The Etiquette of the Victorian Handshake: Advice on Opposite Sex Greetings
mimimatthews.com
mimimatthews.com
Plus there's the smell...
(ICO starting now, invest unless you want to risk being isolated for the rest of your life. In fact, also invest to safely opt out.)
If it doesn't look like your keyboard is missing some keys you are doing it wrong.
Still the custom in the certain Muslim counties, you'll never get it wrong if you wait for the woman to offer.
In Anglo-Saxon and Germanic countries women default to the handshake even outside of business settings. I find it odd and still have difficulties adjusting to that.
As a social construct, there'd be no need for going through the procedure, yet everyone basically has to go through it because everyone else does.
Considering that there are plenty of cultures in which handshakes are not commom (like in many Asian countries), there doesn't seem to be any good justification why it's done elsewhere, other than "custom". But not every custom actually is reasonable.
Obviously it's a custom, but I don't see how it is a weird one.
Touching someone is an intimate act between two people. A handshake is a gesture at the least intimate end of that scale. It's a way of mutually saying "we are no longer complete strangers, we are two people who know each other well enough to actually touch each other... but not too much".
I actually prefer hugging over handshakes due to my personal perception of it as less intimate.
From an hygienic point of view at least, I'd find it possible to argue that hugging is less "intimate" than a handshake.
Most people's subjective perception might be different of course. But it seems a lot is about customs and having "grown into" a certain procedure.
Nor the worst.
> From an hygienic point of view at least, I'd find it possible to argue that hugging is less "intimate" than a handshake.
> Most people's subjective perception might be different of course.
Yes it is different and I'll explain why: if a male and female hug each other, her breast will touch (via clothes) his chest. Especially if she has large breast. This can regularly lead to her getting hard nipples, and it might cause a chain reaction (ie. she figures she fancies him or might fancy him). Males know this (tho very young males might not). How's that not more intimate than shaking hands?
Another reason why hugging is intimate is that whilst hugging (feeling each other's body) you don't see each other at that point, and you don't see each other's arms or hands.
Yet another reason is, its traditionally part of foreplay for sex.
The problem of hygiene as you mentioned is partially solved by washing your hands before dinner.
As for hygiene, as a general note, you might wanna check your keyboard and touchscreens for bacteria. Tho neither existed in the Victorian era.
Similarly, I heard that clinking glasses originally came from the host pouring some of their drink into your cup (and vice versa), thereby mixing the drinks and proving that neither cup was poisoned. Eventually this evolved into the symbolic tap we do now.
It seems to want chivalry plus equality minus morality. This desire is represented by factions who seem to work together on some level. The end result is a mess.
As for equality, women are far more at risk from sexual predation and assault; I don't think it's rude to let social customs reflect this by having them initiate touch, largely.
As long as you take proper precautions, it seems like sex is a good thing.
I like it, anyway
I guarantee you would get hundreds of reasons not just one.
Although they are probably gonna be "simple" reasons.
Maybe something like having the right to waive the Rainbow Flag in front of the Whitehouse in case of Russian immigrants.
Not really, it's also supposed to be unjust or harmful.
Can you see how that alone is harmful in some contexts?
Attributing strength and health to gender identity carries with is all kind of problems for everyone involved.
EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it's not your gender or ethnicity that makes you treat someone a different way, it's who they are as an individual. I think that the idea of "chivalry" runs generally counter to this.
Reaching high boxes or opening jars is different. I'd do the same for a short old man as a woman, and I assume most men would do the same. It is no longer about sex, but about differences in people's strength and height. Gender doesn't matter as much, just ability.
Just like I'll hold the door for someone going through right after me instead of allowing it to slam in their face, or hold it longer for someone who's hands are full. I don't wait for elderly folks, though, since most folks are capable of opening doors.
Perhaps you are thinking "politeness", which is meant to be applied equally depending on other people gender, age, wealth...
(And really interesting in that regard, though I wouldn't want to have to deal with all these arbitrary rules!)
The handshake rules are not necessarily prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory. Some of them might be, some of them might not. It's best to think of sexism, and other isms, as a spectrum, and not hard and fast rules.
Occasionally, I get a sneer from women. I assume it's an assumption on their part that I'm being sexist.