Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#81

Post by Veen »

lmorchard wrote: post #71
Veen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The costs of avoiding direct eye contact are minimal. The cost of not wearing a crucifix are minimal. There are social benefits to touching, and most people are fine with casual touching. You have failed to demonstrate why touch is a special case. You can refer to my argument as whinging or tiresome if you like, but it that doesn't change its validity.

> most people are fine with casual touching That's a nice assumption. Are you sure about that? Have you asked most people? You might find that there are a lot of people who don't actually like it, but who find the consequences of making a fuss about it even worse.

You’re speculating that most people may dislike being touched, but be unable or unwilling to express their dislike? It’s certainly possible, but they would be indistinguishable from people who are fine with being touched, so there’s not much that can be done in that circumstance.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#82

Post by Veen »

manicdee wrote: post #74
Veen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The costs of avoiding direct eye contact are minimal. The cost of not wearing a crucifix are minimal. There are social benefits to touching, and most people are fine with casual touching. You have failed to demonstrate why touch is a special case. You can refer to my argument as whinging or tiresome if you like, but it that doesn't change its validity.

There are benefits to touching in social environments, agreed. The workplace is not a social environment. It brings together people who otherwise would never have shared the same space, so you need to be super cautious about establishing new relationships.

The original article isn’t limited to the workplace. And any environment in which humans come together is by definition a social environment.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#83

Post by sethammons »

manicdee wrote: post #75
sethammons wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably because you have always been the oppressor.

Poor kid, picked on quite a bit. Nerdy. Never been too good with people aside from being nice. Have had to work hard to understand normal conversation flow and such. Have never felt comfortable or natural with touch from strangers. You can write what ever narrative you like about me being an oppressor that makes your world view cogent. Doesn't make it right.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#84

Post by lmorchard »

Veen wrote: post #81
lmorchard wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most people are fine with casual touching That's a nice assumption. Are you sure about that? Have you asked most people? You might find that there are a lot of people who don't actually like it, but who find the consequences of making a fuss about it even worse.

You’re speculating that most people may dislike being touched, but be unable or unwilling to express their dislike? It’s certainly possible, but they would be indistinguishable from people who are fine with being touched, so there’s not much that can be done in that circumstance.

What can be done in the circumstance is this: keep your hands to yourself unless you know for sure. It's not difficult.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#85

Post by lmorchard »

nkkollaw wrote: post #76
lmorchard wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's ridiculous.

That's commonplace.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#87

Post by Veen »

lmorchard wrote: post #84
Veen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re speculating that most people may dislike being touched, but be unable or unwilling to express their dislike? It’s certainly possible, but they would be indistinguishable from people who are fine with being touched, so there’s not much that can be done in that circumstance.

What can be done in the circumstance is this: keep your hands to yourself unless you know for sure. It's not difficult.

Difficulty has nothing to do with it.

Your approach assumes that touching is somehow unusual and invasive, is not part of normal human interaction, and should always require upfront consent.

I see no reason to assume that a pat on the arm or a light hug should be categorized in that way.

If you don’t like being touched, then fine, that’s up to you. But you don’t get to dictate social norms for everyone else.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#88

Post by lmorchard »

Veen wrote: post #87
lmorchard wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can be done in the circumstance is this: keep your hands to yourself unless you know for sure. It's not difficult.

Difficulty has nothing to do with it. Your approach assumes that touching is somehow unusual and invasive, is not part of normal human interaction, and should always require upfront consent. I see no reason to assume that a pat on the arm or a light hug should be categorized in that way. If you don’t like being touched, then fine, that’s up to you. But you don’t get to dictate social norms for everyone else.

If you don't know a person, you don't know whether or not they find touch invasive. Don't touch them. You don't get to dictate boundaries for everyone else.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#89

Post by Veen »

lmorchard wrote: post #88
Veen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difficulty has nothing to do with it. Your approach assumes that touching is somehow unusual and invasive, is not part of normal human interaction, and should always require upfront consent. I see no reason to assume that a pat on the arm or a light hug should be categorized in that way. If you don’t like being touched, then fine, that’s up to you. But you don’t get to dictate social norms for everyone else.

If you don't know a person, you don't know whether or not they find touch invasive. Don't touch them. You don't get to dictate boundaries for everyone else.

You appear to be making some unjustified assumptions. Namely that I’m defending my habit of touching strangers.

In fact, I don’t touch people in social situations because I have a tendency to shyness. I do, however, find hugs and casual physical contact from other people pleasing and comforting. It’s a perfectly normal form of interaction.

It would lessen the enjoyment I take in spontaneous social interactions, including physical contact, if it were codified and tabooed in the way you seem to prefer. Thankfully, the people I have asked about this in person seem to agree with me.

Re: Some people are uncomfortable with touchers. Should they set the rules?

#90

Post by manicdee »

nkkollaw wrote: post #76
lmorchard wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's ridiculous.

What’s ridiculous?
Post reply on HN