The Common "Touch"

        I am briefly revisiting a topic on which a great deal of conversation has taken place recently. A friend has discussed this topic in public media and eloquently, I think. I’m referring to the recent invented hoo-hah re: Joe Biden. I will begin by posting a quote, source to be named later.

       “The matter of physical touch is, well, touchy. One person's affectionate hug is another's creepy, unwelcome invasion of personal space. Biden does seem to have stepped over the line at times. Free advice: Inhaling the aroma of a woman's hair and kissing her head when you've just met is not recommended. But most of the time, it seems that Biden's hugs, shoulder rubs and Eskimo kisses were well-received. He is physically demonstrative with women, but also with other men and particularly with children.” (I italicize that last part because I feel it is illustrative of several points.)

         The first: Joe Biden is either a pansexual predator on the grand scale or he is none. An illustration for contrast might show the avoidance behavior of Trump with regard to men and children, including his own at times, while having a well-documented (and self-admitted) history of inappropriate contact with women.  

       The second: This allegation comes at a time when Biden may be considering his political future.

  

      Third: The incidents alleged were completely public and overt actions, which a true predator would hesitate to make (see Weinstein, Harvey), for fear of being “outed.”

       Finally, these allegations, as much as some may wish to analogize them to previous bad behaviors by their own camp, are nowhere in the same universe as a Brett Kavanaugh involvement in either condoning or committing rape, or the Clarence Thomas pubic hair/soda can incident, yet they are, in a few fringe circles, being conflated with such.

       The idea of actual sexual assault or predation to any degree is, or certainly should be, repugnant to any rational individual, male or female. The definition of it, however, has been, in the #MeToo era, blurred to an extent such that there is little discernable boundary left between acceptable and unacceptable and now is extended, in some cases to general “personal space” issues. Furthermore, that boundary is a very wide sliding scale. In essence, the problem which has arisen as more, and more open, discussion of the topic has become main-stream is this: There is, at the border of acceptable and unacceptable, no universally acknowledged stop sign, yield sign or (forgive me) “wall.” As a male, I have known colleagues whose definitions of that concept (personal space) were far afield from my own, but generally it wasn’t friendly in nature, rather an attempt to dominate. No one has even hinted that Joe Biden’s behavior is of that nature.

        While we all do, or certainly should, agree that “No means no,” That leaves a whole lot of social behavior which is, or can be, subjective and evaluated through that lens. Unfortunately, that subjectivity is generally in the eye and personal history/psyche of the recipient of an incursion into that personal space which said recipient finds intrusive, but which the other finds simply affectionate and appropriate. Reasons for this are so widely varied as to almost escape a comprehensive listing. Examples might include family history, (to hug/kiss or not?), personal space perceptual differences (“no touch?”), etc.

      Unfortunately, we don’t wear the signs of our own personal receptivity on our persons like nametags. Now, here is where I will make it clear that I am now venturing into the realm of personal opinion:

        If initial contact with a person is deemed inappropriate, be it in a social setting or whatever, I feel it is incumbent upon an individual, whose sensitivities are such that personal touch is unwelcome, to make that clear. Simply putting one’s hands up or a quiet “please don’t” should suffice. I find it interesting that this simple, and private, act is absent, yet at a later time a public accusation is seen somehow as a remedy.  In the case of Joe Biden, his frequently publicly and physically demonstrated love of his wife and children and sometimes tactile displays of affection in general to persons of both sexes, make it clear that this is who he is. Even the current complaint makes no concrete allegation or even the vaguest inference of a sexual component to the unwanted contact.

        Maybe it’s a whole lot simpler than it is being made to seem. Perhaps, Biden innately realizes that appropriate human contact bonds us and is simply a silent form of communication. As a political figure, he most assuredly lacks the one advantage component most of us in the public arena have – time to figure out who is openly receptive to public, casual collegial/friendly human interaction, and who isn’t. Mr. Biden has, however,  done what Messers Trump or Kavanaugh haven’t the character or personality to do. He has acknowledged that he understands now what, generally, no one even spoke of before the #MeToo “revelation.” 

       What I find interesting is the broad spectrum of persons who have risen to make the same points I have endeavored to make.

        Jeannie Etchart, is a Montana Republican, and a former worker for Bush 43, Palin and Cheney, who describes her experience with Democrat Biden at a meeting where she conveyed to him that her dad had been diagnosed with the same cancer which killed Beau, Joe’s son.  “I never for a minute felt uncomfortable, or that he was creepy,” said Etchart. “I think he would have hugged a young man in the same situation. My point in telling this story is that, while Vice President Biden has a very personal and affectionate way about him, it is only because he loves people. He loves people’s stories. Man, woman, child. Father, mother, son, daughter, spouse. He knows people are hurting and can relate and offer genuine support. And human touch is the most basic form of relaying that. There is no ulterior motive — he just wants to get close to everyone. Because he cares about their stories. And is human. And THAT is what matters most and crosses all party lines.”

        As one final example: There is little or no interface and certainly even less political affinity between Whoopi Goldberg and conservative op-ed columnist Mona Charen - except on this issue.   

       Here’s Whoopi’s take: “In the old days…some folks of a certain age would say he’s a little overly familiar,” Goldberg said. “But most politicians when they’re, you know, doing this with you, they are, and Joe is a hands-on kind of guy. But I’ve never heard anyone — and she said she felt violated and I have to take her at her word — but it would have been nice if she had turned to him and said, you know what, J? I don’t really like this.”     

       At the other end of the political spectrum, but generally above the fray where name calling and character assassination are concerned, is Ms. Charen: “Our need to touch and be touched never subsides. Chronic loneliness has been found to be as harmful to health as smoking. Studies have found that hugs don't just relieve stress and release oxytocin (the bonding hormone); they can also reduce susceptibility to the common cold, lower blood pressure and diminish pain. And when humans pet animals, both experience physiological benefits. Even just holding hands with a loved one while enduring a painful medical procedure has been found to make the experience more bearable.

        Most of us just aren't designed to live the kind of solitary lives that excessive entanglement with technology is encouraging. We are social and also tactile creatures....  Let's not lose sight of our affective natures even as we police the excessively “handsy” amongst us.” She is also the author of the initial quote.

        In a knee jerk world of "all media,all the time," let us not allow the extremes of the pendulum swing that comprises the scope of human interaction to denigrate the means. And I do believe that’s all I have to say about that.