[Elster]

Brave New World Wrote:

"Whereas, if they'd only started on moral education," said the Director, leading the way towards the door. The students followed him, desperately scribbling as they walked and all the way up in the lift. "Moral education, which ought never, in any circumstances, to be rational."

Any of this sound familiar?

[debeguiled]

Get that thing away from me:

[Tex Cruise]

This one popped up on my fb feed just now. (For those outside Australia, the MCG is the Melbourne Cricket Ground, and the Big Bash League is a kind of high energy version of cricket)

   

Edit: Wrong attachment fixed.

[Paracelsus]

This sort of parenting is pretty much par for the course when you have narcissist parents or you took too long to have kids yourself such that your own parents had forgotten the experience of raising kids by the time you came to ask them how the fuck you do this shit.

The shortest question you can ask a mother who does this sort of stupid shit is this: did you have this sort of training when you were a kid? The answer will be "No."

The followup question is: despite not having this training as a kid, did you turn out all right? The truthful answer, which you'll never get, is generally going to be "Yes".

The far more likely answer will be some sort of rationalisation such as "Well, you can't be too careful", or "It doesn't do them any harm". And the responses to those rationalisations, respectively, are 'Yes you can, that's why there are currently 21-year-old girls suffering depressive episodes over the election of Donald Trump' and 'Yes it does, but as a self-involved parent you don't give a shit about that anyway'.

I.) This behaviour has little to do with "confidence" or "consent", you're doing it because you have partaken in the paranoia about paedophiles that the Western media has been whipping up for the past thirty years or so. (And the children of that paranoia are all growed up now, and their paranoia, too, has grown up: we call it rape culture now.) Unfortunately, as with most narcissistic parenting, it's a half-arsed solution to a problem much more complicated than you think. You're not going to be able to play Spot-The-Paedophile by watching which parent/uncle/close family acquaintance the kid doesn't want to hug. Grooming by paedophiles normalises sexual behaviour towards a kid, and the kid is vulnerable because the paedophile is part of the the family circle, not because the kid has an instinct to hug members of his family circle. Any fool who thinks that by making their kid wary of hugging is going to deter a paedophile in the family has no fucking idea of how kidfuckers actually operate.

II.) You're teaching the kid a pathetic defence against paedophiles in the family in essence because you don't spend enough time with your kid and you're feeling guilty about it. You let them hang out with overly friendly neighbours or acquaintances on their own because you have no family nearby and you don't talk to your kid enough or know your kid well enough to be able to spot the signs that they're being attacked anyway. You teach them that at gatherings of your friends that they can hug or not hug as they see fit, but once that awkward scene is done, you're socialising with other people anyway and not giving a shit if your kid and Danny Fuckowitz's boy are playing doctors and nurses at the back of the garden.

III.) Teaching your kid about consent at an inappropriately young age on inappropriate subjects says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about society or about your kid. The greatest metaphorical observation the B-movie Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story had for its viewers was this: if you don't confront and conquer your own demons, you pass them on to your children for them to fight. A woman drumming the issue of consent into her kids at the age of three or so has some serious fucking issues in that area, whether it was someone not getting her consent after about six beers or because she was fucked by an uncle at the age of nine ... but your kids are not you, and teaching your 3 year old about consent is just as likely to give her the same insecurities you have in this area. The reality is: you don't want your kid hugging other adults because you're a fucking narcissist, but you don't have the guts to say to people "No, please don't hug my child, it makes me uncomfortable." You leave it to your kid to draw the weird looks.

IV.) There's a difference between what you teach a kid and what that kid learns. When you teach a kid that they don't have to hug family members if they don't want to or don't have to return affection when it's shown, they learn the following:

(a) Love is conditional. Specifically, your kids learn that love is a state or a feeling -- the doomed romantic ideal -- and not a verb -- the way that pretty well all marriages that survive do so.

(b) You can choose your family. Which is a dreadful belief system to put on a kid, because the West (and big portions of the East) do not survive on socialism or on capitalism, it survives on stable families first, groups of people that are committed to one another through genetics and habits ingrained from when a child is small. If a child is taught from a young age that they need not show affection to someone unless they want to (read: given an incentive to show affection) how are they ever going to be there for their sister/cousin/father when it's 3:00 a.m. and the ambulance sirens are screaming and death is near?

(c ) You have adult choices. Only the most twisted of parents offers their kid total choice in anything, and only the most retrograde of parents expects a kid to make conscious choices about who they should or should not love or show affection to. Even kids are terrified by the idea of having to make the choices that adults do. This is part of the war on childhood itself, which has been going on since roughly 1990 or so and which is pretty well over given the existence of Miley Cyrus.

(d) Your adult choices have no adult consequences attached to them. You cannot expect a kid to on one hand have the free, untrammelled choice of not giving Great Aunt Clara a hug because she smells like old socks and on the other hand expect them to understand they're likely to hurt Clara's feelings if they don't. Great Aunt Clara won't show your kid that it hurts because unlike you she was brought up in a generation that actually believed other people were more than supporting characters in your movie and because she believes your kid doesn't deserve to be punished for something the kid doesn't understand. But you, having drummed into the kid that there are no consequences attaching to that choice to say no, will be raising a kid who will believe that other people don't actually have feelings. This isn't the only step on the road to creating a sociopath, but it's a damn good kindergarten for it.

[Only One Man]

Hooray! Social justice warriors have found yet another way to create more "victims". You got to hand it to them they're pretty creative when it comes to this stuff.

[Bluto]

I think that you are safe as long as you don't act like Dr. Evil:

[Mr Johnny Montoya]

(12-28-2016 11:48 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Any fool who thinks that by making their kid wary of hugging is going to deter a paedophile in the family has no fucking idea of how kidfuckers actually operate.

"Oh really? Well you must know a lot about how they operate then. Huh, huh, huh."

That's the response you'd probably get. There's no point in arguing with idiots.

[CynicalContrarian]

Can see it now...

Alcohol free zone.

Gun free zone.

Hug free zone.

[ivansirko]

(12-26-2016 04:20 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

^^ Looks like a 4chan troll, but the people liking it are probably serious.

I wish this was correct.

The CNN article from the facebook post.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/20/living...index.html

This is used under the guise of protection from pedos.

Quote:

I shudder at recent stories of Josh Duggar's "inappropriate touching" of his sisters, accusations that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted women after drugging them and Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach convicted of sexually abusing young boys. And they strengthen my resolve to teach my kid that it's OK to say no to an adult who lays a hand on her -- even a seemingly friendly hand.

...

Forcing children to touch people when they don't want to leaves them vulnerable to sexual abusers, most of whom are people known to the children they abuse, according to Ursula Wagner, a mental health clinician with the FamilyWorks program at Heartland Alliance in Chicago. None of the child victims of sexual abuse or assault she's counseled was attacked by strangers, she said.

Sometimes a child picks up on something odd about your brother-in-law that no one knows. Maybe he isn't a sexual predator. Maybe he has no sense of boundaries. Maybe he tickles too much, which can be torture for a person who doesn't like it. Or he may be a predator.
"It sends a message that there are certain situations (when) it's not up to them what they do with their bodies," Wagner said. "If they are obligated to be affectionate even if they don't want to, it makes them vulnerable to sexual abuse later on."

..so her daughter grows up believing any touching of her in any way by any "adult" (male) leads up to rape.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The further these lunatics wander from common humanity the more they mark themselves as outcasts.

I remarked some time ago that we are never, I repeat never going to see genderqueer pronouns used in a highly marketed television show or movie. We have reached saturation levels of stupidity. The man in the street will absorb no more of it.

So these fruitcakes can babble about this bullshit but I don't see it dragging our societies any further left because there's simply a point where "normal" people refuse to engage any further, and at that point they opt to ignore these freaks and place them outside of their circles of influence.

In my opinion this phenomenon is a big part of what got Trump elected.

So freak-on you dumb freaks. You're only digging your own political graves.

[CynicalContrarian]

^
It doesn't matter whether an established societal convention is genuinely of any merit or not.
If it works, it works.
Between instant everything (attention, entertainment, food) & a fast paced, rat race lifestyle.

To drag it all to a halt where every social interaction requires a preamble of establishing the exact what, why & how; will either get real old, real quick or it will just be dropped by the wayside out of impatience.

[Gimlet]

This appears to be an orchestrated step towards giving children the right to consent to having sex with adults. Today it's a hug to get everyone acclimated to the idea that children should make these decisions for themselves. The envelope will continue to be pushed.

[Jean Valjean]

The meme is not saying that hugging or kissing kids is always bad. It's just saying that kids have a right to say no to unwanted hugs or kisses. E.g., according to this view, if you tell your kid, "Go give uncle Bernie a hug" and he's shy about going over there because he doesn't know Uncle Bernie well, or he just thinks uncle Bernie is gross and doesn't want to get close to him, you shouldn't forcibly grab him and make him hug him, or spank him for refusing. The idea is, that's not the kind of hug that's going to help your kid's emotional development.

Now, you might tell your kid, "It's polite to give a hug" or "He might feel hurt if you don't hug him" but personally, I don't get bent out of shape if a young relative refuses to hug me, because they're just kids, and kids say and do all kinds of weird stuff that we'd consider rude if it came from an adult. Just like a kid is going to fall down as he's learning to walk, kids are going to commit social faux pas in the beginning stages of their social development.

A paternalistic theory would hold that yes, you do indeed have a right to make your kid hug and kiss Uncle Bernie if you think that it would be best for your kid's emotional and social development. As the parent, you're the one in charge of looking after his well-being as you see fit. The state compromises between the two views by having your back if what you're forcing your kid to do doesn't fall outside of what is culturally considered adequate parental care.

Out of an abundance of caution (specifically, a desire to avoid costly litigation), a lot of adults are these days not giving other people's kids any physical affection at all. For example, my mom is director of a shelter for (allegedly) abused women, and sometimes kids will run up to the employees and try to hug them. The employees are trained to refuse the hugs by moving their own arms outward to break the kid's hold on them. It doesn't matter if the kid misses his dad and is crying and upset about being uprooted from his home, and wants to be comforted; the policy is no hugging, or accepting hugs from, the residents' kids, period.

Libertarians would view that as unnecessary, because the kid has, by initiating the hug, indicated that it's a wanted hug. But the lawyers apparently feel otherwise. We are, after all, dealing with mothers who have already accused one person of abuse and might accuse another. One never knows what kind of frivolous or delusional allegations they might be capable of, and since the shelter employees are in a position of having to impose rules on the residents, that creates the potential for conflicts that might provoke vindictive, litigious behavior.

It wouldn't surprise me if people's reluctance to give young people affection in many cases causes them to be unhappy or even develop psychological disorders. It might even encourage promiscuity, as women find that the only way they can get physical affection is through a sexual relationship, since our society tends to sexualize almost all forms of touching.

[Jean Valjean]

(12-26-2016 04:20 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

^^ Looks like a 4chan troll, but the people liking it are probably serious.

It looks like the kind of thing we'd see from the peaceful parenting movement (which overlaps with the libertarian movement and the anti-infant-circumcision movement). Here's a similar post from Mashable.

[XPQ22]

(01-02-2017 04:33 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

The meme is not saying that hugging or kissing kids is always bad. It's just saying that kids have a right to say no to unwanted hugs or kisses. E.g., according to this view, if you tell your kid, "Go give uncle Bernie a hug" and he's shy about going over there because he doesn't know Uncle Bernie well, or he just thinks uncle Bernie is gross and doesn't want to get close to him, you shouldn't forcibly grab him and make him hug him, or spank him for refusing. The idea is, that's not the kind of hug that's going to help your kid's emotional development.

I'm gonna take a center position and say while the PSA the OP posted and the extent of the hysteria certainly seems absurd, I have some friends who are parents and apparently it's not that uncommon for some rando other parent at the playground to exclaim "Oh my GOD, your son has such beautiful hair!" and rush right over and start mussing with his hair and touching him and shit.

And I can understand being ticked-off about it. Hey, what are you doing, lady? Is there a "petting zoo" sign around here somewhere?

[Jean Valjean]

(01-02-2017 04:50 PM)XPQ22 Wrote:  

I'm gonna take a center position and say while the PSA the OP posted and the extent of the hysteria certainly seems absurd, I have some friends who are parents and apparently it's not that uncommon for some rando other parent at the playground to exclaim "Oh my GOD, your son has such beautiful hair!" and rush right over and start mussing with his hair and touching him and shit.

And I can understand being ticked-off about it. Hey, what are you doing, lady? Is there a "petting zoo" sign around here somewhere?

On the other hand, some kids might enjoy the attention, depending on whether they like the person who's offering it. Strangers aren't necessarily bad. They could be new friends.

When I was in the Philippines, my fiancee took me on a walk to the beach, and I noticed the path we went on was also traveled by elementary school kids walking together to school, and that it even went through the actual school grounds, where there were kids playing right next to where were walking. There was no fence or "no trespassing" sign, like what you'd see at an American school.

At the end of the school day, some of the kids get on a jeepney (a modified jeep turned into a bus for public transportation) and ride home sitting next to adults, some of whom may be strangers. The kids may engage strangers in conversation and this is not considered unusual or dangerous. Of course, if a kid were to cry out for assistance in keeping an adult from bothering them, someone would intervene.

The Philippines is a culture that shuns aloneness, and encourages sociability, which is part of what makes it such a fun place to visit. The people are mostly happy, easygoing, and resilient in the face of hardship. They usually don't have a lot of material possessions, so they find joy in simple things, like interacting with children. They don't erect a lot of barriers between kids and adults (even adults they don't know yet), and probably if there hadn't been scares about stranger danger in the U.S. (which have since been debunked by statistical evidence showing that rates of crimes by strangers against kids are actually pretty low), we wouldn't have these barriers either.

I'm told that in the U.S., too, kids used to, depending on their parents, be free to wander around unaccompanied pretty freely till about the 1970s or 80s. That are around the time that scares like the Halloween poisoning myth caused parents to become paranoid. When kids are forbidden to direct their own activities and associate with whom they please (including strangers), then someone has to organize their activities for them, lest they become idle, and we end up with helicopter parenting and increasing state intervention in getting kids to do stuff (e.g. ever-increasing amounts of homework and school-sponsored extracurricular activities that kids are expected to do in order to get accepted into state-funded colleges).

But it tends to be sterile and uninteresting compared to what kids would come up with on their own, with parents' guidance and influence rather than forcible control. If my job didn't require me to stay in the U.S., I would probably prefer to raise kids in the U.S., where kids probably have the highest quality of life available anywhere in the world, aside from the grinding poverty most of them have to deal with.

[Tytalus]

This hug permission shit is just weird. On the other end, people shouldn't just go around hugging each other Willy nilly.

[XPQ22]

(01-02-2017 05:23 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

The Philippines is a culture that shuns aloneness, and encourages sociability, which is part of what makes it such a fun place to visit. The people are mostly happy, easygoing, and resilient in the face of hardship. They usually don't have a lot of material possessions, so they find joy in simple things, like interacting with children. They don't erect a lot of barriers between kids and adults (even adults they don't know yet), and probably if there hadn't been scares about stranger danger in the U.S. (which have since been debunked by statistical evidence showing that rates of crimes by strangers against kids are actually pretty low), we wouldn't have these barriers either.

I would characterize American culture as being a bit schizophrenic; on the one hand it's a culture that superficially values autonomy, independence, and self-reliance, which can feel great when you're young, but then as we get older these values don't seem as appealing anymore.

It is certainly a youth-obsessed culture; and I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with wanting to remain "young at heart" and open to new things, but in a way I think is unhealthy: the very young are over-idealized and pedestalized, and the old are greatly devalued. They are both treated badly in different ways.

The way Americans often give violence in the media a free pass while being so uptight about explicitly sexual themes, even perfectly healthy sexual relationships between "normal" men and women, must seem perverse to many foreigners.

Quote:

I'm told that in the U.S., too, kids used to, depending on their parents, be free to wander around unaccompanied pretty freely till about the 1970s or 80s. That are around the time that scares like the Halloween poisoning myth caused parents to become paranoid. When kids are forbidden to direct their own activities and associate with whom they please (including strangers), then someone has to organize their activities for them, lest they become idle, and we end up with helicopter parenting and increasing state intervention in getting kids to do stuff (e.g. ever-increasing amounts of homework and school-sponsored extracurricular activities that kids are expected to do in order to get accepted into state-funded colleges).

Yes, I grew up in the US in the 1980s, and it was a much different experience than what kids go through today. My parents and many others had a much more relaxed "parenting style." Before we could drive bikes were our main mode of transport, and after you came home from school you'd take it out of the garage, tell Mom "Hey mom, I'm headed out to ride with my friends" and she'd say "Ok dear, just be careful and be back before dark."

We didn't have cell phones or any way for our parents to monitor us - it wasn't a big deal. We could head off and explore on our own; there were certainly dangers and trouble that we could've gotten into in the neighborhood but for the most part we were smart enough to keep away from them.

Sometimes we'd get into scuffles with other kids, but for the most part it they were never serious conflicts. About the worst thing that happened in my afternoon bike adventures was I took a fall and broke a bone in my foot; I couldn't walk to get help but fortunately a buddy was with me. I just told him my parent's phone number and he quickly rode back to his house and called them up, and I was getting put in a cast at the hospital within a couple hours.

By the late 1980s more sophisticated video game systems were on the market and we started to spend more time indoors, but they (fortunately) still weren't sophisticated enough to hold our attention for very long, not like now where kids get lost in the screen for hundreds of hours a month.

Something I never thought I'd feel nostalgic about the loss of was the shopping mall. America's "mall culture" was at its peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and yeah, it was all very corporate, but it was also one of the few places kids could head off on their own to explore and be social in a relatively safe setting. Internet shopping sealed the fate of the American shopping mall - after I returned to the Boston area I found that many of the malls I remember as a kid had closed, been torn down, or were only a shadow of what they were 20 years ago. There are just fewer places for kids to go on their own.

Quote:

But it tends to be sterile and uninteresting compared to what kids would come up with on their own, with parents' guidance and influence rather than forcible control. If my job didn't require me to stay in the U.S., I would probably prefer to raise kids in the U.S., where kids probably have the highest quality of life available anywhere in the world, aside from the grinding poverty most of them have to deal with.

One could probably find better places to raise children, but one could certainly do a lot worse.

[XPQ22]

Sorry to go a bit off-topic, but lots of great photos of American malls in the 1980s here:

http://mashable.com/2014/12/02/80s-shopping-malls

It's pretty uncanny, a photo like this is like a page right out of my childhood:

[Serious Sam]

(01-02-2017 04:33 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

The meme is not saying that hugging or kissing kids is always bad. It's just saying that kids have a right to say no to unwanted hugs or kisses.

I disagree with this. Let's take a deeper look at the meme.

It starts with "My body is my body." On the surface, this seems logical and true, but, seeing as we know how cultural Marxists operate, let's follow this to it's eventual conclusion. This quote alone states that nobody, including the parents, has the right to tell the child what she can do with her body. A 10 year old wants a tattoo? It's the child's body, the child's choice. The parents have no voice. The child wants to eat ice cream and candy for dinner? Shut up parents, it's that child's body, that child's choice. And, for a real world example: the child wants to take hormones and mutilate his penis because he feels like a girl? His body, his choice. The problem is clear. Children lack the means to provide and care for themselves. By making them autonomous beings capable of making adult decisions, we remove the parents' ability to, well, parent.

The next part says, "Don't force me to kiss or hug." Taken to it's eventual conclusion, will this include suggestions such as, "Grandma's here. Go give her a hug?" Will children be able to take legal action against their parents for "forcing" them to hug grandma every Christmas?

Then the last part: "I am learning about consent and your support on this will keep me safe for the rest of my life." All of us around here know the true intentions of those pushing affirmative consent. They're trying to make a legal contract for every single human interaction. If our society takes hug consent to the same place it took sexual consent, then we are in for a world of hurt. Also, hugging a relative during the holidays is not even in the same galaxy as sexual relations, and teaching a child that the two are the same will damage the child's emotional and psychological development far more than grandma's wet kisses.

Quote:

E.g., according to this view, if you tell your kid, "Go give uncle Bernie a hug" and he's shy about going over there because he doesn't know Uncle Bernie well, or he just thinks uncle Bernie is gross and doesn't want to get close to him, you shouldn't forcibly grab him and make him hug him, or spank him for refusing. The idea is, that's not the kind of hug that's going to help your kid's emotional development.

I agree that your above example represents terrible parenting, but I've never in my 32 years heard of anyone spanking their child for refusing to hug someone. Maybe it's happened before, but I don't think your example is realistic. Most commonly, parents say something to the effect of, "Go give Uncle Bernie a hug." If the kid runs off or shies away, most parents don't push their kid any further. They might tell the kid he hurt Uncle Bernie's feelings, but outright grounding or spanking the child would be extreme. This meme, at its core, and especially considering its source, is suggesting that saying, "Go give Uncle Bernie a hug" is a step too far.

Quote:

Now, you might tell your kid, "It's polite to give a hug" or "He might feel hurt if you don't hug him" but personally, I don't get bent out of shape if a young relative refuses to hug me, because they're just kids, and kids say and do all kinds of weird stuff that we'd consider rude if it came from an adult. Just like a kid is going to fall down as he's learning to walk, kids are going to commit social faux pas in the beginning stages of their social development.

I don't either, but grandparents and other people sometimes do, even if they should just let it go. As someone else mentioned, children are more likely to violate an adult's personal space than vice versa. This is why parents are necessary. They teach children boundaries and what behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable. Without those constraints, children are autonomous beings who can (and will) run around and do whatever the hell they want.

Quote:

The state compromises between the two views by having your back if what you're forcing your kid to do doesn't fall outside of what is culturally considered adequate parental care.

The state does not have your back. Government involvement in family issues almost always leads to net negative results. I know multiple people working in child welfare. They have had to remove children from safe homes then refused to return them because a background check revealed that daddy committed a minor crime 10 years ago. So then the kids are stuck with foster parents who are more concerned with getting paid than caring for the children. But I'm getting off topic and I could go on and on.

Quote:

Out of an abundance of caution (specifically, a desire to avoid costly litigation), a lot of adults are these days not giving other people's kids any physical affection at all.

For example, my mom is director of a shelter for (allegedly) abused women, and sometimes kids will run up to the employees and try to hug them. The employees are trained to refuse the hugs by moving their own arms outward to break the kid's hold on them. It doesn't matter if the kid misses his dad and is crying and upset about being uprooted from his home, and wants to be comforted; the policy is no hugging, or accepting hugs from, the residents' kids, period.

Libertarians would view that as unnecessary, because the kid has, by initiating the hug, indicated that it's a wanted hug. But the lawyers apparently feel otherwise. We are, after all, dealing with mothers who have already accused one person of abuse and might accuse another. One never knows what kind of frivolous or delusional allegations they might be capable of, and since the shelter employees are in a position of having to impose rules on the residents, that creates the potential for conflicts that might provoke vindictive, litigious behavior.

This is the issue. We have become so litigated that we walk on eggshells to avoid getting sued. This has resulted in the cold, anti-social, emotionless society that we currently live in. Innocent people get harmed, and the assholes who made the false accusations walk free. Continuing to give ground will result in the end of all human affection; that is, unless you sign a legal contract that outlines every physical activity you're about to do.

Quote:

It wouldn't surprise me if people's reluctance to give young people affection in many cases causes them to be unhappy or even develop psychological disorders. It might even encourage promiscuity, as women find that the only way they can get physical affection is through a sexual relationship, since our society tends to sexualize almost all forms of touching.

I've known a handful of women that were very cold and anti-hug. A friend would try to hug them and they'd push off. Every single one of those women was a slut. Every. Single. One. And they all claimed to be victims of rape (nobody was in prison for the alleged crimes, though...shocking). It was a small sample size, but their psychological problems manifested through a lack of...errrr...repulsion to physical affection and an inability to form stable relationships. Pushing something like this will only create more delicate, cold, and emotionally unstable youth.

[Serious Sam]

(01-02-2017 04:50 PM)XPQ22 Wrote:  

I'm gonna take a center position and say while the PSA the OP posted and the extent of the hysteria certainly seems absurd, I have some friends who are parents and apparently it's not that uncommon for some rando other parent at the playground to exclaim "Oh my GOD, your son has such beautiful hair!" and rush right over and start mussing with his hair and touching him and shit.

And I can understand being ticked-off about it. Hey, what are you doing, lady? Is there a "petting zoo" sign around here somewhere?

Yes, this type of behavior is unsavory and disrespectful. Most of the people doing shit like that are social retards who needed their parents to set boundaries for them when they were younger, and they didn't. There is a line, but going down any road where the term "consent" is involved is not a road I, nor anyone else, should want to be on.