I don’t consider myself “anti-touch”, but I’ll answer anyway.
I don’t have a problem with a normal level of eye contact. By “normal”, I mean I don’t expect someone to have their eyes locked on my face when talking to me, but it doesn’t bother me if their eyes meet mine most of the time. I also don’t mind if someone only makes eye contact sporadically during the conversation as long as the rest of their body language is “pro social”. My own eye contact isn’t exactly laser-focused, so I am pretty tolerant of this specific quirk.
I do get uncomfortable when someone’s eye contact is unrelenting. To me, that’s a worst faux pax than poor eye contact. It’s unfortunate that there are so many lectures about the latter but none about the former.
There’s a downside to any social stance a person decides to take. Introverts can come across as cold and aloof. Extroverts are more likely to intrude on personal boundaries. We could all adopt a number of behaviors that would make us more likeable and popular, but they all come with their own risks and hazards. Like, I am not a toucher, but I am a jokester. I love making connections by making people laugh. But I know that my attempts to be funny run the risk of annoying people. I am pretty sure they HAVE annoyed people. So I know I need to tread carefully before playing the fool, especially around strangers.
Touchers need to do the exact same thing. I don’t think a “toucher” needs to get explicit permission for every single touch, but I do think they need to try to be conscious and intelligent about what they’re doing and then accept the consequences when things don’t work out as planned.
That’s a pretty good comparison. I think about it as a teacher: I’m not an especially huggy teacher, but I do joke around a lot, tease a fair amount, allow a fair bit of teasing of me in return. A lot of kids respond very positively to that, letting me correct misbehaviors without being a downer about it. But some kids hate it–so when I figure that out (easy enough based on their expressions), I apologize, and I change how I relate to them.
I was thinking about another analogy. I’ve mentioned before that I have a profound needle phobia. Like, enough that it’s sent me to the ER in an ambulance, enough that I shudder when folks start talking about flu shots, enough that I can’t watch shots in movies and TV shows (THEY’RE NEVER A GOOD THING), enough that writing this paragraph makes my inner forearms crawl with unease and makes me want to curl up in a fetal position.
But most people lack this phobia, and while conversations about shots aren’t everyday, they’re reasonably common–especially around my dad and his wife, both of whom work in medicine. So I have to figure out how to navigate a world where people meaning no harm want to have this harmless conversation that freaks me the fuck out, that start me with moderate unease and can quickly build up to me feeling like I’ve got to control my panic.
I’ve gotten pretty good at a three-step process:
Grin and bear it, hoping it ends quickly.
Grinning a little bit more brittlely, laughing fakely, and saying, “Hey, uh, can we change the conversation?” This usually works.
Politely or brusquely excusing myself from the conversation or room.
In no way would it be appropriate for me to place my own issues on society at large, to demand that people stop talking about shots in public. Nor would it be appropriate for me to lump these conversations in with obviously inappropriate behavior such as stabbing random passersby with syringes, because the two are nothing alike.
In the same way, folks with a no-touching-policy are in the decided minority, AFAICT (threads like this have a disproportionate response). I think they need to handle it themselves, using something akin to my process above, maybe skipping step 1 if they need to. That’d all be fine. What’s not appropriate is to try to universalize their own policy over others, nor is it appropriate to lump things like hand-on-a-shoulder in with things like squeezing-a-butt.
I’ve had this happen to me, short woman in my first engineering job. Quite literally people would run into me in the office since the cube walls were taller than me and they couldn’t see me and I couldn’t see over the walls. As you said, it wasn’t malicious but I thought it disrespectful and I know they didn’t mean it that way. I’d dodge the attempts and joke about not touching my hair. They got it and stopped doing that.
Straightforward answer has already been given as you admit. If you can’t understand it I don’t know what good repeating it will do. I’ve also said that using non-verbal communication is fine, and I really shouldn’t need to as if I say 'you don’t need verbal consent", it logically follows. But for the sake of argument: I am not, as I have said over and over, arguing for “prior verbal consent”. Since you don’t need verbal consent, of course you can use non-verbal communication. If you don’t feel competent to use non-verbal communication, then you can always fall back to using your words to remove ambiguity.
It’s always going to depend on context. If you actually misread a cue, make a minor mistake, issue a genuine apology, and don’t loudly declare that you will continue to to repeat the mistake in the future, probably that’s the end of it. If you’re being pushy-mcfeely in an office and grasping people’s arms to make a point, then a call to HR leading to counseling eventual firing if you don’t stop grasping people to emphasize your points. If you show up at a social event, keep touching people, and express contempt at the idea that anyone could object to your choices, then get told you’re not welcome.
Actually, you explicitly said that your policy is that, if a person doesn’t tell you ahead of time that they do not want to be touched, that you will then make assumptions like “they would appreciate a hand on the shoulder”, and that if your assumptions are wrong you’ll apologize… but also in the same post sneered at the idea that anyone would not want you putting your hands on their shoulder, and offered a blatantly sarcastic apology that clearly indicates your contempt for anyone who would be stupid enough to object. I’ll quote your words below:
Back to the current post:
Yes, I believe that putting your hand on someone’s shoulder where you don’t have any indication that’s OK without checking in with them, and figuring “I’ll just apologize if they object, though I’ll also sarcastically express my contempt for anyone who might find my shoulder rub unappealing” is most definitely pushing boundaries. As I said before “No, I see nefarious ACTIONS (touching people against their wishes) and a distinct lack of concern for others (arguing vehemently that acquiring consent before touching is an absurd standard to have).”
Seriously, do you not understand why a pretty girl who’s upset because a relative just died might just not actually be comforted if every dude in the place comes up to her and starts ‘comforting’ her by rubbing her shoulders? Do you just not get that “I was only trying to comfort her without considering, at all, whether my attempts to comfort her were actually welcome?” does NOT sound like something that would come from the mouth of a caring person?
If you’re not talking about those cases, what real world events are you referring to when you talk about having a “career ruined” or "the worst possible consequences’? Where does the idea come from? There’s some weird idea that you and a few others seem to have that there’s some horrible consequence from people expecting you to get consent from other people before laying hands on them, but if it’s not based on the current cases in the news, it appears to be based on absolutely nothing.
And again, if you really want to see it draw venom, try some of this ‘mildest contact’ that you think people are overreacting to on a cop who’s pulled you over or a biker at a biker bar and see what retribution you get. All of this “I can’t believe you’d possibly think that grasping an arm to make a point or rubbing a shoulder could possibly be unwelcome” ALREADY falls flat as soon as you set up a situation where the other person can hurt you at little cost to himself.
None of your studies are relevant to this discussion, because NONE of them demonstrate that touch without consent provides any benefit, or show that seeking consent before grasping arms, patting hair, and rubbing shoulders reduces the effectiveness of touch. Other than ZPG, none of the people arguing in favor of consent are actually ‘non touchers’, it’s just a label you’re trying to attach because for some reason you are really opposed to the idea that you shouldn’t put your hands on people who don’t want your hands on them.
This isn’t at all accurate - I love touch, and the majority of my friends are “touchy-feely” well past the point that even the ‘touch advocates’ here would likely feel is appropriate outside of an intimate relationship. But there’s a big difference between consensual touch from friends who you know will respect a ‘no’ without question and forced touching from someone you don’t especially like who’s trying to either force intimacy or make a power play against you, or from a ‘bull in a china shop’ person who just touches everyone, or from someone who thinks they’re entitled to do what they want to your body.
I’m quite comfortable with being touched by people I like, but some co-worker deciding to “grasp” my arm to emphasize a point, or manhandling me to try to force a private conversation, or massaging my shoulder because he’s decided that he’s a better authority on how I deal with grief than I am, or patting my head because it amuses him, or any of the other forced touching examples from this thread are NOT comfortable at all. It’s not because of the ‘you hate being touched’ narrative that the forced-touch advocates are trying to spin, but because the touch is against my will and they’re insisting that they don’t need my input to touch me.
The idea that the sides in this discussion are ‘touchers’ and ‘non-touchers’ is a false dichotomy and completely absurd. It fit’s one poster’s narrative that he’s some kind of defender against dark forces that want to ban all touch outside of intimate relationships, but it doesn’t fir reality.
Well, for anyone to claim to be innately a “non-toucher” defies the large body of research showing that touch is critical in humans for cognitive development, and not just for infants and children. Biologically, all humans are “touchers.” The “sides” in the discussion, rather, derive from perceptions of interpersonal boundaries, which are culturally determined.
I don’t think there’s disagreement here. By “touchy-feely”, I mean people who touch when they don’t know you well. When I say “non touchers don’t like to be touched” I mean they don’t like to be touched by strangers. Obviously the vast majority of society likes touching certain people. It’s how we procreate after all.
That said, I’m a pretty solid non-toucher. I don’t *always *welcome the touch of my girlfriend for instance, generally when I’m concentrating on something.
Research deals in generalities. It’s like DSeid’s cite that patients generally appreciate a reassuring touch. What is left unsaid is that although the general population may like something a certain way, there are a number of people who don’t. Claiming to be one of those outliers does not defy any studies.
So if you are someone who tends to grasp someone’s arm to make a point, just be aware of the odd person here or there who appears a bit standoffish and doesn’t do any touching themselves. Maybe don’t touch them on the shoulder.
This is not a problem I face regularly at all and I think I can say that almost all instances of unwanted touching have come from people who I would describe as fake. Fake friends. Overly familiar. They appear to be trying to gain something from the relationship. Most people, including people who have a tendency to touch, seem to get the boundaries and will respect them.
In general yes. Most people get it and understand both context and non-verbal cues. Those who do not, either because they lack the typical human ability to do so, or because they are in an unfamiliar to them context, such as dealing with those of a culture very other than what they know, should be extremely cautious. If you are one of the people who does not understand that the context of being stopped by a cop is different than the context of discussing something with a colleague in a crowded room, then indeed you should keep your hands where people can see them at all times and make no sudden moves.
Most can usually tell from the non-verbal cues who is like ZPG Zealot and believes that “[t]he only appropriate touching is that which occurs after clear verbal consent.” And identify by body language those like jz78817 who have a 3 foot bubble: “while speaking; stay 3 feet away from me at minimum.”
In general those who naturally and instinctively use expressive touch do not go about grasping people, or tousling other’s hair, or giving back rubs to people in grief, or manhandling anyone. They are not groping or taking advantage of anyone. They touch the back of someone’s hand or forearm at moments as part of an ongoing stream of verbal and non-verbal communication. They are people who when communicating and when empathizing with someone very sad about something might gently place a hand on their shoulder or upper back, give a soft tap as they ask if there is anything they can do or otherwise try to express support. They do those things without explicit consent and in general those sorts of touches do not turn out to be unwanted, but are instead received well, sometimes even without conscious awareness that such touch had occurred, like much of the rest of the stream of non-verbal communication. When we communicate orally sometimes what we do not say communicates something, be it the absent “thank you”, an “Excuse me”, a “please”, or an “I’m sorry.” Sometimes also the lack of an expressive touch communicates something as well, in general a lack of empathy, a lack of understanding, and a lack of genuineness.
Of course this communication process does not always work perfectly. ALL communication streams have miscues and misreads and the clumsy communication that is misunderstood. We mean one thing but what we say (verbally, written, non-verbally) communicates something else and offense is taken. Some are, in all communication venues, more easily offended. In general though most of us in real life work out our miscommunications most of the time, and are given to a chance to apologize if we expressed ourselves so poorly that we offended, and most of us try to understand what was meant even when someone once in awhile says something in a dumb way. Of course also all communication can be insincere and fake. Someone who tries to communicate that they care but we know they do not … blech. Whatever the stream.
The circumstance that this came out of was regarding reaction to the idea of touching someone on the back at work to offer comfort.
Is a touch on the back (not a grab or a massage or a grope) without having gotten explicit permission to do so when honestly attempting to comfort someone in distress, such as in grief, something that should simply not be done in a work environment? Is it a shocking breach of etiquette for someone to do that? Is it something that should be assumed to be unwanted and offensive without some explicit consent having been given? Is that sort of touch taking advantage of someone or manhandling them or deciding that they know how the person should deal with their grief better than they do? What precisely counts as consent having been given for that touch in that circumstance? What exactly is enough to say that in that circumstance a touch on the back is not “unwanted touch”? And to monstro’s point, if that touch does not “work out as planned”, if the signs that this was a three foot bubble person for whom that touch was indeed unwanted touch were somehow missed, what should be the consequence that they should accept?
There you go dodging away again. The example of the cop, judge, biker, etc. are to show that, contrary to your claims, touching people IS NOT something completely innocent, and the idea that the touch you describe could be unwanted IS NOT at all weird. As I keep saying and you keep trying desperately to dodge, touching someone who doesn’t want it is extremely invasive and aggressive, the fact that it’s ‘wildly inappropriate’ to do to someone who has power over you or who is willing to hurt you (like the biker in a biker bar) demonstrates that. And the fact that no one is willing to say that ‘you should grasp a cop’s arm to emphasize your point’ or ‘you should rub a biker’s shoulder in the bar as a friendly gesture’ are a good idea shows that this is an extremely common belief, not something weird that only a few whackos think.
Claim not supported by evidence, and countered by the experiences of multiple people in this thread who have lived the exact opposite. Also countered by your own claim that you go about grasping people’s arms for emphasis and manhandle people in closer when you want to talk to them privately. You are groping and taking advantage of people, and the fact that you are scared of the concept that you need consent to touch people shows that, even if you deny it vocally, subconsciously you realize how many people do not actually want the touch and would object if it was socially acceptable to do so.
But they’re smart enough not to do these things to a visiting CEO, a cop, a biker in a biker bar, or anyone else in a position to respond aggressively to unwanted touch. They only use this communication in situations where social pressure or their higher status makes any response but acquiescence by the victim risky for them. I mean, no one wants to be that crazy chick who described your shoulder rubs as unwanted groping, and that’s exactly how you’d portray her.
You mean “they do these things without consent and these touches often turn out to be unwanted, but the victim doesn’t wish to speak up for fear of consequences, from job loss to not wanting to make a scene”. If these touches were REALLY being received well, and not just tolerated, none of the ‘I get to touch everyone’ people in this thread would be worried about needing consent, because people would give it without a second thought. The fact that people are reacting to the idea that they need consent to touch people with such venom, calling it ‘puritanical’ or claiming that they will never be able to offer anyone a hug for fear of firing, makes it clear that they KNOW that, in at least some cases, their touch is very unwanted.
It should not be done in any environment. What is so controversial about not fondling people who don’t want your damn hands on them? Why are you so opposed to the idea of being sure the person actually wants your hands on them if you’re so confident that your fondling is always received well? Your absolute opposition to the idea that you need consent to rub and grasp people sounds REALLY gross and disgusting to me.
Do you really think that a hot young woman who just got bad news is going to be comforted when every dude in the office uses your logic and starts gently rubbing her shoulder to ‘console’ her?
Any unwanted touching is predatory and bullying to those of us who do not want to be touched. Just don’t do it unless you have clear, voluntary, verbal consent by the person you want to touch or be prepared for a lifetime of slaps, sexual harassment charges, and making enemies.
I just don’t see people asking for verbal consent before touching someone. When I think of movies and TV I have seen I can’t recall it happening. How often do you see it happening? How often do you do it?
I have never done it because I only touch people who I trust wouldn’t mind me touching them or who I would trust would tell me to stop, if they did mind. That means I only touch friends and close family members. Besides hand-shaking, I don’t touch acquaintances or strangers. I don’t think my life has been hampered any by following this policy.
While I’ve never been an “asker”, I have been asked. My therapist usually asks before touching me (like asking if I’d like a hug). So does my yoga instructor. In those contexts, it doesn’t feel awkward. It feels professional and appropriate.
I can’t think of a workplace situation where I would want a rando coworker (meaning, not someone I’m already friends with) to touch me without asking or obvious prompting. If I’m bummed out about something, I’d prefer my coworkers ask if there’s anything they can do to make me feel better rather than assuming a shoulder pat is what I desire.
But just to be clear, it’s not like if you give me a shoulder pat, I will lash out at you and label you a bullying predator. I’m not even saying it would be necessarily unwanted. But I have a couple of coworkers I wouldn’t want touching me with a 10 feet pole because I don’t like and/or trust them.
Well, I don’t need to take something and “jab” somebody with it.
You posted “It’s very easy for me to distinguish between this sort of touch, and, say, someone putting a hand on my knee and licking their lips while we sit beside each other”
So what? Good for you. Not everybody CAN distinguish that. Not everybody DOES distinguish that. Some people don’t like people who automatically think “There is a person who is hurting, I think I will hug them to comfort them. If they don’t like it, they can tell me afterward”
You know that feeling when someone touches you when you don’t want to be touched, and that person thinks they are “comforting you”? Maybe you should.
