if most of a population like a behavior/norm, but a small percentage really don't, it can make sense to change the norm for the small %, but most communities do this without properly weighing in the cost to the majority
e.g., requiring asking verbal consent for hugs
Conversation
Replying to
It all depends how angry the minority is
23
Replying to
Thoughts on non-verbal consent requests. ie. “opening arms wide and inviting the other to initiate the hug.” As a substitute?
2
16
Replying to
"Most communities" because those who don't care about the needy as much don't have the disposition to start a community in the first place
1
1
Replying to
There is no weighing to be done in your example, bodily autonomy should be a right.
2
1
Replying to
Just communicate that you don't like hugs. Also you got arms to put between you and a hugger. If it's easy, don't ask society to solve your problem for you
1
9
Replying to
That's one where I've decided I'm in the wrong- signs of affection like that are important (and the hurt of rejection reasonably large), so what's gained with the imposition is more than what's lost on net.
4
Replying to
Yes, because the purpose of such explicit rules is partly consciousness-raising. The burden on the majority is negligible: most people will continue negotiating consent for hugs via nonverbal means. For the few who habitually overstep others' boundaries, we draw a brighter line.
6