphasis - someone grabbing another person’s arm to make a point. And Bradford responded exactly like I’d expect the “I’m going to touch you” crowd here to respond to someone saying “stop touching me” in real life. He mocks the idea that Metcalfe could even object to being touched, treats the whole thing as a joke, and manipulatively turns the whole situation back onto Metcalfe for daring to speak up because Metcalfe got angry and said some inappropriate stuff.
In other words: When you touch people against their will, you get to dictate exactly how they are allowed to respond, and to ignore and mock their clearly stated desires if they don’t conform to your pattern. He did tell Bradford not to touch him again, and that he disliked it. His reason for disliking it is that he he doesn’t like being touched by men, and he included the weird ‘you or some friends of you might be gay’ stuff, but that’s IRRELEVANT to the fact that he clearly stated both that he does not like being touched and told the guy not to do it. There is simply no excuse for Bradford to do anything but apologize, agree to stop touching the guy, and move on with the meeting. The fact that he didn’t act as though he did anything wrong, and instead mocks Metcalfe for being bothered, is just plain gross. Metcalfe’s homophobic statements are something that should be dealt with later, but it’s got nothing to do with the touching issue.
Provoking someone into an emotional response, then using their intemperate response to avoid dealing with your own inexcusably bad behavior is classic abusive behavior.
Also, according to another article, Metcalfe said that Bradford has repeatedly been asked to stop unwanted touching in the past. That makes the ‘why didn’t he just ask nicely’ bit nonsensical, as he had already done it before. It even makes his touch inappropriate according to what the ‘I get to touch people without asking’ crowd claim is their standard. And it makes Bradford’s behavior much worse, as he doesn’t even have the ‘well, I thought it was OK’ defense. “I speak with my hands” simply doesn’t give you license to touch people who don’t want to be.
Gentle, sensual, touching is appropriate between loving couples and between parents and their own children or those in the neighbourhood. Experimental touching is appropriate to find out what people’s limits are, and where they do not like to be touched. You should do that when, or before, making friends. The “I’m not touching you!” position is an advanced technique for kids.
You are absolutely changing what people say, to the extent that discussion with you is a ridiculous thing to attempt.
Just wanted to point out to you that this is not a thread about unwanted touch, but a thread specifically about what touch (read the title, and the OP) is appropriate. In which case, him pointing out articles talking about times and places where touching is appropriate is far more relevant to the thread than the posts you have offered as contributions.
Nonsense. Innocent touching from the shoulders up or the knees down should be fine unless you’ve clearly been told otherwise. Even then, “Sorry, I forgot” might be a legit excuse.
Nope. I am using terms that accurately describe the situation from the perspective of a victim, that have negative or invasive connotation instead of positive or neutral connotations. The idea that it’s woefully inaccurate to refer to a closed-hand strike on the arm as a ‘light punch’, or placing your hand on someone’s shoulder as a ‘shoulder rub’, or that ‘grasping’ someone’s arm cannot be referred to as ‘grabbing’ someone’s arm is what is ridiculous.
The complaints about exact terminology (together with Dseid’s youtube video) does help illustrate how the ‘unwanted touch’ scenarios play out in real life. If you were to come up to me and deliver a closed-hand strike on the arm, however light, I’d tell you to “stop punching me now.” I’m pretty sure that, even though I’ve made it clear that the touch is unwelcome, you would not simply apologize and stop, but instead would either start arguing that what you did was not a punch, or would punch again and then use ‘well it’s not TECHNICALLY a punch’ to justify it. If Dseid were to grasp my arm for emphasis, I’d tell him “don’t ever grab my arm again like that”, and I would expect him to deflect by arguing that it’s not a grab, or complain that my tone of voice was inappropriate, or something along those lines instead of simply apologizing and ceasing to touch me. (Note that he endorsed such behavior when it happened in the linked video).
That, incidentally, is why a lot of people won’t speak up in the moment, they’ve had experiences when politely standing firm (or getting angry and finally speaking up) led to something like the video Dseid linked or spiraled into “how dare you categorize my hand on your shoulder as ‘rubbing’” nonsense. Going to HR means they don’t have to deal with the stupid games that the ‘it’s a closed-fist impact on the arm, how dare you call it lightly punching’ crowd likes to play. And despite your objections, unwanted touching is, almost all of the time, going to get the toucher a warning from HR. If you don’t want to win stupid prizes, don’t play stupid games.
Fortunately for me, he has neglected to post any such articles.
Unsurprisingly, you are yet again wrong. I don’t tap people in the arm with my fist, but if I did, and someone told me to stop punching them, I’d say, “Oh, sorry,” and stop. Internally I’d think some uncharitable thoughts about them and their limited grasp of English, but I wouldn’t say that.
At some point, I encourage you to stop assuming the worst about people. It’ll make conversations more productive.
Ignoring the irony of that last sentence, cite? Remember, we’re looking for cites about the sort of touch discussed here, not cites for different kinds of touch.
That’s the excuse every sexual predator uses when caught. There is no innocent touching without clear consent.
I don’t think so. “She was asking for it”, “She did consent”, and “She’s lying” are for more common excuses.
I understand you feel differently about this then most people, but not by that much. You may notice some of us think some touching is harmless but in all but a few cases still believe it is inappropriate. No matter what some may think, this is not a choice between no touching is appropriate and all touching is appropriate.
I do hope people don’t touch you in the workplace, and if you are touched in some objectively harmless you will politely and firmly tell them you do not want to be touched. If they touch you again I’d be perfectly happy in a hypothetical non-Dope-rule breaking way to make them admit they don’t like to be touched repeatedly after asking to not be touched.
Based on your response in this thread, I simply don’t believe you, and instead believe you’d act like you did in this thread when I used proper English to call your example of a non-damaging closed-fist strike ‘lightly punching’.
I believe people when they tell me bad things about themselves. So if they tell me that they believe it’s fine for them to touch people without consent, that it’s too much bother to figure out if someone wants to be touched, that they object to the idea that they need permission to grab people, and the like, then I believe them. The pro-touch people in this thread sound like the bullying type that love to put their hands on people, then act like the victim is overreacting if they object. Dseid posted a video of that very thing happening, and made it clear that he agreed with the toucher who refused to acknowledge that he was in the wrong even when the touchee made it clear that the touch wasn’t wanted.
As I’m pretty sure I’ve said before, if you think that HR at a large company will be perfectly fine with one employee play-punching another even if it bothers the punchee, nothing I cite is going to convince you. And since you’re the kind of person who insists that calling a closed-fist strike a ‘punch’ is unreasonable, I’m certainly not going to attempt to do anything that requires understanding the use of words, which looking at an HR policy would require.
I could not possibly be less concerned about whether you believe me.
Mod Note
These remarks, and others in this thread, are crossing the line into the area of personal attacks. Insulting other posters is against the rules. Please be mindful that your discussion remains civil.
Thank you.