Yet you did. You drew an obviously stupid conclusion from my words, a conclusion that I neither said nor intended, and acted as though I’d said it. If that’s behavior you’re going to continue, then I’m not going to continue the conversation with you. If you’re willing to knock it off with that behavior, then I’ll continue the conversation.
Awww, do you need a hug? I’ll be sure to ask you afterward if you minded it.
Movies and TV aren’t a good guide to actual human behavior. How often do you live next door to your best friend for your entire life? In the few instances when I have actually felt the need to touch another person (they seemed to need comforting, etc.), I have always asked. The only time I have ever not reacted negatively to being touched have been when an individual shows enough basic human decency to ask before putting their hands on me.
Agree, but it’s not because inappropriate touching is being called out more.
Which has nothing at all to do with this thread.
No one in this thread advocates that inappropriate touching should not be called out and such was not what the op was asking.
The question is if all touching requires explicit consent first and if any touching is part of normal, or at least acceptable, communication. Is it okay, without asking first, to touch the back of the hand, the forearm, or the back as one expresses empathy to someone in grief, or is doing such “taking advantage of them” and believing you know better than they do what they need? Are those who briefly touch a forearm as they are engaged in a conversation committing major offenses? And assuming that you do not believe that ALL expressive touch requires explicit consent first and that a three foot bubble when engaged in conversation is required, what crosses the line?
IMHO, you are acting like it is possible to lay out black-and-white rules to something that is very context-specific.
It’s like asking what kind of humor crosses the line, as if there is a single line that applies to all situations.
The “appropriateness line” is different between complete strangers of opposite sex versus complete strangers of the same sex. It is different between complete strangers and acquaintances. It is different between recent acquaintances and familiar acquaintances. It is different bween a professional situation versus a non-professional situation.
If an older matronly woman just witnessed me get mugged and she patted my arm while asking whether I was okay, I personally would appreciate the gesture. But I probably would feel weird if a big muscle-bound man was to do the same thing (especially if the mugger was a big muscle-bound man). However, someone else might have the opposite reaction. So I don’t think the question should be “What kind of touch crosses the line?”, since everyone has their own line at any given time and the line varies based on the players involved. I really think the question should be, “When is it safe to assume my touch will be appreciated in the spirit that it is intended?”
I think only the individual can make that judgment call. And since it’s an individual assessment, then it’s incumbent on the individual to take responsibility for their decision if they assessed the situation incorrectly. The same way that a jokester should take responsibility if their dry wit is misinterpreted or unappreciated. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t defend themselves or that they should allow themselves to be abused. But it does mean if someone says “Please don’t touch me”, the toucher owns that they crossed a line, they apologize for it, and try to not repeat the mistake.
Personally, I don’t think the “consequence” should be any more severe than that assuming the toucher does his or her own course-correction. But I also don’t think it is a big deal if an offended “touchee” reaches out to HR when they don’t feel comfortable broaching the subject themselves, provided it doesn’t lead to a reprimand.
I got my head handed to me upthread for suggesting that there might be circumstances where I could reasonably assume that someone might appreciate being touched.
That all seems pretty darn reasonable. Pantastic, would you agree this is a reasonable philosophy to live by?
I disagree. The appropriateness line is “do they want the touch or not”, period. If you don’t know, then find out with some form of communication. It’s really that simple. The problem is that some people here don’t want to acknowledge that their grasping, pawing, patting, and manhandling may be unwanted, and checking whether it’s wanted before doing it forces them to acknowledge that. Look at how sarcastic and angry Machine Elf got at the idea that someone might not like a shoulder rub after getting bad news, for example.
I disagree, unless ‘his or her own course-correction’ means ‘acknowledges that you shouldn’t touch people who don’t want to be touched, and limits touch to those people in the future’ - which the ‘touch everyone’ people in this thread explicitly reject. If you’re going to ‘course correct’ by continuing to touch people willy-nilly and just avoid the one person who stood up to your bullying behavior, you haven’t actually corrected your behavior in any meaningful sense. “I misread whether this would comfort you” is very different from “This should have comforted you, but since you objected I won’t do it again”, and the second is what people in this thread keep arguing.
Why shouldn’t inappropriate touching lead to a reprimand? What good is HR going to do if there’s no chance of the inappropriate toucher suffering real consequences to their bullying/harassing behavior? If you can’t keep your hands off of your co-workers, you damn well need consequences until you either get a third grade understanding of the idea or get fired so that someone who does can take the job. People who bully co-workers by grabbing them to emphasize a point, or start shoulder-rubbing people out of the blue are doing something wrong, period.
This philosophy seems to approve of me leaving work tonight, hugging everyone on the metro, and then apologizing to anyone that said “Please don’t touch me”
I’ll clarify what I just posted to Monstro - it’s only reasonable if the person actually owns that touching people without their consent is wrong. If they apologize with something along the lines of “I’m sorry my touching bothered you, I won’t touch you again that way” with an explicit or implied “But I’ll keep touching everyone else how I want until they give me a hard no”, then they aren’t actually owning what they did wrong, and aren’t taking steps to correct the actual problem behavior. So the people in this thread who keep insisting that getting consent for touch is absurd would not count as owning their mistake or taking steps not to cross the line again.
And the idea that there should be no real consequences for inappropriate behavior in the workplace is just bizarre; while firing someone for one minor incident would be inappropriate, someone repeatedly demonstrating that they think they are entitled to manhandle or fondle co-workers until they get a hard no certainly should get some kind of reprimand. To use an example from this thread, if the victim in the ‘pat the new girl on the head’ crew complained to HR, then it would be reasonable for HR to tell them something like “Cut it out, and you’re going to get written up if you do this again”. If they then didn’t do it to her, but started doing it to the next woman (or small guy, or whatever their criteria is) who came into the department, then they certainly should get some kind of reprimand.
Then let’s blend it with something I suggested upthread:
Social context would suggest that the vast majority of random strangers on the subway do not appreciate being spontaneously hugged. This would also apply to police officers, judges, and burly biker types with whom one does not already have a close relationship.
You keep coming back to a requirement for consent, along with an insistence that you aren’t arguing for verbal consent. That leaves nonverbal consent, i.e. body language. In some situations, the means by which nonverbal consent is requested/granted are clear. Examples include (but are not limited to):
-You offer someone a hug by standing with arms outstretched; consent is given by the other person reciprocating, and you approach each other to embrace.
-you offer someone your hand (for a handshake, or to offer emotionional reassurance/comfort); consent is given by the other person grasping your hand.
What about situations where nonverbal consent is more difficult to request/grant? The example I keep coming back to (and the same one DSeid brought up) is placing a hand on a distraught person’s shoulder as a means to communicate emotional support. How does a person request or grant consent for this through nonverbal means?
But DSeid wasn’t asking about hugging. He was asking about light touching on the back of the hand or on the shoulder or arm.
Hugging random people on the metro without verbal consent is extremely inappropriate.
Lightly touching them on the shoulder is moderately inappropriately.
While I wouldn’t have a problem with a wanton “hugger” being reprimanded or being fired, I don’t think someone who makes the mistake of patting a coworker in a “there, there” fashion ONE TIME needs to be called to the carpet in the exact same way. I think that’s tantamount to lumping the coworker who tells a racist joke in with the coworker who makes an annoying pun. Or the coworker who smells like patchouli with the coworker who smells like ass. Surely there is a gradient of offense in everything we do. People who can’t see this are the very definition of crazy.
If touch deserves the “zero tolerance” treatment, why not other sources of potential offense and annoyance? People can help what they say just like they can help who and how they touch. Are you really prepared to fire people just because they said something that hurt someone’s feelings? Why should someone’s sensitivity towards touch be given more weight than their sensitivity towards other things?
Even though I think people should keep their hands to themselves in 99.9% of professional and workplace circumstances, I’m not eager to execute the folks who make a mild error in jugment. That opens the door for all of us to get execute lest we do something that annoys or offends someone, no matter how much of an outlier they are in the general population.
What if my boss does this, and I don’t want to be hugged and I refuse. She gets mad and rates me lower on my evaluation.
Or, my boss likes to slap everyone on the back (as shown in "Office Space). I don’t like that and tell him to stop. He gets mad and doesn’t give me that promotion.
How does your approach solve those issues?
Do you think a person shouldn’t get fired if they came in everyday and called every overweight person a “big fat cow”?
Yeah, but to me, they really looked like they could use a hug. And I apologized afterward, so what’s the problem?
If you are even remotely unclear whether or not you may touch a person such as if you aren’t sure if they have given “nonverbal” consent, you ask? It’s really very simple. You always ask, politely.
I wasn’t talking about a repeat offender. I was talking about someone who had a single complaint. I don’t think anyone should be fired or reprimanded for a single faux pas unless is the faux pas is spelled out explicitly in the employee handbook. I think in a society where people from diverse background, cultures, and upbringings are being smashed together, we need compassion on both sides of the “getting along” equation.
Yes, that person should be fired. They should be fired if they do that a single time.
But I don’t think lightly patting someone on the arm is the same level of offense as hurling an obvious insult at someone. Especially if they only do it one time and they apologized when they were informed the gesture wasn’t appreciated.
This has been an interesting thread to follow. I am not a toucher and don’t really care to be touched except by people I know well and trust. That’s just me, and I know there is plenty of variation in the world and I am not going to cry foul unless there is a pattern.
I found this Psychology Today - The Power of Touch article which talks about some of the scenarios being discussed here, and I think there is validity to most of the views in this thread. The operative word in all this is “context”, and as adults we are expected to understand that before making any moves, both at work and elsewhere. It should not be surprising that there are many people who were brought-up or educated in a culture where a “no-touch” view was not taught or known. But it is fair to say times, and situations, have evolved such that a no-touch policy is valid. It does not make those people creepy or bizarre, any more than a strict no-touch person is.
Here are some of the interesting points (IMHO) from the article relating to this thread:
What goes on in your home also plays a role. Andersen notes that atheists and agnostics touch more than religious types, “probably because religions often teach that some kinds of touch are inappropriate or sinful.” Tolerance for touch isn’t set in stone, however. Spend time in a different culture, or even with touchy-feely friends, and your attitude toward touch can change.
*Warm climates tend to produce cultures that are more liberal about touching than colder regions (think Greeks versus Germans, or Southern hospitality versus New England stoicism). *
Still, outside of close relationships, the consequences of sending the wrong message also increase. “Touchy people are taking some risk that they might be perceived as being over-the-top or harassing,” says Andersen. “Physical contact can be creepy; it can be threatening.” Context matters, which is why we have rules about whom we can touch, where, and when. “Generally, from the shoulder down to the hand are the only acceptable areas for touch,” at least between casual acquaintances, according to Andersen. “The back is very low in nerve endings, so that’s OK too.”
*Really, the only rule that ensures communicating by touch won’t get you into trouble is this: Don’t do it. Which is likely what it says in the employee handbook for your workplace. Still, leaving your humanity behind every time you leave home isn’t very appealing. Andersen’s slightly less stringent guidelines for touch: Outside of your closest relationships, stick to the safe zones of shoulders and arms (handshakes, high fives, backslaps), and in the office, it’s always better for a subordinate, rather than a superior or manager, to initiate.
*
If there’s a most appropriate time to communicate via touch, it’s probably when someone needs consoling. “Research shows that touch is the best way to comfort,” says Guerrero. “If you ask people how they’d comfort someone in a given situation, they tend to list pats, hugs, and different kinds of touch behaviors more than anything else. Even opposite-sex friends, for example, who usually don’t touch a lot so they won’t send the wrong signals, won’t worry about being misinterpreted,” she says.
I apologize that it comes off as such. Honestly if there were such black-and-white rules it would be a discussion of less interest and would likely not have resulted in TriPolar spinning this thread off from the other.
Of course context matters to when one will feel it’s safe to assume that particular touch will be appreciated in the spirit that it is intended. And mostly that processing occurs outside of conscious awareness in a microsecond. Your hypothetical matronly lady did not make a reasoned assessment. She felt compassion and communicated her empathy in the channel that bests communicates it, in a manner that is widely (but clearly not universally) felt to be acceptable within this culture for her to do. The burly man would, without thinking, know that patting your arm would not fit the image of what he would do to communicate compassion and would be less likely to do so. OTOH, if you were on the ground he might offer his hand to help you up, and as you pulled up, still holding your hand, might lean down, put his hand on your upper back as he asked if you were okay and if you wanted him to call an ambulance or the police. And I think he would fairly safely assume that you would appreciate that communication in the spirit that it was intended. Of course if as he put his hand towards your back you stiffened or turned/moved away he’d quickly understand to back away. But yes in general a female touching is less likely threatening to most than a male touching.
Let’s stick with your analogy to humor. It’s a very good one I think.
I believe that both are fundamental lines of communication in humans and, in general, those who use humor skillfully and appropriately for the context will have an easier time connecting with others. Just like those who skillfully use expressive touch. With both you can run into the person who is offended by something that most people find completely acceptable and you learn to modify your approach with that individual. You do not want to offend that person even if you just told a joke that somehow did. Both can be used in ways that are context inappropriate and that will cause offense. Both can used as an intentional means of causing offense and as a means of attempting to demonstrate dominance or to humiliate another person. Both can be received warmly and both can result in punches in the mouth or HR getting called.
Both can turn out to be unwanted and unappreciated.
Telling a joke is always to some degree taking a social risk. Those who try to tell jokes sometimes make minor errors of judgment. And some even major ones. Some just should not ever try. And some use the tool well.
Do you get explicit consent before you make a funny aside?
Not everyone tells jokes and not everyone likes jokes or shares the same idea of what is funny. Or when it is funny. Telling a joke to a coworker may be fine but telling the same joke when stopped by a cop, not.
So exactly right: there is no single line. Given that, no jokes ever may be the safest approach to avoid ever inadvertently annoying or offending. Some cross the line often. And yet I feel that jokes still do have a place at work, do not mind certain jokes at work, appreciate them even, and once in a while will engage in attempts at appropriate humor myself.
snowthx nice article.