4 ms·

It's not a matter of "not respecting" personal boundaries, but rather of probing them, by which we become closer. To use a coarse, but common example, if you're

by rosser 8y ago

It's not a matter of "not respecting" personal boundaries, but rather of probing them, by which we become closer. To use a coarse, but common example, if you're chatting someone up, you might probe the boundary by touching them on the arm, or shoulder. You would, generally speaking, not be respecting it by grabbing their ass. If you're demonstrating closeness by "not respecting" people's boundaries, that's an entirely different matter. I don't mean to pick on your phrasing, except to suggest that how we say things colors how we think about things, and nuances like that matter when we're talking about something as, you know, nuanced as interpersonal dynamics, and especially so with intimates.

deogeo 8y ago
'Probing' is a better term than I used, yes. But neither probing nor disrespecting (or disregarding) really captures the admittedly rather fuzzy idea. I can't shake the feeling that such 100% adherence to verbal (and even intended) yes/no is somehow like keeping people at arms length distance, emotionally. At the very least, it's not how I'd want to be treated.
- shredprez 8y ago
  If I were to describe how I want to be treated: I don’t want to have to ask to be touched by someone whose touch I want. Having the touch come unbidden is exciting and satisfying. But I don’t want to be touched by someone who’s touch is repellant to me (by any degree). Having to experience or rebuff the touch is uncomfortable or disturbing. Of course it’s tough to have it both ways! I err on the side of expecting less confirmation in exchange for more of that first example. But as for how I treat others? I err on the side of verbal confirmation, so as to avoid crossing a line someone else takes more seriously than I do. So far it’s working alright! Is it the best system? Hard to say.
- rosser 8y ago
  > I can't shake the feeling that such 100% adherence to verbal (and even intended) yes/no is somehow like keeping people at arms length distance, emotionally. Absolutely it is, in almost any context. In most of those where it isn't, that's probably by design. It might even be the right move. Where the line falls varies on every single edge of your social graph, all the time. Consent to be touched, or whatever, or not, isn't blanket, but "transactional" is the term used in discussions around consent, and revocable or renegotiable. But, to your point, especially in some contexts, like flirting, the expectation is to push the boundary, not probe it. There, I think, it's very much a matter of execution. But, honestly, that's pretty speculative; I tend only to flirt well accidentally. EDIT: Phrasing.

by rosser 8y ago

deogeo 8y ago

'Probing' is a better term than I used, yes. But neither probing nor disrespecting (or disregarding) really captures the admittedly rather fuzzy idea. I can't shake the feeling that such 100% adherence to verbal (and even intended) yes/no is somehow like keeping people at arms length distance, emotionally. At the very least, it's not how I'd want to be treated.

shredprez 8y ago
If I were to describe how I want to be treated: I don’t want to have to ask to be touched by someone whose touch I want. Having the touch come unbidden is exciting and satisfying. But I don’t want to be touched by someone who’s touch is repellant to me (by any degree). Having to experience or rebuff the touch is uncomfortable or disturbing. Of course it’s tough to have it both ways! I err on the side of expecting less confirmation in exchange for more of that first example. But as for how I treat others? I err on the side of verbal confirmation, so as to avoid crossing a line someone else takes more seriously than I do. So far it’s working alright! Is it the best system? Hard to say.
rosser 8y ago
> I can't shake the feeling that such 100% adherence to verbal (and even intended) yes/no is somehow like keeping people at arms length distance, emotionally. Absolutely it is, in almost any context. In most of those where it isn't, that's probably by design. It might even be the right move. Where the line falls varies on every single edge of your social graph, all the time. Consent to be touched, or whatever, or not, isn't blanket, but "transactional" is the term used in discussions around consent, and revocable or renegotiable. But, to your point, especially in some contexts, like flirting, the expectation is to push the boundary, not probe it. There, I think, it's very much a matter of execution. But, honestly, that's pretty speculative; I tend only to flirt well accidentally. EDIT: Phrasing.