You're meeting two people in a situation where it would be very appropriate to shake their hands.

You know that both of them had just been to the toilet. One of them washed their hands but didn't dry them properly, the other one didn't wash their hands, but has proper dry hands.

Personally, I find both gross - people who don't wash their hands after they've been to the toilet and also wet hands. Horrible!

Whose hand would you rather shake?

The wet hand.

It's gross, but I'd rather take my chances feeling grody than contracting something.

Of course, I've had my tongue in far nastier places.

Neither. Just because a hand is wet doesn't mean that soap was involved. There's this girl at my job that only splashes water on her hands and then grabs a paper towel. THAT IS NOT WASHING YOUR HANDS.

This is why the fist-bump was invented.

PurpleJedi said:

This is why the fist-bump was invented.

I'd only do that if their arse was clean too, though!

Dave1992 said:

PurpleJedi said:

This is why the fist-bump was invented.

I'd only do that if their arse was clean too, though!

(Took me a minute...but I get it...)

depends what they look like

Dave1992 said:

You're meeting two people in a situation where it would be very appropriate to shake their hands.

You know that both of them had just been to the toilet. One of them washed their hands but didn't dry them properly, the other one didn't wash their hands, but has proper dry hands.

Personally, I find both gross - people who don't wash their hands after they've been to the toilet and also wet hands. Horrible!

Whose hand would you rather shake?

The one who washed their hands but didn't dry them. Water is water.

The other person got pube and ass germs on their hand. Negative!

missfee said:

Neither. Just because a hand is wet doesn't mean that soap was involved. There's this girl at my job that only splashes water on her hands and then grabs a paper towel. THAT IS NOT WASHING YOUR HANDS.

When I was a kid this lady at the local pizza joint was making pizzas and running her hands through her hair to get it out of her face I guess. She had a lot of hair. That just popped into my mind.

it wouldnt bother me.

Im an ICU nurse.been covered in piss,shit,vomit,maleana,brain tissue,rotting flesh(literallY)and alot of tears

But a stink fist? thats a whole diffrent ball game.

RicoN said:

depends what they look like

I it's somebody who might give me a job, I would shake their hands.

jonylawson said:

it wouldnt bother me.

Im an ICU nurse.been covered in piss,shit,vomit,maleana,brain tissue,rotting flesh(literallY)and alot of tears

But a stink fist? thats a whole diffrent ball game.

this likely sonds freakish but i don't think it should be necessary socially for me to make actual physical contact with a person i don't know.

in the old days, the handshake originated from a gesture of peace meaning, "I stretch out my right hand (my sword hand) to show you it is empty. You stretch yours out to mine and we clasp hands, neither of us is armed." in fact. the word 'sinister' originated from 'sinestre' meaning, left handed and therefore someone who could stab you with a sword held in their left hand while clasping your right hand. but i digress

why on earth so i have to touch a person i am meeting? why? it's even worse in parts of europe where they plant one on your face.....

XxAxX said:

this likely sonds freakish but i don't think it should be necessary socially for me to make actual physical contact with a person i don't know.

in the old days, the handshake originated from a gesture of peace meaning, "I stretch out my right hand (my sword hand) to show you it is empty. You stretch yours out to mine and we clasp hands, neither of us is armed." in fact. the word 'sinister' originated from 'sinestre' meaning, left handed and therefore someone who could stab you with a sword held in their left hand while clasping your right hand. but i digress

why on earth so i have to touch a person i am meeting? why? it's even worse in parts of europe where they plant one on your face.....

Do you clink glasses when you drink with someone?

XxAxX said:

this likely sonds freakish but i don't think it should be necessary socially for me to make actual physical contact with a person i don't know.

in the old days, the handshake originated from a gesture of peace meaning, "I stretch out my right hand (my sword hand) to show you it is empty. You stretch yours out to mine and we clasp hands, neither of us is armed." in fact. the word 'sinister' originated from 'sinestre' meaning, left handed and therefore someone who could stab you with a sword held in their left hand while clasping your right hand. but i digress

why on earth so i have to touch a person i am meeting? why? it's even worse in parts of europe where they plant one on your face.....

Actually, the whole point of it is so that you form a "bond" with that person so that you're not "complete strangers" (in a sense)... Even if just for the 15 minutes that you're going to go over sales figures or discuss Prince albums.

Touch is a very basic human need.

PurpleJedi said:

XxAxX said:

this likely sonds freakish but i don't think it should be necessary socially for me to make actual physical contact with a person i don't know.

in the old days, the handshake originated from a gesture of peace meaning, "I stretch out my right hand (my sword hand) to show you it is empty. You stretch yours out to mine and we clasp hands, neither of us is armed." in fact. the word 'sinister' originated from 'sinestre' meaning, left handed and therefore someone who could stab you with a sword held in their left hand while clasping your right hand. but i digress

why on earth so i have to touch a person i am meeting? why? it's even worse in parts of europe where they plant one on your face.....

Actually, the whole point of it is so that you form a "bond" with that person so that you're not "complete strangers" (in a sense)... Even if just for the 15 minutes that you're going to go over sales figures or discuss Prince albums.

Touch is a very basic human need.

this quaint little, outdated custom will go extinct the next time there is any form of global pandemic. and not a moment too soon, imo

Dave1992 said:

XxAxX said:

this likely sonds freakish but i don't think it should be necessary socially for me to make actual physical contact with a person i don't know.

in the old days, the handshake originated from a gesture of peace meaning, "I stretch out my right hand (my sword hand) to show you it is empty. You stretch yours out to mine and we clasp hands, neither of us is armed." in fact. the word 'sinister' originated from 'sinestre' meaning, left handed and therefore someone who could stab you with a sword held in their left hand while clasping your right hand. but i digress

why on earth so i have to touch a person i am meeting? why? it's even worse in parts of europe where they plant one on your face.....

Do you clink glasses when you drink with someone?

when we toast each other we raise and tilt our glasses in each other's general direction.... usually because ther are so many it would take an hour for the actual clinks to occur.

XxAxX said:

Dave1992 said:

Do you clink glasses when you drink with someone?

when we toast each other we raise and tilt our glasses in each other's general direction.... usually because ther are so many it would take an hour for the actual clinks to occur.

So when there's only two of you you do clink?

And you do know that the clinking of the glasses is also an old custom from the middle ages? The glasses (then made of clay or wood) would have to clink powerfully, so that each beverage would blend with the other beverage, assuring each person that the other one was not trying to poison them.

All I want to say is that there are so many customs that may seem "outdated" or "needless" in our society, but are nowadays valued for different reasons than when they were first introduced. I personally don't need to shake anyone's hand and don't need anyone to clink glasses with me and look me in the eye while they do it, but everytime somebody does it makes a good (first) impression, because they seem to be willing to show they have manners.

Dave1992 said:

You're meeting two people in a situation where it would be very appropriate to shake their hands.

You know that both of them had just been to the toilet. One of them washed their hands but didn't dry them properly, the other one didn't wash their hands, but has proper dry hands.

Personally, I find both gross - people who don't wash their hands after they've been to the toilet and also wet hands. Horrible!

Whose hand would you rather shake?

I'll pass.................a nod is just as good.

Dave1992 said:

XxAxX said:

when we toast each other we raise and tilt our glasses in each other's general direction.... usually because ther are so many it would take an hour for the actual clinks to occur.

So when there's only two of you you do clink?

And you do know that the clinking of the glasses is also an old custom from the middle ages? The glasses (then made of clay or wood) would have to clink powerfully, so that each beverage would blend with the other beverage, assuring each person that the other one was not trying to poison them.

All I want to say is that there are so many customs that may seem "outdated" or "needless" in our society, but are nowadays valued for different reasons than when they were first introduced. I personally don't need to shake anyone's hand and don't need anyone to clink glasses with me and look me in the eye while they do it, but everytime somebody does it makes a good (first) impression, because they seem to be willing to show they have manners.

i guess i've been exposed to other cultures where something like a handshake would not be welcomed. in japan, for example. a nice, formal bow suffices. handshakes are accommodated when offered but i've been told by japanese folk they prefer not to actually touch hands.

imo 'customs' are there for changing. time for some new traditions

Graycap23 said:

Dave1992 said:

You're meeting two people in a situation where it would be very appropriate to shake their hands.

You know that both of them had just been to the toilet. One of them washed their hands but didn't dry them properly, the other one didn't wash their hands, but has proper dry hands.

Personally, I find both gross - people who don't wash their hands after they've been to the toilet and also wet hands. Horrible!

Whose hand would you rather shake?

I'll pass.................a nod is just as good.

^that. friendly nod.

XxAxX said:

Dave1992 said:

So when there's only two of you you do clink?

And you do know that the clinking of the glasses is also an old custom from the middle ages? The glasses (then made of clay or wood) would have to clink powerfully, so that each beverage would blend with the other beverage, assuring each person that the other one was not trying to poison them.

All I want to say is that there are so many customs that may seem "outdated" or "needless" in our society, but are nowadays valued for different reasons than when they were first introduced. I personally don't need to shake anyone's hand and don't need anyone to clink glasses with me and look me in the eye while they do it, but everytime somebody does it makes a good (first) impression, because they seem to be willing to show they have manners.

i guess i've been exposed to other cultures where something like a handshake would not be welcomed. in japan, for example. a nice, formal bow suffices. handshakes are accommodated when offered but i've been told by japanese folk they prefer not to actually touch hands.

imo 'customs' are there for changing. time for some new traditions

In my opinion, a courteous person would react and adapt to the other person's traditions - if I meet a person whom I know is from Japan, I'll make sure to bow after they did and not offer my hand if they don't. It usually leaves a good impression.

When someone offers me their hand, I make sure I take it and give them a firm handshake and a smile.

If someone doesn't know what to do, I offer them my hand to show them that there's no reason to be afraid or act like an insecure motherfucker. And I tell them that I always wash my hands and dry them.

XxAxX said:

this likely sonds freakish but i don't think it should be necessary socially for me to make actual physical contact with a person i don't know.

in the old days, the handshake originated from a gesture of peace meaning, "I stretch out my right hand (my sword hand) to show you it is empty. You stretch yours out to mine and we clasp hands, neither of us is armed." in fact. the word 'sinister' originated from 'sinestre' meaning, left handed and therefore someone who could stab you with a sword held in their left hand while clasping your right hand. but i digress

why on earth so i have to touch a person i am meeting? why? it's even worse in parts of europe where they plant one on your face.....

I agree, I would much rather bow. That's why I can't wait for China to take over.

Dave1992 said:

XxAxX said:

i guess i've been exposed to other cultures where something like a handshake would not be welcomed. in japan, for example. a nice, formal bow suffices. handshakes are accommodated when offered but i've been told by japanese folk they prefer not to actually touch hands.

imo 'customs' are there for changing. time for some new traditions

In my opinion, a courteous person would react and adapt to the other person's traditions - if I meet a person whom I know is from Japan, I'll make sure to bow after they did and not offer my hand if they don't. It usually leaves a good impression.

When someone offers me their hand, I make sure I take it and give them a firm handshake and a smile.

If someone doesn't know what to do, I offer them my hand to show them that there's no reason to be afraid or act like an insecure motherfucker. And I tell them that I always wash my hands and dry them.

NDRU said:

XxAxX said:

this likely sonds freakish but i don't think it should be necessary socially for me to make actual physical contact with a person i don't know.

in the old days, the handshake originated from a gesture of peace meaning, "I stretch out my right hand (my sword hand) to show you it is empty. You stretch yours out to mine and we clasp hands, neither of us is armed." in fact. the word 'sinister' originated from 'sinestre' meaning, left handed and therefore someone who could stab you with a sword held in their left hand while clasping your right hand. but i digress

why on earth so i have to touch a person i am meeting? why? it's even worse in parts of europe where they plant one on your face.....

I agree, I would much rather bow. That's why I can't wait for China to take over.

as long as they don't make us bind our feet i'm in

depends if the person is male or female

I probably wouldn't care.

Touching shit isn't the end of the world.

maybe we should get right back to the origins of our species and bend over to sniff each others' privates when we meet.

novabrkr said:

I probably wouldn't care.

Touching shit isn't the end of the world.

freaking cooties man

kind of slow here at work today....

It's according to what he was doing in the restroom. If he had just gotten through shitting, I wouldn't want to shake his hand. However, if he had simply been standing at the urinal holding his dick, actually I'd prefer him not to wash his hands before he shook mine. It would turn me on knowing that his hand was on his dick just a moment ago.