Yashar Ali wants us to stop telling our children who they should be affectionate with.
The shocking and tragic events at Penn State that have unfolded over the past two weeks, which have exposed former assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, as a sexual predator, have (yet again) brought the issue of child sex abuse to the forefront of our collective consciousness.
In light of recent events, I want to discuss an issue, a behavior, that has bothered me for some time. It’s about how we encourage our kids to abandon their sense of self-trust—their instinct and intuition—in order to be polite through showing physical affection to adults.
How often, especially during the holidays, are children confronted with moments like this one: a relative comes to visit and the child’s parents say something like, “Now, give your uncle a hug and kiss.”
And when the child refuses to provide physical affection, or hesitates at the request, they sometimes hear things like, “You’re hurting your uncle’s feelings. It’s not polite. Now, go give him a hug and kiss.”
Some of us even remember our relatives asking us (some may say pleading or begging) for affection, “Aren’t you going to give me a hug and kiss? Please?!”
I think this insisting and cajoling of a child into showing physical affection towards an adult is incredibly dangerous. Whether it’s a relationship between a child and his/her relatives or one between a kid and an adult who is an acquaintance, family friend, mentor, this type of behavior, in which children are expected to show physical affection as a sign of respect, is something I think we all need to be careful about.
For me, it’s about the issue of when a child gives us the sense that they don’t want to be physically affectionate with someone, and our tendency to encourage the child, at that particular moment, to abandon their intuition and instinct. It’s a small step towards the erosion of that child’s sense of self-trust.
At that moment, we are telling them, “Forget about how you feel. Do something that makes you feel uncertain and uncomfortable, so that someone else (an adult) can feel acknowledged and respected.”
We are all built with a natural, innate inclination, a real sense of what feels right and wrong. Every species of animal is born with an instinctual drive. Unfortunately, the human species is the only one continually taught to ignore their instincts.
There is, however, a difference between intuition and instinct. Even though the words are often confused as synonyms for each other, there is a simple way to separate the two. We are all born with instinct, but intuition is built through education, living, and practice. Our intuition is linked to a keen and quick insight.
These two internal senses, intuition and instinct, make up my idea of self-trust. I see self-trust as related to trusting your reactions, your feelings about people, circumstances, and decisions. I see self-trust as the most authentic reactions and feelings.
I acknowledge that some kids are just being difficult, but it’s not about their motivation so much as it is about our reaction. At that moment, we initiate a process where we require boys and girls to have physical interaction when they don’t want to and at that moment, we also tell them to ignore their sense of self-trust. We are teaching kids that adults are in charge of who they should be and are affectionate with. We are telling them that they don’t have the right or power to make their own decisions about human, physical interaction.
Again, it’s the little moments that create a big collective weight over time.
But my point is, no one has the right to receive affection, especially from a child. It’s not part of normal, polite interactions. It’s extra. When we ask kids to offer physical signs of affection, a hug or a kiss may seem innocuous enough to us, as adults.
Can you imagine asking or expecting an adult to hug and kiss another adult, as a way to show acknowledgement or respect? Normally, we wouldn’t encourage two adults to have that sort of interaction because we all have a sense of what kinds of physical affection are appropriate in a given circumstance. We have a sense of what we feel comfortable with and we react according to our gut.
Why can’t we allow children to tap into this same instinctive, internal sense?
This doesn’t mean I think we should live in a society without affection. To the contrary.
But the idea that a child can be guilt-tripped or cajoled into affection is disgusting to me. It’s not a light-hearted or funny moment; it’s sad. At that moment, we are telling that child to give their physical selves in order to appease us adults, for reasons that they don’t fully understand or appreciate. Our motivation, whether it’s social embarrassment or a desire to connect with the child, puts us first, rather than thinking of them first … as it should be.
When it comes to acknowledging other people, the most we can expect from children is for them to politely and verbally greet adults. And as far as I’m concerned, anything else, is expecting too much and is patently unfair.
Some may say that this way of handling interaction between adults and children will build up cynicism in kids, will rob them of their innocent childhood, and will make them overly cautious of adults—or even teach them to be aloof.
Well, our childhoods have never been innocent (now or ever). One out of every four girls and one of out of every six boys will face sexual abuse before their 18th birthday. We only have to look at the numbers to understand that for many kids, there have never been bright, sunny childhoods.
For much too long, they have been filled with silent moments of sexual abuse, we just haven’t discussed them. They have been hidden away, just like the victims of Jerry Sandusky. It’s only when we shatter this myth of a childhood era of innocence that we can begin to understand what children truly face.
Sexual abuse completely revamps the blueprint of the victim’s life. Their worldview shifts, the way they process trust, how they build relationships, their sense of safety, are all permanently altered.
So, I think I’d much rather have our children be slightly cynical and aware, to encourage them to follow their sense of self-trust, and as a result, to give them a better chance at protecting themselves, than to insist that kids must show physical affection when they don’t feel comfortable.
After all, it’s not like we’ve done our part to protect our kids, not at all. And if we have any doubt about that, all we have to do is think about Mike McQueary, looking on as that poor boy was raped in the locker room shower at Penn State.
Yashar will be soon releasing his first short e-book, entitled, A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy, How We Teach Women to Ignore Their Intuition and Silence Their Own Voices If you are interested and want to be notified when the book is released, please click here to sign-up.
I hope you will join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.
This piece originally appeared on The Current Conscience.
Photo by D Sharon Pruit / Flickr
About Yashar Ali
I like this article a great deal. I hated being told to hug or kiss someone, and can recall hiding from certain adults. I think asking kids to shake hands and say hello is plenty polite.
The “Forced Affection” game is far worse than Russian Roulette. Forcing Trust is such a dangerous thing and you never know when the gun will go off.
I too am very unhappy with Kids being TOLD to be a affectionate – or provide symbolic affection – to adults. Will some people never learn?
It seems that such activity is learned behavior from childhood and then just regurgitated and used by the adults the Kids have grown into. We were told and even made to do it as kids, so it’s fine – it’s harmless.
Mom, Dad and schools tell Kids about stranger danger and inappropriate behavior and touching – and then Kids get told by Mom and Dad to go, to what is for the child a stranger, and then get touched – and even do the touching, to kiss and smile and be happy. Tell the Kids to be wary of people telling them to do things they find uncomfortable, and then tell the Kids they have to do it anyway, cajole them and even allow or use emotional blackmail in their own house to make it happen?
Oh isn’t that nice, a stranger has turned up for the Holidays/Your Birthday and given you a present – candy – money. Now kiss them and let them touch you? It’s fine – do as we say – we are adults and we know best.
When Kids hesitate, the parents even tell the child and others that the child is just “Shy” – the parents smile and bask in the supposed cuteness of it all.
NO! The Kids are not Shy, They are just trying to work out the conflicting messages and information. I have even seen Kids being told that they are big boys now and they should know how to behave. Talk about using stereotypes and gender roles – shaken and stirred with a bitter twist and salt.
As a Kid, I was cajoled and even bribed with candy, money and gifts. I remember adults looking at me slyly as they tried to make me come to them and give me what they demanded and sought by different forms of bribery and emotional corruption. I remember having my cheeks pinched, my head patted, my hands held and told how cute I was. And that was Just the family members, the supposedly intimate strangers.
My brother and his wife moved to the other side of the globe for work. Then they had three Kids. They moved back after 12 years, and the first thing the Kids were told to do was be affectionate to family members, myself included, de-facto total strangers. Hug this person – kiss that one. Be Nice – Smile.
I was also present when my other bothers and sisters told their Kids to go up to the returning pair and treat them as long lost affection givers and safe adults. The adults all seemed oblivious to the Kid’s disquiet and the adult inconsistency.
I simply asked the Kids what they wanted to do. If they said No, I said fine. I proffered a hand to shake – some took it and others did not. No Big issue. It was their choice, they were their bodies and their minds. I just played Uncle as me and let the Kids be themselves.
I was even told I had done the wrong thing by undermining other adults. I spoke of how the Kids were in culture shock, having just moved half way round the world – how strange it was for them – give them a break. I was told that was no excuse for not having the Kids be affectionate with immediate effect. Apparently, it hurt some adults feelings that these Kids did not instantly bond and treat everyone as the most intimate of kin. I just had weird ideas – and I should not push them on the Kids. I was setting a bad example and the Kids were even following it.
I come from a big family. There is a big cultural thing about family and Kids. When Kids were born there were big issues and politics about who would be God Parents. I was not surprised that I was always overlooked. To some, my apparently weird ideas and ways ruled me out.
I now have a great relationship with all the Kids – and they are not so close to the other’s they were made to be affectionate with. My family find this very odd, as I have no Kids of my own.
The Kids can talk to me about anything – and they do – something which their grand parents and parents still find hard to understand. I’m the confidante, mentor and advisor and I happily laugh about just how foolish and inconsistent adults are, especially parents.
One of my nephews hugged me for the first time when he was 19 years old. It was from respect. One nephew got into trouble with the law when he was 15, and there was concern. He could not get on with his parents. He asked if he could move out. Everyone asked where he would go. There was consternation when he asked to move into my home. No more trouble and one fine young man now at college studying law.
One of my brothers died and when his daughter was getting married she asked me to be the one to give her away. The whole wedding was terribly traditional . Some asked her why him? Her response, “I Trust Him.”.
As a Kid I was made to be affectionate to strangers.
I was also told that I was not to talk to strangers – that strangers would take me away – cut my genitals off – and then kill me in horrible ways – that is not a joke or an exaggeration. There had been a recent local scandal and a child had died. There was much horror and whispering and talk of execution. I have always found it odd that Adults stupidly think that children can’t hear whispers.
I was also described as “Shy” when I did not jump into the arms of a stranger my parents told me I should hug and kiss. I was told to take candy, gifts and even money and say thank you to people I hardly knew. I was even told and made to go out with these people. It was very confusing.
My parents put me in the hands of someone my family knew very well and who was in many ways part of the household. My parents smiled as they did it. This person was trusted and they did NOT give me candy, money or gifts. I was told to trust that person and when alone with them to behave – do what ever I was told. Adults were always right and you were not to question. You were only a child. The adult was always in control.
I was not smiling about the things done to me by that person. That person kept telling me what my parents had said “Behave and do what ever you are told to do.”. I was not exactly told to not tell anyone about what was done. They never whispered to me or about me, they always spoke to me clearly and openly. They asked me if I always told other people what an adult had told me to do? When I said no, they made it clear that there was no reason for me to tell others then. I was smart and precocious, surly I could understand logic. I was sensible – so surely it all made sense. Twisted logic and children’s minds is not the same as keeping secrets – but can be just as effective.
When my parents found out what that person did my parents did not smile, and I was the one treated very differently from then on. I was told that I was to never tell anyone, even though everyone knew. You’re told to tell if you are worried, and then when you are worried you are told you must never tell anyone about what worries you. There was much whispering and I was never spoken to openly. Twisted Logic and adults is not just reserved for a sub group that supposed adult minds fear and seek to protect Kids from.
My family all know about what happened, and because of that they have always treated me differently. Some find it odd when I refer to myself as my Family’s Guilty Ghost. I have been told to not say such things, how it is wrong. There is No Guilt and and I’m part of my Family – I’m loved and respected, but weird. I was told repeatedly to receive affection from others on their terms. They were family, how could it be wrong.
It’s terrible never being allowed to get beyond events that you never asked to be party to. It’s terrible to see people attempting to use Pseudo affection to make everyone bond as a family.
I know what it is to be left trying to figure out adult stupidity as a child. I won’t be made party to twisting young minds. I have refused to be made party to such activity since I first realized how it was done to me.
When I speak, you can see many people in my family suddenly looking worried and uneasy. It does not matter what I say. I arrive for family events and some treat me with cool affection and distance. Others of a younger mind do the total opposite. I always treat them as rational beings, no matter how irrational the world is around them.
The Kids have all asked me about why I am seen as different – the Kids are not stupid. At the right time I tell them. Oddly, the Kids get it and can relate to where I’m coming from. Certain events and the behavior of one adult are not considered the issue, but the behavior of other adults is, long after. The Kids have all experienced that adult inconsistency. We laugh about it often.
My parents and siblings have still not learned the lessons after two generations, and they still wonder why I am so careful with the very newly arrived third generation. They find it odd and strange that I was the first choice as God Father. My niece insisted on it.
Over 40 years on, and some still play the game of “Forced Affection”.
Some still don’t know the value of that coin, and how it can be spent wisely of foolishly – and even at the expense of others.
MediaHound, bravo. Thank you, thank you. Your story is chilling. I am so sorry for what you went through. The basic premise that children must be taught to trust their own instincts and be in charge of their own bodies–which are not the property of parents or relatives–is so, so important…to prevent abuse, and also, to give children agency in their own lives in ways that help them make healthy choices later as adults. I can’t tell you how much this comment means to me.
Lori – don’t be sorry! I’m Not! P^)
Whilst I wish that many events in my life had never happened, they have allowed me to be the man I am today. There was one person not mentioned – and that was a teacher who gave me the greatest gift I have ever been given and No Hugs or Kisses required. They gave me permission to just be me – to have my own mind, body and feelings! Greatest lesson ever! As far as I can, I just pass the lesson on.
All the best to you, always.
This is a really brave comment, I can’t imagine what you must have gone through and thank you so much for sharing, your story is devastating but so important.
Terrific comment, MediaHound. If you’re willing, I encourage you to submit it as a stand-alone article. I think it’s a great follow-up to this article, so I’d hate to see it lost in the comment shuffle.
What a personal & important post. Yes, please consider writing about this…
Unbelievably great post Yashar. God, this was my childhood. I grew up to be so angry and resentful of my parents, and to have trouble establishing comfortable adult boundaries around physical affection. I wish you could send this to my entire family anonymously!
“When it comes to acknowledging other people, the most we can expect from children is for them to politely and verbally greet adults. And as far as I’m concerned, anything else, is expecting too much and is patently unfair.” This is so true. I was often shamed and pushed.
I worked really hard to raise my daughter differently, never forcing affection, bribing her for it, coaxing, or shaming. But others did that with her, and there is now some estrangement because i did what I felt was protecting her.
Once again, you have articulated something I have rarely seen discussed, and which played a huge part in my own childhood (and adulthood) struggles, and yes of course, has all these other potentially terrible consequences. Basically, children are not property. Their bodies are their own, and they have the right to say when and how they are touched.
Teaching children what and who to trust IS what parents do. That is their job.
So, this idea that kids’ instincts, not parents, should be trusted is ridiculous.
The entire concept of parenthood is teaching kids what and who they can trust. It’s also the job of a parent to know what and who can be trusted. It’ also the job of a parent to supervise their children’s activities, to pay attention to who they are with and what they are doing – at all times.
When parents do their jobs, the risk of children being abused dramactically declines.
As an obvious example, the poor kids abused (allegedly) by Sandusky were not supervised at all. These kids likely didn’t have sufficient family structures so as to properly protect them. If they had, and if their parents and extended family properly vetted, supervised, and validated their activities and the people around them, the vast majority of this mess would have been avoided.
So, yes, parents should watch and listen to their children but letting the children’s intuiton dictate (as tihs article recommends) opens the door to more child abuse than ever.
“So, this idea that kids’ instincts, not parents, should be trusted is ridiculous. ”
Your view seems to be predicated on the idea that parents instincts are to be trusted – and that parents/adults are always right. Sorry to have to break the news to you, BUT, that aint true!
Parents, care givers and significant adults can be more than fallible and in error, and all too often more prone to social experience and peer pressure than children. What do the kids rely upon then?
I have found it odd how so many kids have had instincts they have reacted to, and have then been talked out of! It’s a pattern that is consistent with “grooming”.
From personal experience and experience with many people who have been abused under so many headings (Child sexual, adult sexual. elder, relationship, workplace…) one thing that comes through loud and clear – Instinct – listen to it!
The instinct may also be wrong – but more often than not, it has a reason for being activated.
It’s there for a reason! It’s to protect!
Hell – even the Military train to listen to instincts. You can train any soldier to the highest degree, but you can’t train for all scenarios. So Professional Soldiers are told and trained to react to instinct – and listen.
If it’s good enough for The Pentagon, why is it not good enough for kids?
If a 3 year olds instincts are to be trusted over his/her parents extra 25, 30 or more years of life experience, they are unfit parents and CPS should remove the child from their care. BTW, children do not instinctively trust their own parents. Should they be removed from their custody or give them time to learn to trust their parents, based on life experience?
If a 3 year olds instincts are superior to his/her parents, that child should be removed from their custody immediately.
If the instincts of a child are to be trusted over their parents, why shouldn’t they then be allowed to sign contracts, drink alcohol, buy cigarettes and other things that they require a person to be 18 or even 21 to do?
Eric. you seem to like the absurd!
You seem to know a lot about instinct and how it works for you.
Cheers.
It’s absurd to conflate hugging homely great Aunt Millie at Thanksgiving dinner to with 25 people present with being abused by a pedophile coach.
Yes it is absurd to conflate the two. But I agree that parents shouldn’t pressure their kids to do things they don’t want to. But that is my prejudice about how to raise children. Interestingly although many here are willing to say this about affection I would go much much further.
One thing I never liked is telling children to share their toys. Some of these lessons like sharing are not things that can be forced down your throat. You kind of have to trust the child to learn these things on their own. The way parents seem to operate is to essentially convey all the ideas of the culture directly down to their children without explanation. Kids don’t learn to share…they are forced to share.
This teaches the child to learn the cultural values and never question them and also to never trust their own reasoning. Whereas I think children need to be taught that it is all right to make mistakes, that they should think for themselves, that they should question why they are doing things….that they are individuals.
I am not saying a child can’t be disciplined for misbehavior. But I do think they need a certain amount of freedom.
Eric, you seem to be generalizing from a recommendation to give kids more autonomy over giving and receiving physical affection from people they don’t know well (even if their parents do) to a recommended philosophy of letting 3 yr. olds do what they want, when they want, however they want. No one is suggesting that would be a good idea. (I think.) The point, which I never considered before but is definitely food for thought, is that forcing a “good” kind of physical affection on kids, because we know and trust the people we’re forcing on them, might well erode those kids’ ability and self-confidence to resist the bad kind of forced affection, when parents aren’t around.
I say this as someone who was abused myself, by someone my parents had grown to trust. Their judgment turned out to be wrong, but it’s not like they were uninvolved parents who fell down on the job and threw me to the wolves. I wonder if I might have responded better in the abuse situation if I’d had a firmer conviction that unwanted affection – physical contact – was never okay, even from people I was supposed to trust. I internalized that lesson about strangers with no problem, but my abuser wasn’t a stranger. I really want my kids to be affectionate with people I love and trust myself, but I’ll be giving some serious thought now to how much I prod or coerce them into it if they’re resisting. I don’t think that means I’ll raise cold, afraid, unaffectionate kids, or kids whose instincts and judgments always trump mine as a parent, but for things like kisses, hugs, or other physical affection, I’m not seeing much downside to letting them define their own comfort zone. There are still many situations where I think I or other responsible adults have the right and responsibility to impose our physical will on them even when they don’t want it, but I’m talking about stuff like giving a diaper change they don’t want, restricting where they can go, and removing them from dangerous situations. I don’t think forced hugs and kisses from people they’re shying away from falls into the category of circumstances where it’s important for me to overrule their physical autonomy.
I should mention, I trusted my abuser, too, until it happened, so it wasn’t like I got handed off to someone that was a stranger to me. When it happened, though, that trust was part of what made it so confusing and difficult to respond to.
1. The blogger is a major issue over something that seldom happens to most kids. Usually at Thanksgiving dinner or similar function with several or dozen people present.
2. He is further conflating hugging homely great Aunt Millie at Thanksgiving dinner with all the family present with becoming a victim of a pedophile.
3. On the rare occasion that s/he does hug Aunt Millie, it’s quite unlikely that she is the one who is going to molest him/her.
I am sorry that you were abused; however, to quote my original statement:
“It’s also the job of a parent to supervise their children’s activities, to pay attention to who they are with and what they are doing – at ALL times.”
Parents who fastidiously supervise and monitor their children’s whereabouts, activities, even with “trusted” people are far less likely to have their children become victims of pedophiles.
As an example, when they’ve had sleepovers, it has always been at our home where their mom and I can personally supervise. We aren’t deluded into thinking that no one we know could possibly be a threat; so, we verify, monitor, and supervise at ALL times. Personally.
Regarding the diaper change, who wants to do that anyway? Plus, babies sometimes don’t want their own mothers changing their diaper. So, what then? That happened to my cousin the other day. Her baby didn’t want her own mother to change her diaper. So, what then? Don’t overrule the baby’s personal bodily autonomy?
If this is about protecting children from abuse (as it should be), this is truly a waste of time issue to be discussing. Let’s talk more about keeping families together so that there are two parents and about properly supervising children at ALL times.
“….so that there are two parents and about properly supervising children at ALL times.”.
So that’s mom and dad at scout camp? At gym? … and football practice?… in fact ALL the time?
What if Mom or Dad has a job? Do they have to get time off work to deal with the ALL?
Not ALL families have high incomes and even both parents have to work. Are ALL employers to give ALL parents extended maternity and paternity leave until the child is of a certain age? That may be a disincentive to employing most adults unless they can prove they are sterile and hate kids.
I Just need to check exactly how big that ALL is?
When does the ALL end?
Is it at a specific age for ALL children, or is there some kind of proficiency test that ALL children have to undergo?
“Let’s talk more about keeping families together….” you say.
Nice idea – so are we ALL parents to avoid such issues as death and prevent widows and widowers?
Is that ALL Families? What happens if one of the Parents is abusive to the kids or the other parent? Do the kids have to put up with it?
I even know quite a few Catholic priests and other church ministers who don’t believe that ALL married couples should live together, until death them do part. As one puts it quite clearly, It’s better for kids to come from a broken home than live in one. They also make it clear that Till Death Us Do Part is no excuse to stay in a broken marriage until it results in murder!
Is that ALL 100% or is it just a majority – in which case what happens to the kids that come from minority families? Do we count them out and forget about them?
Just how big is that ALL – and who does it apply to?
Not ALL Families are perfect, but I do believe ALL children have a right to be safe within and without the family and home.
“It’s absurd to conflate…” an ideal world of mom and dad having ALL the time in the world to be there ALL the time – with reality.
I look forward to your responses to ALL points made and questions asked.
“So that’s mom and dad at scout camp? At gym? … and football practice?… in fact ALL the time?”
I was a scout. Guess who volunteered to go on scout excursions? Our football team had, like, 50 guys. No idea how or when anyone could be abused.
“What if Mom or Dad has a job? Do they have to get time off work to deal with the ALL?”
Do they work 24/7? It’s a parents responsibility to ensure their children are safe. If they can’t ensure that, the children are best at home.
“Not ALL families have high incomes and even both parents have to work.”
My family didn’t. I don’t. I have a good salary but am the only income in a high cost area; so we live reasonably well but certainly aren’t unusual for the community.
“Are ALL employers to give ALL parents extended maternity and paternity leave until the child is of a certain age?”
No, but that’s not necessary. Both of my parents worked but we were still properly supervised. My wife has worked at times but we still properly supervised our kids.
“I Just need to check exactly how big that ALL is?”
Check dictionary.com
When does the ALL end? It doesn’t end. Children grow up gradually and you sgradually give them more freedom. Why is this so hard for you to get?
Do you not want children to be protected? You sound as if you are against parents protecting their children. Do you want them mistreated?
“Nice idea – so are we ALL parents to avoid such issues as death and prevent widows and widowers?”
I’m pretty sure most people at least try to avoid death. Is this news to you?
“Is that ALL Families?”
ALL children should be loved and cared for. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
“What happens if one of the Parents is abusive to the kids or the other parent?”
Define abusive.
“I even know quite a few Catholic priests and other church ministers who don’t believe that ALL married couples should live together, until death them do part. As one puts it quite clearly, It’s better for kids to come from a broken home than live in one. They also make it clear that Till Death Us Do Part is no excuse to stay in a broken marriage until it results in murder! “
Most divorces are not because of a threat of murder. Most are because people don’t want to be married to that person anymore. If there are problems, they should be resolved with unselfish love. If both parties choose to do that, problems can be dealt with and the family can stay together.
“Is that ALL 100% or is it just a majority – in which case what happens to the kids that come from minority families? Do we count them out and forget about them?”
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I came from and not have my own minority family.
“Just how big is that ALL – and who does it apply to?”
You are seriously lost. The ALL applied to when parents should care for and keep their children safe. ALL the time. Why don’t you get this simple concept? Do you have something against kids?
“Not ALL Families are perfect, but I do believe ALL children have a right to be safe within and without the family and home.”
Sure doesn’t sound like it.
“It’s absurd to conflate…” an ideal world of mom and dad having ALL the time in the world to be there ALL the time – with reality.
Well, I’m a parent, have worked the entire time my kids have been alive, my wife has worked a good part of the time and we found a way. Because it’s one of the most important things in life. People do what’s important to them. If one’s children are important, it is possible to care for and protect them.
Why is that simple concept hard for you understand and agree with?
Concept? Absurd? Obvious? Example? Conflate?
You respond with “define abuse”. That is odd, since if you are so certain as to how ALL of the issues should be resolved, I would expect you to have looked up the term “Abuse” and understand it in context.
You even recommend that a dictionary be used to understand the word “ALL”.
Since others are evidently at fault for not understanding basic terms such as “Abuse”, everyone will just have to wait for you to define ALL the necessary terms and points of reference so that we can see the error of so many peoples ways.
Cheers.
You respond with “define abuse”. That is odd, since if you are so certain as to how ALL of the issues should be resolved, I would expect you to have looked up the term “Abuse” and understand it in context.
The word has a meaning but how it is applied is subjective. The quesiton is, what do you mean by abuse? For example, some people consider a bad argument with shouting abuse. Some people consider spanking a child’s bottom abuse. Some people consider arguing about money to be abuse.
Some people would not consider it to be abuse if a wife slaps her husband after he said something that angered her. Many of those same people would immediately ask what he did to deserve it but would never even think of asking that if he had slapped her and would definitely call it abuse in that case.
“You even recommend that a dictionary be used to understand the word “ALL”.”
Since you seen to not understand it.
Eric – you seem to hold very passionate views, which evidently some of us can’t see clearly. It is a limit of the written word that sometimes it just gets in the way of communication.
I’m wondering how your views connect with the best practice in teaching children about self protection to prevent sexual abuse.
How do you reconcile the standard of teaching children that “inappropriate touching is wrong, and if the child in not happy or comfortable they should not do it” with overriding that teaching with “Give uncle #### a kiss.”.
To the child they can be the same thing.
Children are told that if they are unhappy with being touched, they should tell an adult. The model is designed to communicate to children in a none frightening and threating manner the course of action to take. So what happens when the child is unhappy, says No, and then the child is told they are wrong and they should and even must do it anyway – with adult pressure and even emotional manipulation applied.
How does it get resolved, for the child’s benefit?
If the standard model of teaching children about how they can prevent and stop abuse is wrong, I know many people who want to get that sorted out and put right, for the children’s sakes.
“I’m wondering how your views connect with the best practice in teaching children about self protection to prevent sexual abuse.”
I’m confident that the experts don’t conflate giving your aunt a hug at Thanksgiving dinner with becoming a victim of child abuse.
I’m also confident that experts would agree that supervising children’s activities is consistent with protecting them from predators. That would have prevented Sandusky from abusing those children. Sadly, they probably didn’t’ have enough adult presence in their lives to ensure that.
“How do you reconcile the standard of teaching children that “inappropriate touching is wrong, and if the child in not happy or comfortable they should not do it” with overriding that teaching with “Give uncle #### a kiss.”. “
Inappropriate touching isn’t giving your uncle or aunt a hug at Thanksgiving dinner. At least not in my family. Otherwise, nobody would ever touch anybody else, including the children.
The key is to teach kids what sexual body parts are, and where they are not to be touched by anyone, including mommy and daddy.
Secondly, supervise their activities to ensure that they aren’t isolated with an adult.
A child should be taught the difference between touching their genitals and other private areas and getting a loving hug.
“Children are told that if they are unhappy with being touched, they should tell an adult . .”
Sorry, the blogger is conflating hugging a family member at Thanksgiving dinner with being molested. Getting a hug from your aunt simply doesn’t lead to a child being raped. Kids know the difference. They need to learn the difference between a loving hug and sexual touching.
“How does it get resolved, for the child’s benefit?”
When we gave our girls baths when they were tiny, we showed them all the body parts that were “private”, that we to be touched by no one, no even mommy and daddy. But, they were hugged, kissed, and touched in appropriate, loving ways constantly. So, they learned early in life the difference. Frankly, this isn’t rocket science.
That standard isn’t wrong but it doesn’t preclude hugging your aunt at Thanksgiving dinner. That’s robbing children of learning that they are loved, even by people they don’t (yet) know well.
I’m interested that you felt the parents of kids who had sleepovers at your house were being negligent. Didn’t that make your relationship with those parents a bit fraught?
Your use of the word “negligent” is the first time it has been used here. So, clearly, I never said that.
We have good relationships with all the girls friends and their parents.
I did hug and uncle that I didn’t really want to when I was little. It was yucky at the time but I am so thankful that I got those hugs.
It was only when I was older that I grew to cherish those few hugs because he died prematurely. It was only then that I learned of his struggles in life, that he loved me especially and, in fact, named me.
I will never forget those (at the time) yucky hugs but grew to realize that they were filled with love for me. There is no doubt that at least 99% of the time, when an uncle, aunt, or grandparents wants to hug you it is because they love you, not because they are a child molester.
The problem is that, at the time, you don’t yet know enough about them to love them back. So, aside from the illogic of letting kids be in charge of what to trust, refusing kids affection from people who love them is robbing them of something that is actually for their good. So, this entire concept is mislead and anti-family closeness. I’m so glad that my parents didn’t ascribe to this non-sensical concept of kids being in charge.
So glad to read this comment in amongst a sea of agreement Eric! Children are not exercising some great intuition when they resist a hug, just as they are not exercising intuition when they sulk, or take a tantrum, or demand something they can’t have. The worst possible thing you could do to a child is to take away the love and care that is manifested in teaching them how to behave. This article is dangerously nonsensical. Treat everyone as if they are a paedophile and you end up in the worst possible world.
Duncan, I haven’t read anywhere anyone advocating that everyone is to be viewed and treated as a paedophiles.
Could you point out where this has been indicated?
That is precisely the tenor of the piece. The initial approach to any adult is to be mistrust, on the basis that all adults are potential abusers. That is exactly what is being said here.
The argument set out is that we have an innate sense of right and wrong, and that we should trust that in children. It is nonsense. We have an innate fear of the unknown, but there is nothing innate which defines morality. Morality must be taught. A child is scared of its mother or father if it does not know them. The logic of the piece says that this should be “respected” too. At which point you are condemning a child to a life of isolation.
The article is simplistic “stranger danger” wrapped up in psychobabble justification. It is as dangerous as “zero tolerance” and every other social cure which seeks to remove experience and understanding from the regulation of society.
The point is that children’s instincts should be trusted. So, the fact that a 4 year old “instinctively” doesn’t want to hug Aunt Millie is a clear indication of what?
That she is a pedophile, as the article inplies?
Or, is it more likely that she’s unknown to him, smells funny, and is old and scary looking to him?
Eric – can you show where it is implied that Aunt Millie is a Pedophile?
You have raised the issue of Subjective in perception. You do seem to be very objective in your comments and views about what has been written. So can you show us objectively where it is written or implied that Aunt Millie is a Pedophile?
“The shocking and tragic events at Penn State that have unfolded over the past two weeks, which have exposed former assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, as a sexual predator, have (yet again) brought THE ISSUE OF CHILD SEX ABUSE to the forefront of our collective consciousness.
IN LIGHT OF RECENT EVENTS, I want to discuss an issue, a behavior, that has bothered me for some time. It’s about how we encourage our kids to abandon their sense of self-trust—their instinct and intuition—in order to be polite through showing physical affection to adults.
For much too long, they have been filled with silent moments of sexual abuse, we just haven’t discussed them.
So, I think I’d much rather have our children be slightly cynical and aware, to encourage them to follow their sense of self-trust, and as a result, to give them a better chance at PROTECTING THEMSELVES, than to insist that kids must show physical affection when they don’t feel comfortable.
___________________________________________________________
The entire article is about protecting children from a hug from Aunt Millie, since they can tell that she’s a pedophile.
Eric – I believe you missed part of the phrase you chose to capitalize.
“… to give them a better chance at PROTECTING THEMSELVES,…”
Better – not absolute! In light of events I do believe it is very healthy that so many are questioning how to do things better in future. That questioning allows people to learn. Absolutes often prevent learning.
I understand from my world history that it was once an absolute that the world was flat, that the sun went round the earth. Experience and analysis showed that to not be true. There was even much discussion about it.
It’s interesting how some people will read a whole phrase and just see certain words as having meaning. It is recognized that some just scan for key words and then don’t read for meaning. A sentence often is far more than just the sum of it’s parts.
You also are the one that introduced this Aunt Millie character. The author has spoken in general terms, and yet you keep insisting upon specifics. Can you point to where the author mentions even having an Aunt Millie?
If Aunt Millie, who ever she is, has an opinion as to how she has apparently been castigated and shown in some terrible light, is she available to raise her concerns here? I’m sure that no-one advocates that Aunt Mille be denied family communion because someone has mistakenly linked her to pedophilia.
I’m sure that many at TGMP would love to hear her voice, and if she has been offended to apologize to her directly. It can be so healthy when there is open and honest dialogue across generations.
You imply that aunt Millie is of an older generation, she may even have a few insights of her own. There is a saying, “Those who fail to learn the lesson of history are doomed to repeat them.”. One has to wonder which lessons Aunt Millie can bring to the discussion, so that past failures can be avoided in future.
Cheers.
Eric – I believe you missed part of the phrase you chose to capitalize.
“… to give them a better chance at PROTECTING THEMSELVES,…”
Great job in protecting them from giving their grandmother who flew cross country to see them a hug.
Yeah, see it’s the parents’ job to protect children. That’s why they aren’t allowed to live on their own. Do what you want but I know for a fact that my girls haven’t been in any situation where they could have been abused; yet, they know to respectfully, give their grandmothers and grandfathers, uncles, and aunts hugs when we get together as a family.
“Absolutes often prevent learning.”
Such as such as allowing a 4 year old to dictate whether he gives his grandmother a hug or not. That’s a ridiculous absolute that has never on record prevented a child from being a victim of a pedophile.
“You also are the one that introduced this Aunt Millie character.”
Aunt Millie is the uncle, grandmother, or whomever the little kid doesn’t want to hug. I just named the person instead of what the blogger did.
“Can you point to where the author mentions even having an Aunt Millie?”
The writer claims, by implication, which it only applies to men. Hence, the title of his article. Why do you have a problem with it being an aunt but had no problem with it being an uncle who shouldn’t get a hug?
“If Aunt Millie, who ever she is, has an opinion as to how she has apparently been castigated and shown in some terrible light, is she available to raise her concerns here? I’m sure that no-one advocates that Aunt Mille be denied family communion because someone has mistakenly linked her to pedophilia.”
The blogger’s implication that whenever a little kid doesn’t want to give his unknown uncle (or aunt) a hug it’s because he’s a pedophile is ridiculous, and little children instinctively know that is absurd.
Anyone is free to let the four year olds dictate to the adults in their family. That’s just not how things worked in my family growing up and know how things work in my household. We have this silly idea that the best way to protect children from predators is to personally supervise who they are with and what they are doing at all times, not allow them to decide they don’t want to give their grandmother a 2 second hug when she comes over for Thanksgiving dinner.
“That is precisely the tenor of the piece. The initial approach to any adult is to be mistrust, on the basis that all adults are potential abusers. That is exactly what is being said here.”
Sorry to disagree with you, but I believe that myself and many others don’t see what you see.
I have not seen anything in the original piece which indicates the view, or presents any argument, that “The initial approach to any adult is to be mistrust, on the basis that all adults are potential abusers.”.
Can you explain where this idea is presented in the original piece?
I was struck by this: “Whether it’s a relationship between a child and his/her relatives or one between a kid and an adult who is an acquaintance, family friend, mentor, this type of behavior, in which children are expected to show physical affection as a sign of respect, is something I think we all need to be careful about.”
It covers a spectrum of adults moving from the most close family members out into wider society. If family blood relatives and those acquired by marriage are to be seen as safe, when does that safety line become blurred?
It’s worth remembering that this whole issue is a hot potato right now due to the reports around PSU. It’s also worth remembering that the central protagonist is a father, grand father, uncle, brother, cousin – and fills all the roles as a Male Kin and blood relative. Some wish to characterize Grand Auntie Ethel as being attached and wrongfully stigmatized, but they seem to forget that abusers of all types are in society and living within it, and not some external group that invade from time to time. They are mothers, fathers, grand parents, brothers sisters and come with even more nouns related to family life.
So where is that line that meets everyone’s happy zone?
The author said “careful about” – he did not say all adults are to be seen as potential abusers.
The point is that there is no line. The best, the very best, we can do for our children is to equip them to evaluate the world for themselves. But the idea that children should not be “cajoled” into doing things they express a desire not to do is bewildering.
Perhaps I am overstating the case presented, but here’s a scenario that might help to illustrate my point: a soldier serving overseas meets his child for the first time aged two. The child considers him a stranger, and wants nothing to do with him. Is the child exercising its innate moral distinction between right and wrong? No. It is demonstrating a natural fear of the unknown. Would you condemn that father taking his child in his arms for the first time because the child is uncomfortable? Would you say he should make no physical contact until the child chooses? If you would my opinion is that you would be doing more harm than good to that child and that family.
The unsourced assertions in the piece which say 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will suffer sexual abuse before they reach 18, alongside its framing in the context of the PSU crimes, all contribute to the suggestion that adults should be assumed guilty until proven innocent. But in truth the best hope for children’s wellbeing is from the care of adults who love them.
Duncan – I agree that the line is Illusionary.
For every case in one direction, there is an example in the other. What is important is that there is discussion about how to deal with the issue. Some will demand hard and fast lines – it’s who they are.
As for figures and statistics being unsourced – do you really want want ALL the references?
Here are a few to be going on with!
a)Russell, Diana E.H. 1988. The Incidence and Prevalence of Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse of Female Children. In Handbook on Sexual Abuse of Children, ed., Lenore E.A. Walker. Springer Publishing Co.
b) Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice. 2000. Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics,.
c) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Children’s Bureau. Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, D.C.: 1999.
d) Kilpatrick, Dean, and Benjamin Saunders. The Prevalence and Consequences of Child Victimization: Summary of a Research Study by Dean Kilpatrick, Ph.D. and Benjamin Saunders, Ph.D. 1997. U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.
If you want the full source list just shout, but it runs to hundreds – a chilling fact in itself that so much data exists but so little known about in the public domain.
If this was all about the bottom line dollar and such data existed that affected company profitability, a CEO who did not know about it would be fired by his board and share holders.
AMAZING article!!!
So necessary, I have shared it with dozens of my parent-friends. I have always agreed with this! Our boundaries are what keep us safe, teach your children that getting to know someone and trust them, and then touching them when everyone is comfortable is a HEALTHY and normal way to establish boundaries.
A high-five or blowing a kiss or even just saying “Hello” is sufficient, if a grownup is offended they need to be taken aside and told that you respect that that’s the way they were raised and you identify with how they feel, but that you’re trying to teach your child to respect her/his own personal space. If the grown up doesn’t get that, they don’t need to be around your children.
This is a really interesting article. I’m not a parent and I have no intention of being one any time soon, but I hope this is something I will carry with me. I was a very affectionate child, I loved being hugged and picked by my parents and close family members, but even I HATED being told I had to hug or kiss an adult I barely knew.
“no one has the right to receive affection, especially from a child. It’s not part of normal, polite interactions. It’s extra.”
This is a great point. Why do adults cajole and push children to show affection to older family members and friends, even though in the US, UK and Ireland (at least) adults do not generally greet each other with overt displays of affection? It’s a different situation in continental Europe, where a kiss or several on the cheek is a standard form of greeting.
Both my parents only have younger sisters, so I have no blood uncles. My family are also scattered throughout Ireland and the UK, so I would only see them occasionally, less than once a year. In light of this, it always felt strange for me to have to hug and kiss men who I did not know and had no intrinsic familial bond with. As I got older, I got to an awkward teenage phase where I wasn’t sure whether I was expected to continue to do so – it began to feel inappropriate, but I had always been chided for failing to show affection in the past.
Great article! I always hated it when my parents pushed me to give a hug and kiss a strange friend or relative. We were not a physically affectionate family among ourselves, so it was very upsetting to be told that all of a sudden I had to accept a smothering, sloppy hug and kiss from someone I barely knew, who often reeked of cigarettes and too much perfume! Yuck!
I would never even think of touching someone else’s child or asking them for a hug or kiss. That seems very weird and inappropriate. You can always tell that most children hate being touched without their permission, patted on the head, grabbed and so on, so why do so many adults do it?
Something I have not really seen addressed here is the needs of the child who is by nature not very physically affectionate. Just as society “favors” extroversion over introversion, and yet 25% of humans are introverts, children (and adults) have varying levels of comfort with affection. But parents, families, and society view the child with a “warm” or “affectionate” personality more favorably. Some kids (like I was) are just not that touchy-feely, or kissy-huggy, even with parents, and the more they are coerced and shamed, the more they internalize that there is something innately wrong with them. It took me many years as an adult to become comfortable with affection, and to find ways in which it can feel safe (and not manipulative or abusive) to me. When children are pushed to hug and kiss and it is against their nature, they become anxious and angry, and it can damage future relationships. We need to start recognizing that children are unique beings. Some love to give affection, and SOME DON’T. And why must this be judged? Why is more affection a goal, especially to the point it really makes a child upset? This article talks mostly about affection with strangers or the extended family. It should be about affection with ANYONE, and that can include parents. Forced affection almost always backfires. Every person, regardless of age, should get to decide what happens within their personal space.
I agree with most of your comment, Lori, but diverge at the end:
I support the idea of giving kids more autonomy when it comes to affection with strangers or extended family. The idea of letting kids “decide what happens with their personal space”—especially very small ones like my twin toddlers— gets into that overgeneralized territory that I thought Eric was in, in an earlier comment. Not counting physical affection, I violate my kids’ physical autonomy several times a day. For example, they don’t get to decide if it’s okay to stay in a poopy diaper a while longer because they’re busy playing, or to climb up a bookcase because they see something they want on a high shelf, or to hit and kick without restraint, or to refuse a bath. As much as possible, I try to foster cooperation, and I don’t thwart their physical will like an uncaring tyrant, but there’s no question that my or Mommy’s judgment trumps their own preferences about personal space when their wishes and ours are not aligned.
Hugs, kisses, and pinched cheeks are a small piece of the personal space puzzle, though, and over that piece, I’m willing to cede more control as far as whether they choose to engage in that physical affection or not. Even so, I’m not at all convinced that parents should include themselves in that category. It sounds unrealistic to me, because as parents, there’s all kinds of touch that is loving, only some of which is affectionate in the usual sense of the word. Sometimes touch a child vigorously resists transitions into affection, like picking up a child having a tantrum who subsequently calms down and returns a hug. I can’t see relinquishing my “right” to the affectionate stuff, while keeping the rest. Even if it were possible, that affection serves an important function in keeping me bonded to my kids. I expect the amount of affection and autonomy to shift as my kids get older, so my comfort zone probably will, too, but if you’re talking about complete personal space autonomy regardless of age, I don’t think that would be desirable at all.
Marcus, I completely agree with you. I probably wasn’t clear enough. I’m talking only about when parents force hugs and kisses on a child that doesn’t want it (or as much of it) and I’m especially thinking about kids as they get older, not babies. Older kids have the right, IMHO, to get to say “please no” if parents are smothering them with physical affection to meet their own adult needs and the child doesn’t like it. That right was denied to me and I resent it.
Personally, I feel you are over thinking this whole situation. Maybe parents need to reiterate “Don’t talk to strangers” or “If someone hurts you, tell me immediately”, but having a child give their uncle a hug and a kiss is not going to have that much effect on the child. Maybe if the kid is very set on staying away from their parents best friend, the parent shouldn’t force it, but I grew up in a big Italian family and was told to give a hug and a kiss to each family member every reunion. I feel these experiences helped my family grow closer, not destroy my sense of right and wrong. I never doubted the need to tell a parent if someone hurt me. Even if you are 100% correct about this, its not going to stop people from sexually abusing children, so with that being said, I believe we need to work on raising kids that won’t sexually abuse people as adults, not kids that won’t be sexually abused.