
Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules? - pseudolus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/some-people-are-uncomfortable-with-touchers-like-biden-should-they-set-the-rules/2019/04/12/9f8a49da-5bbb-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html
======
_Microft
I think the best thing we could do to solve a whole lot of problems at once is
_assertiveness training_ for pupils, for example. Teach young people how to
communicate what they perceive as their boundaries and that violations of
these boundaries will have consequences. I would expect that a lot of things
will get better. It would be a win for both active and passive parties in
every interaction. If someone finds their boundaries violated, (s)he could
defend themselves (in a social way, if things need physical defense, then
things went awry already long before) and on the other hand the active partner
in an interaction could act more freely, knowing that the passive party would
object if he or she did something that the other one does not like.

I like the idea.

~~~
lmorchard
Or, maybe, what if people kept their hands to themselves so that others didn't
need to be on assertive defense against touchy grabby hands?

If you know for sure someone welcomes contact from you, then sure go ahead.

Otherwise, you're asking double from the person whose boundaries were
violated: First, the discomfort of the unsolicited contact. Then, second, the
discomfort of _causing a scene_ to assert their boundaries.

It's nearly always easier to just accept the first small and incidental
discomfort and move on - but it doesn't mean it was okay.

~~~
_Microft
There is a misunderstanding what assertiveness means. It is not just about
_defense against touchy grabby hands_ , it is meant to help people in every
situation where a violation of their boundaries can happen, i.e. in every
social interaction.

Examples could be _a relative that criticizes your physique_ (e.g. a comment
of the belly someone developed over the christmas holidays), _mansplaining_ or
_a repeatedly interrupting colleague_. Any sort of interaction bears the risk
of violating someones boundaries (that one does not know because _how could
one_ if they didn't communicate them [0]). Assertiveness means that someone
both _knows_ where _their own boundaries_ are, so that they actually can tell
when they are violated and additionally that they have the skills to deal with
it. This can be as easy as challenging the other with a "Oh? Do you think
so?", making clear that there is something one does not agree with and that
this is a topic the other would not have an _easy time_ to pursue further.
Assertiveness is not about _making a scene_ , it is about clearly
communicating that there is a topic that will _lead to conflict_ if pursued
further.

Basically it is a tool to make people stronger and more confident so that they
do not become victims of other people's transgressions as easily.

[0] This does not mean that people shouldn't be somewhat considerate but being
overly considerate is nothing more than social self-censorship. Others have to
accept your personality as much as you have to accept theirs. It's an
interplay.

 _Edit:_ This nice line is from Wikipedia: _Assertiveness is the quality of
being self-assured and confident without being aggressive._

------
pseudolus
In some countries/regions touching is part of the local culture and
withdrawing or wincing after being touched is perceived as being anti-social.
It contributes to the perception of certain nationalities and cultures as
being "cold", which is not a criticism but merely an observation. In the West
we appear to be slowly but surely moving to a non-touching culture.

------
JohnStrangeII
In my opinion, there should be no rules for such basic social interactions,
neither rules for regulating the touching nor rules for regulating the
reaction to it. It's not just a matter of personal freedom not to have such
rules, human behavior cannot and should not be regulated in such ways. Every
human interaction enforces or is based on existing norms anyway, but these
change over time and fixed rules would prevent that change. The change is
needed to adapt to changing living conditions and technological changes.

Of course, there can be exceptions, for example rules may make sense when
there is an extremely asymmetric power relation, e.g. one is the employer of
another, and we already have rules in the form of _laws_ for that purpose.

Without getting political (please!), does somebody have an idea where does
this obsession with rules come from? Fear of civil lawsuits in the US?

~~~
0815test
It's actually a matter of personal freedom to _have_ such rules. Joe Biden's--
or anyone else's-- freedom to swing his fist _should_ end at my nose, and this
should be made clear and unambiguous to everyone's benefit. License and
anarchy are the opposite of genuine, actual freedom.

~~~
jfk13
I think you'll find we already have rules that restrict Joe Biden's freedom to
punch you on the nose. On the other hand, we don't have rules that say I must
ask for your explicit consent before putting out my hand to shake yours when
we meet.

Somewhere in between, there are gray areas. The question is whether one vocal
minority should be allowed to define where the lines are drawn, and insist the
rest of society adjusts its norms to abide by their definitions. Or is it OK
for the establishment of social norms to be a broader, slower, less clearly-
defined, and sometimes ambiguous process?

~~~
manicdee
How come the rules that restrict Joe Biden’s freedom to touch other people
shouldn’t apply to you?

There don’t need to be rules about shaking hands or high giving because those
are mutually consensual actions.

Fist bumping a non-receptive individual (aka punching a colleague on the
shoulder) is not consensual.

For the “vocal minority” which is most women and some men, non-consensual
touching is associated with bullying, intimidation, physical coercion and
assault. In the workplace we try to avoid emotional arousal because people
shouting angrily at each other makes it difficult for others to focus on their
work.

In social settings, you are free to explore boundaries as long as you are
aware that failure to take non-vocal hints can lead to being ostracised from
those social circles.

But yes, the “vocal minority” should be allowed to define the lines, which are
pretty simple even for people who have never had to follow etiquette: other
people’s bodies are off limits to you unless they indicate otherwise.

By all means go for the high five, but accept that if it is not returned you
don’t try forcing it to happen. You have now divined where one boundary
existed at one point in time.

------
mc32
I hate saying this, but people who take advantage of norms is why we can’t
have nice things.

In this case nice things is social interaction that’re natural which don’t
require a “contract” (I.e. I’m thinking of hugging you, may I hug you?).

It’s so big brother-like. It’s a bit opposite of being social. It becomes more
like a mechanical contract and lawyerly. This is not a path I wish to go down.

Some people are over touchy, but, and here I agree with Pelosi, you have
agency. Put your hand out for a shake, or whatever. Yes, some people smooch
too much or hug or touch too much, but they are outliers and introducing these
artificial mechanics to, in theory, thwart these people, I think is not worth
the trouble.

~~~
dls2016
When was the last time someone sniffed your hair or you saw someone’s hair
sniffed in a professional situation?

My own professional career spans military, academia and multi-national
corporations and therefore dozens of hours of dumb videos showing cringy
behavior like Biden. These articles completely miss the point that he’s at
least 20 years out of date of what’s considered acceptable (and some of his
weird actions were never welcome, despite being acceptable norms).

~~~
mc32
Hair sniffing is quite different from hugging or touching. We’re talking about
“codifying” how people interact normally, hugging, touching, tapping.

Smelling, I think is outside the norm and most people would agree it’s
unwelcome behavior.

It’s like asking, is touching someone’s axillas appropriate? Of course outside
medical examinations probably not.

~~~
dls2016
Exactly. The article mischaracterizes Biden’s behavior and is therefore
pointless in discussing his fitness for office. (To the point that writers
like this appear to be carrying water for him.)

~~~
mc32
So the article is talking about touching, hugging, etc., tactile social
interaction. I agree we don’t need to codify them. On the other hand it
totally ignores the socially unacceptable sniffing aspect. That’s likely on
purpose because there is no need to explain it away. Most people accept that
as outside norms. Now, also, not discussing that but discussing a non problem
is a good way to bury the actual problem.

------
sethammons
Feels like a slippery slope. Someone will always feel uncomfortable with
something.

~~~
_jal
No, it really isn't hard to avoid touching someone who doesn't like it. If
simple accommodations like that are a "slippery slope", I'd suggest a little
empathy.

~~~
sethammons
Obviously, if you know someone doesn't like a thing, you can avoid doing that
thing. It is quite common for some people who just met to clasp a shoulder or
similar. It provides extra social comfort and connectivity. I'd suggest a
little empathy for those seeking human connection in a socially positive way.
Hmm. Seems that empathy thing goes both ways.

~~~
seba_dos1
> It provides extra social comfort and connectivity.

It does, but not for "people who just met". For them it provides awkwardness
and the feeling of being dominated.

~~~
sethammons
When I talk to a little old lady in the grocery line and she touches my arm, I
do not feel dominated, but to each their own I guess.

~~~
ksaj
This thread goes on indefinitely because of the lack of one word: context. You
think of _that_ little old lady one way. But if she was Queen Elizabeth, you
would perceive something completely different in terms of power dynamics.

~~~
sethammons
While I've yet to have Queen Elizabeth or some other high ranking official
have some physical contact with me, pretty sure my first reaction would not to
be thinking bout oppression.

------
seba_dos1
I don't really mind being touched, but it's definitely rather strange and I
don't know why would I touch others like that. Why do some people feel such a
need? It's not polite, it's... awkward.

~~~
Veen
Because many people enjoy casual social touching. Personally, I find it
pleasing when someone gives my arm a squeeze or gives me a hug when I am
leaving. But I would find it awkward to be asked "Do I have consent to sqeeze
your arm". For me, and for many people, touch is a comforting gesture of
affection and I'd be sad if people felt that they couldn't interact with me in
that way.

I'm English and we don't do much casual touching. But when I shared a house
with French people, they were visibly offended when I pulled back from a
casual kiss on the cheek to say hello and goodbye. Getting used to it cost me
nothing and eventually it became natural to me. I have a South African friend
of Indian descent, he's much more tactile than is usual in friendships between
straight males in the UK. Again, I was uncomfortable at first, but I adjusted
because I value the friendship.

I am at a loss as to why people feel that their discomfort is the overriding
factor in any situation. Sometimes, it's the uncomfortable one who needs to
make an adjustment.

~~~
seba_dos1
I find it pleasing too, but it's strange nevertheless. That strange feeling
goes away when the person that does it is not an emotional stranger anymore -
I'm touching my partner all the time and she touches me too because we know
each other and we know that we like and accept (or even expect) it.

My friends get to know me and can safely interact with me in many ways other
people can't and with them we can get really touchy (or not, depending on the
person). From others, I do expect that "do I have consent" question. It
sounded strange for me too in the past, but I've actually been in places where
such questions are a social norm and in practice they work really well. I'm a
kind of person who always replies "yes" anyway, but thanks to that question
the awkwardness somewhat goes away.

The only sane alternative to asking that question is not touching at all until
becoming emotionally connected.

------
j7ake
Are there rules for eye contact? Some people are uncomfortable with eye
contact.

~~~
jfk13
And some people are uncomfortable with avoidance of eye contact. Or with the
use of a veil or similar covering. Or with the non-use of such a covering.

------
nkkollaw
Some people are uncomfortable with non-touchers.

Can't people regulate basic social interactions without the government
stepping in, anymore?

If you're uncomfortable with a pat on your shoulder, just tell the person.

~~~
lmorchard
> just tell the person

Sure, that always works fine. They won't take offense or make it a thing or
blow it up and make everything awkward from then after.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. It's usually easier to just eat the discomfort
and not make a fuss. But, it would be nicer to not get touched by randos in
the first place.

~~~
nkkollaw
That's ridiculous.

~~~
lmorchard
That's commonplace.

------
deogeo
The article mentions some research. Let me add
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow#Partial_and_total...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow#Partial_and_total_isolation_of_infant_monkeys)
to the list:

"Partial isolation involved raising monkeys in bare wire cages that allowed
them to see, smell, and hear other monkeys, but provided no opportunity for
physical contact. [..] partial isolation resulted in various abnormalities
such as blank staring, stereotyped repetitive circling in their cages, and
self-mutilation."

------
josh_fyi
It's not just the potential sexual threat that generates discomfort. A
friendly pat on the shoulder can also be interpreted as a dominance display.

~~~
pacala
The cat is out of the bag, can we please let this piece of poppsych die? A
surprisingly large number of manager wannabe type at a FAANG company made a
point to try to pat me on the back in public. Please stop trying to
symbolically stomp on people you'd like on your team, it's demeaning.
Especially for yourself.

~~~
whenchamenia
I think, as your posts demonstrate, reading too much in to any action is
problematic. If a platonic touch is 'symbolic stomping' to you, perhaps the
issue is larger than a single action.

~~~
pacala
Right. Except that none of my other coworkers tried the pat of the back trick.
Except that said managers never did it in private. Just don't do it, instant
respect losing move.

------
0815test
> Humans require social touch, but the rules that govern its deployment are
> not biologically determined...

On the contrary; social touch, _with the ensuing spectrum between
"discomfort/aggression/dominance" and "affiliation/friendship/social comfort"_
is actually found in all social mammals, it has nothing to do with society,
gender, sexual undertones or anything human-specific like that! Even
domesticated cats
[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5962](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5962)
[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1771](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1771) have a basic,
instinct-driven understanding of how the aforementioned spectrum should be
carefully negotiated if one is to establish a genuinely-experienced social
bond.

I'm sorry but yes, per the above, Biden's "touchy-feely" behavior with
strangers has indeed been singularly clueless, even unintentionally creepy and
disturbing, in neglecting these obvious facts. Biden is one of the major
figures in U.S. politics and obviously socially competent - he has no excuse
for this.

~~~
everdrive
You're helping to create a very cold world. I've heard the term neopuritan
thrown around in this context, and the more I think about it the more it fits.
The modern obsession with harshly judging the body language, physical touch,
and emotion of individuals today feels like a technology-enabled Scarlet
Letter.

People's preferences aren't immediately self-evident to all observers, and
intent does matter.

~~~
siliconunit
Absolutely agree with this. I find it quite sad when I see young non religious
people at work behaving like monks and nuns in fear of human latent intentions
and interpretations of their behaviour. Sometimes reading too much theory and
having too many specific words that define phenomenons which you have not yet
experienced and elaborated can lead to a very frustrating life to say the
least..

------
luckylion
Non-paywalled [https://outline.com/hefKak](https://outline.com/hefKak)

------
timwis
Hi everyone! Just a friendly reminder that as a community of largely white,
highly educated,
[male]([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591309](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591309))
[millennials]([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2175588](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2175588)),
we have some blindspots: areas we cannot see that we do not know we cannot
see.

When we read an article like this, it's natural to put yourself in the shoes
of the people it's about, and imagine if you'd have reacted the same way. As
empathetic as we may each feel we are, this process still involves projecting
a magnitude of assumptions about the other person's experience which we simply
cannot know. We naturally assume that people experience life _generally_ the
same way we do: sure, their circumstances may be different, but we're all
equal and we all make choices basically the same way.

But it isn't true. We each see the world through a series of lenses, and it's
not really possible to remove those lenses. The best we can do is be aware of
the lenses, and that other people have different lenses.

I'm not suggesting this article is right or wrong; just that those of us who
feel very strongly about it in one direction or the other should, perhaps,
acknowledge that theirs is not the _only_ legitimate perspective.

If you're interested in learning more about lenses, privilege, and why we
often feel defencive when confronted by it, I highly recommend [this
book]([https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-
Racism/d...](https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-
Racism/dp/0807047414)).

------
triplee
Yes.

Next question.

------
erokar
Yes, they should.

------
patrickg_zill
It's not that Biden is a 'toucher' but who he touches, and possibly why he
touches.

Find video of his sniffing the hair of an old man for example ... You can't.

