In Vrij Nederland (Free Netherlands, a liberal weekly) was an article about the importance of touch and closeness for people’s health, and how single people coped with it. It was linked on facebook.
My comment was that ten years ago, there was quite a rich hugging culture in alternative circles. But since the rule was made up that everyone should ask for permission, this petered out, for this explicitness and lack of spontaneity made it too complicated for many people. Naturally, this had consequences for the amount of physical closeness, and as a result for the health of many singles. (I didn’t explicitly judge this rule as such.)
My comment got seven likes, six of which by women. One woman even reacted with: good point.
Seven of course isn’t much. But even more striking: nobody called what I wrote typically the opinion of a cishet white man or an incel or an harasser. Apparently open talk about dilemmas like this, even on the fb page of a liberal weekly, isn’t that outrageous anymore. Of course this is partly due to outright rightist people invading them, but we’d better profit from that than let those rightist take over all opposition against woke feminism.
[–]White_Immigrant 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
It's really interesting that a "rule" was created, socially I assume, to ask express permission. Of course physical care ntact should only be made with consent, but I don't grab people to hug them, or shake their hand, I offer open arms or an extended hand, they choose the contact, therefore giving consent. It's less awkward, particularly in social settings, than having to explicitly ask.
[–]NullableThought 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
As someone who dislikes hugs from most people (including family), I actually like that people have started asking express permission. You might wait for the other person to embrace you but not everyone does. And there's a lot more social pressure to complete the hug when someone has already started the process (opening their arms). Many, many people get offended if you don't complete the hug. People don't seem to get as offended if they ask first and you say no.
Not everyone likes being touched by other people.
[–]Max-Paul2022 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank You for bringing up a vital issue central to our existence as human beings. And, as MRAs, it is a great shame it is not something we are unafraid to list at the top of our list of concerns: where it should be! So, Thank You, once again.
Touch is a guarded and limited discussion in society. Partly, out of ignorance, as data on this is comparatively new, but mostly for reasons of control. ( Digression: Data primacy , is most likely, also used to maintain ignorance-shielding peoples' awareness from obvious truths, and effectively outlawing common sense-and any reasoning based on personal observation i.e. the very evidence of our own eyes)! I really do believe that men are bred to be more logical and accountable, while denying or overlooking their own emotional needs. And... that we are treated to a special type of systemic gas-lighting in return...blaming us for not being emotionally developed while, simultaneously, twisting these developmental sacrifices into privilege.
Discussion is not as limited for women, but it is not such an issue for them either. For men, the scarcity in this arena is a much more pressing and structural issue. Here structural means not just baked into the system, but a feature, not a bug! A conscious choice. Or so I believe. I won't ramble on or just re-hash some version of Warren Farrell's obviously true words on the disposability of men. If you agree with him, sentiments generally expressed on this forum, or appreciate any of what I'm saying--then having more kindness for self and others, can be considered a revolutionary act for men. Idea being, that kindness paves the way for acts and moments of affection. Sure, be a Man. Decide what it is you have to do and where you must compete. In so doing, make sure all other areas of your life are open to such possibilities, and that you have other areas in your life, other than just career, to begin with!
Sex is a different matter. It is both part of intimacy, and, separate from it. It is this duality that has made it easy for Feminists and other establishment actors, to exploit black and white thinking to fashion negative stereotypes of men, and to denigrate male sexuality. In this way, they can deny the reality that men are human too, not requiring all the "extras" that come with sex. Growing up, my generation all got "the talk" how self-pleasure was evil, most likely caused serious illness, and could get you off the shortlist for heaven! LOL. However, what's not funny is when we consider the role of commerce in the denigration of men and realise, thus, all of society is working towards this common goal of denigrating men, constantly, 24-7.
I say commerce, but I not only mean common negative tropes in mainstream media-but even in porn. I think the gigantic campaign of recent times, promoting anal-yse this, as a great example of the constant denigration of men. Before you knew it, discussion of this was all over facebook, with women on one side, they had issued their decree, saying, "nay" and men, allegedly on the other side. But really men were cast in to the opposing position by default. I'm not going to stoop to debating this topic here, but obviously men are not all that concerned about performing this act with women all the time. By definition, it is not in the mainstream of hetero-sexual activity and is being promoted, I believe, to suit the needs of the industry. Which just happens to suit the joint aims of the establishment and feminists.
For me this is another example of how Feminism either creates or fosters real hate in society. Because they, along with everyone else, have spent decades promoting the notion that men are ONLY interested in sex. Now, don't get me wrong, I love sex, I really do. But affection, intimacy, trust, kindness and gentleness, straight up netflix and chill with cuddles, and numerous other aspects of relating and relationships matter to all of us too!! Plus, sex is, to borrow a phrase from those evil harpies, on a spectrum! It can mean anything from a 5 minute blow job in a park to 9 hours of extended love-making on a luxury holiday, for example.
Both, The Neoliberal Order and their hand maidens, Feminists, have combined to denigrate male sexuality, and before them, The Church. Learn from women. They knew long before "the data" was a thing, that you take your affection, touch and even flirtation where you can find it. If that means getting a dog, visiting relatives, finding appropriate new hobbies, volunteering, whatever it means, do it! I know. I doesn't sound like much, nor is it a very satisfying answer. But that's all there is to it. From there, may be one day, we can get back to a world where touching a co-worker on the arm is not a capital offence, generously playing with the neighbour's kids doesn't get you on to some sort of government list, or going to the park as a single father with your own child, does not garner unanimously disapproving looks from cliques of women.
be kind...rewind!
[–]eli_ashe 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Its puritanism people. The over moralization of sexuality. In the currents it is consent culture, yes means yes. There is nothing wrong with basic human touch, there isn't even anything wrong with sexualized human touch. These things do not require someone to say some magic words to make them not naughty things. They are just normal human things to do.
no means no is a fine ethical norm. It doesn't stigmatize basic human touch, or sexualized touch. No one asks for permission to speak to someone else, because there isn't anything wrong with speaking to someone. You just start speaking. They may say no thanks, go away creep, whatever. But there isn't a prima facie assumption that it is wrong to speak to someone unless and until they give consent.
Same with hugs, handshakes, pats on the arms, and so on, and so on. Same is true for sexualized touch as a means of expressing sexual interest.
Only puritans would think otherwise. Call out the witch burners everywhere you can find them!
Also, this is a common feminist understanding in the academics of it. Only the online feministas who've never read a book in their lives think otherwise.
[–]Dashing2026 -4 points-3 points-2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
I would say that prosperity of a nation is contingent on political correctness: the self-admission into a culture of cosmopolitanism.
That entails a clear respect and adherence to the boundaries set by all norm-abiding participants of the society, which fosters a sort of social bureaucracy to govern our manners and ways of recognizing others.
This bring capital prosperity, as successful commerce is strongly contingent on the participation of as many agents as possible. It also fosters a space of safeness that prevents the formation of a marginalized, as well as the necessary protection for any imminently marginalized one.
The downsides exist for such a cosmopolitan capitalist culture, one of which is highlighted in that post.
[–]Blauwpetje[S] 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
Reminds me of Norbert Elias ‘The process of civilisation’, how since about 1200 (western) society is more and more dependent on people subduing their impulses, which makes it more orderly, but also a bit like a straightjacket. Do you mean something like that?
[–]Dashing2026 -5 points-4 points-3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
I would say that it's more about multiculturalism, as a society becomes more prosperous due to free market dynamics, that inevitably attracts people from all corners of the world to partake in the economic machine and make a living. This huge variety of backgrounds and culture will need a heavy beuraucrasy to govern our behaviors towards one another. The mitigation here isn't necessarily our behaviors, rather it's how we recognize the identity of others and interact with them, as highlighted by the social distancing in the OP post.
[–]Blauwpetje[S] 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Alright. But the rule of asking for permission probably had more to do with #metoo than with multiculturalism. With Moroccan girls I was more careful anyway (and a feminist woman called that ‘racist’!)
[–]Dashing2026 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I would think that feminism falls under a broader umbrella concerning.
[–]bottleblank 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Although I agree that feminism is riding on the same wave as those who campaign against racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc, it doesn't have the excuse of being "multicultural". It's men and women. We've lived together since the species existed and even before that, before we became humans.
There is no excuse for suddenly deciding that men and women can no longer coexist, it's an anomaly, it's a broken way of thinking.
It's not some collision of far distant cultures wrestling with how to mesh two different and incompatible cultural or religious ideologies. It's a mutually beneficial coexistence, within the same cultures, which we've accepted as normal for thousands and thousands of years. I'm pretty sure, by this point, we know the practical features and behaviours of each gender, having observed them over countless generations, and previously we would've acknowledged those in a realistic, functional way.
But now those differences are in the hands of those who seek to claim that they don't or shouldn't exist and complain loudly when they still do, rather than making use of them or appreciating/celebrating them as we used to do.
[–]Cross55 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
You realize this is a left-wing sub right?
Most don't agree nor respect this xenophobic bs.