An article I think we should all read

[PeacefulChaos]

I read that article a few days ago and yes, it's fantastic. I value how much it breaks down the stereotypes of what a pedophile is like - that almost by definition, they're not cartoonishly evil bad guys who leap out on children unawares. They are extremely, extremely good at getting people to like them and trust them. If they weren't, they'd already be in jail.

 

I do keep coming back to this: I think friendships between kids and unrelated adults can be powerful and valuable. I had wonderful relationships with a number of adults, growing up, that really helped me develop as a person. My life would have been poorer without them. I want there to be a way for that to happen for my kids, without putting them in danger.

 

Just wanted to say :iagree: :)

[Murphy101]

Cin, you shouldn't worry about your piano teacher. This sort of thing is mostly a problem with men. When it is with women, it is usually different.

 

:001_huh:

 

Right. Mostly men. Different when it's women.

 

It's mostly men that are suspected, and thus convicted.

 

It's different with women bc they are rarely treated as criminals for it, and thus they never get investigated, much less convicted.

 

Did you miss the point of the entire thread was to listen to our guts and that it's always someone everyone likes and trusts and the predator tests constantly to be sure s/he doesn't give anyone reason to feel uncomfortable.

 

Did you miss the part in the article where the pedo actually invited the kid for a threesome and tho the woman left the room, she also later married the man and left the kid alone in bed with him?! I hope she rotted in jail too.

[FloridaLisa]

Great article. Let me ask a question: are kids safer in packs? When kids are with adults (at youth/church events or over at a friend's house) are they safer in packs? I don't think I would ever allow a child to go one-on-one with another adult.

 

Lisa

[Mommy22alyns]

Very hard to read, but thank you.

[In the Rain]

Wow, that article was tough to read. I'm sad for all the hurt children whose vulnerability makes them greater targets. I'm thankful my kids are "talkers" who want to discuss how each and every thing makes them feel. :tongue_smilie:

 

Make sure that you talk with your kids and give them permission to discuss the adults in their lives. And, if they come to you with a tiny gripe about an adult, listen. Really listen. Kids don't often open up with the whole story. They will test to see if you are willing to hear what they have to say first.

 

This is an excellent point. My oldest dd always starts out with "the point". My 8yo starts with chit chat, a few odd questions, and then gets to her point.

[Joanne]

:001_huh:

 

Right. Mostly men. Different when it's women.

 

It's mostly men that are suspected, and thus convicted.

 

It's different with women bc they are rarely treated as criminals for it, and thus they never get investigated, much less convicted.

 

.

 

I'm torn. When I read this article or PTG, I don't get the feeling that men are to be avoided or men, in general, are a danger. I don't get THAT at all. I do get there *here* and in other places. I've posted in more than one thread about not having boy babysitters or not allowing a girl to sleep over a home where there are male sibings. THAT is alarmist, and unhelpful. I've got 2 boys, and the thought that they are deemed predatory automatically is awful.

 

OTOH, I don't agree with a post upthread that normal interactions between coaches (for example) walk a fine line with grooming. I think books like PTG and info in this article make the difference very clear.

 

I think the article is good, sad, and important. I hate that it has to exist.

[Murphy101]

I'm torn. When I read this article or PTG, I don't get the feeling that men are to be avoided or men, in general, are a danger. I don't get THAT at all. I do get there *here* and in other places. I've posted in more than one thread about not having boy babysitters or not allowing a girl to sleep over a home where there are male sibings. THAT is alarmist, and unhelpful. I've got 2 boys, and the thought that they are deemed predatory automatically is awful.

 

OTOH, I don't agree with a post upthread that normal interactions between coaches (for example) walk a fine line with grooming. I think books like PTG and info in this article make the difference very clear.

 

I think the article is good, sad, and important. I hate that it has to exist.

 

I didn't think the article made the difference clear AT ALL. In fact, I thought the point of the article was just how unclear it can be.

 

I didn't get that impression of men from PTG. Not at all.

 

But elsewhere? Yes. It's becoming crazily normalized.

 

And I didn't get it from this article per se either. But the reaction to it went straight to that. Which I do find awful and sad.

 

ETA: also might point that you quoted me in was that it shouldn't matter how unlikely it is that women abuse. If someone feels off about it, listen to the gut. The article and this thread has said repeatedly that that is the most important lesson parents need to take from this and yet someone just told someone else to not worry bc it's unlikely? Which left me rather stunned at the glaring prejudice there. It's unlikely that most men, even if it is more than women, are doing it either, but I'm going to listen to my gut all the same and never tell a mother otherwise either.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Martha

[Joanne]

I didn't think the article made the difference clear AT ALL. In fact, I thought the point of the article was just how unclear it can be.I didn't get that impression of men from PTG. Not at all.

 

But elsewhere? Yes. It's becoming crazily normalized.

 

And I didn't get it from this article per se either. But the reaction to it went straight to that. Which I do find awful and sad.

 

ETA: also might point that you quoted me in was that it shouldn't matter how unlikely it is that women abuse. If someone feels off about it, listen to the gut. The article and this thread has said repeatedly that that is the most important lesson parents need to take from this and yet someone just told someone else to not worry bc it's unlikely? Which left me rather stunned at the glaring prejudice there. It's unlikely that most men, even if it is more than women, are doing it either, but I'm going to listen to my gut all the same and never tell a mother otherwise either.

 

On the bold. Huh. What I got from the article is that grooming behavior is, in fact, present and identifiable but that cultural forces shut recognition of it down.

 

I actually agree with your point about when the crime is committed by women. First, SA is under reported in general. It is even more so true when the perpetrator is a woman. And they are tried differently, and convicted differently. Statistically, it's my belief that more men are pedophiles, but not by the glaring margin that it seems.

[stripe]

Nm

Edited September 24, 2012 by stripe

[Anne in CA]

This whole article was informative, but the real point is that most people reading it are not the people whose children are going to be targeted. A single mom working two jobs to keep her house is extremely unlikely to read the New Yorker, and will depend on the community to help with her kids. That is where a pedophile can step in. That is why they go to a lot of trouble to be trusted in a community. I love the point that a pedophile grooms a whole community very carefully.

 

I can see that my son was targeted last year although he was 16 then. When all grooming attempts failed a community leader played a horrible "trick" on him and most people are just unwilling to look at why the community leader did that. It took me a long time to figure out that the leader was attempting to "blackmail" my son to have an encounter. All the evidence is there, but try proving intent since no physical contact occurred and a community leader who has no children of his own but serves everyone else's is revered. Sadly in our community there are a lot of vulnerable young men who will not be able to say no to college scholarships and other things this man is in a position to offer.

 

Edited to fix grammar, I worked 13 hours last night and am exhausted.

[Galatea]

The Sandusky case—like all cases of child molestiation—is horrifying. And no doubt pedophiles use the sort of "grooming" techniques described in the article. But sports coaches and others (who are perfectly innocent) also need to at times "touch" children if they are going to help kids learn to play properly. I coached a kids basketball team last season. I sometimes "touched" boys when showing them how to guard or how to shoot, etc.

 

While we need to be vigalent about child-molestation I think we lose something as a society if we become so suspicious of every adult-child interaction that we become paranoid about normal and innocent activities.

 

Bill

 

I read the article in full, and I haven't read all of the replies after this one yet. I did want to note that I understand your point. Men shouldn't automatically be suspect. However, any necessary and appropriate touching should be done in public. No adult not related to a child should ever touch that child in any way when alone with them, no matter how innocent. It isn't necessary and it isn't appropriate. I can't think of a single instance when touching when alone would be called for.

 

Most children who are victimized are the products of broken homes, or don't have caring and involved parents. That is why they choose them, because they have the opportunity to be alone with them. It is in privacy that abuse happens.

 

Grooming behaviors look like normal touching in the beginning because they ARE relatively normal. The predator is looking to see if the child will say anything, to them or to their parents. You can protect your child best by being involved in his/her activities, but also by talking to them about the adults in their lives and about their feelings. And by listening to a child who says "I didn't like so-and-so touching me". Even if the touch seems completely normal to you, you have to back your child up. Let them know that it is okay to say no, it is okay to be uncomfortable. Some people just don't like being touched, and that is okay. It is in saying to a child "that's no big deal, he was just being nice, she didn't mean anything by it" that we shut our children down and set them up to be taken advantage of.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Galatea

[Joanne]

Grooming behaviors look like normal touching in the beginning because they ARE relatively normal. The predator is looking to see if the child will say anything, to them or to their parents. You can protect your child best by being involved in his/her activities, but also by talking to them about the adults in their lives and about their feelings. And by listening to a child who says "I didn't like so-and-so touching me". Even if the touch seems completely normal to you, you have to back your child up. Let them know that it is okay to say no, it is okay to be uncomfortable. Some people just don't like being touched, and that is okay. It is in saying to a child "that's no big deal, he was just being nice, she didn't mean anything by it" that we shut our children down and set them up to be taken advantage of.

 

Or, my parenting pet peeve: "Go ahead, just give (Grandma, Uncle Dave, family friend Betty) a hug."

 

While I *way* don't believe Grandma, Dave, or Betty to be likely to be a pedophile, I think any time we "encourage" unsolicited, non mutual affection from our kids to another adult, we violate them and we teach them that their boundaries are inconsequential.

[Galatea]

Or, my parenting pet peeve: "Go ahead, just give (Grandma, Uncle Dave, family friend Betty) a hug."

 

While I *way* don't believe Grandma, Dave, or Betty to be likely to be a pedophile, I think any time we "encourage" unsolicited, non mutual affection from our kids to another adult, we violate them and we teach them that their boundaries are inconsequential.

 

I agree. Every child should be allowed to set their own personal boundaries. Making a child hug grandma just teaches the child to do what makes the adults happy, not to pay attention to his/her own feelings.

[Zebra]

Or, my parenting pet peeve: "Go ahead, just give (Grandma, Uncle Dave, family friend Betty) a hug."

 

While I *way* don't believe Grandma, Dave, or Betty to be likely to be a pedophile, I think any time we "encourage" unsolicited, non mutual affection from our kids to another adult, we violate them and we teach them that their boundaries are inconsequential.

 

:iagree: Too many people force children to hug and kiss adults. You can be polite to Grandma/Dave/Betty without touching them. Kids need to know they are allowed to have very strong boundaries when it comes to THEIR bodies.

[Spy Car]

Or, my parenting pet peeve: "Go ahead, just give (Grandma, Uncle Dave, family friend Betty) a hug."

 

While I *way* don't believe Grandma, Dave, or Betty to be likely to be a pedophile, I think any time we "encourage" unsolicited, non mutual affection from our kids to another adult, we violate them and we teach them that their boundaries are inconsequential.

 

Wow, I think it is incredibly sad that children can't be affectionate with a grandparent, to they point where they don't give them hugs. What is this world coming to?

 

Bill

Edited September 24, 2012 by Spy Car

[Joanne]

Wow, I think it is incredibly sad that children can be affectionate with a grandparent, to they point where they don't give them hugs. What is this world coming to?

 

Bill

 

I am not sure I understand your comment, Bill. I may be reading it wrong.

 

I am not against affection between children and adults. My statement is *clearly* against parents who tell children to be affectionate to other adults.

[Spy Car]

I am not sure I understand your comment, Bill. I may be reading it wrong.

 

I am not against affection between children and adults. My statement is *clearly* against parents who tell children to be affectionate to other adults.

 

Yeah. I thnk sad for children to *not be affectionate* towards their grandparents. It is beyond sad, it is inconmprehendably weird and inhumane.

 

Bill

[Joanne]

Yeah. I thnk sad for children to *not be affectionate* towards their grandparents. It is beyond sad, it is inconmprehendably weird and inhumane.

 

Bill

 

:confused::glare: You are not responding to the actual content of my posts.

 

Have a good Sunday night.

[dangermom]

Yeah. I thnk sad for children to *not be affectionate* towards their grandparents. It is beyond sad, it is inconmprehendably weird and inhumane.

 

Bill

 

Sometimes a kid is not in the mood to give Grandma a hug. The point is that in that case we should not make the kid give Grandma a hug. Kid will probably be in a huggier mood some other time. Sometimes kids are not feeling huggy, and that is OK.

[Impish]

Yeah. I thnk sad for children to *not be affectionate* towards their grandparents. It is beyond sad, it is inconmprehendably weird and inhumane.

 

Bill

Kids should be allowed to their feelings. *Forcing* them to show physical affection when they're not comfortable w/it is wrong, regardless of who it is, Gpa, uncle, aunt, whoever.

 

It's respecting the child's ability to say no.

 

If that no isn't respected in family setting, how is a child to believe that their 'no' will be respected anywhere?

 

Wolf has an uncle that his a convicted s*x offended. And yeah, his cousins were forced to hug Uncle Creepazoid, and left alone w/him b/c 'he's your UNCLE!'. Nobody listened to the kids 'no' and many became his victims.

[DarlaS]

Yeah. I thnk sad for children to *not be affectionate* towards their grandparents. It is beyond sad, it is inconmprehendably weird and inhumane.

 

Bill

 

Normally, yes. But what about when Grandpa and Grandma live clear across the country and the kid hardly knows them? Give them time to warm up and never demand access to their person. It's not to much to ask no matter who you are.

 

My MIL lives about an hour and a half away and we only see her a couple times a year. I appreciate that she made a point of never forcing affection on my kids. They give her hugs anyway, but I like how she doesn't insist (This was all her idea by the way.).

 

I don't know if she was always like that since our kids are her youngest grandkids. It might have something to do with something that happened to one of her granddaughters (when the little girl was only 6).

[KnitWit]

Yeah. I thnk sad for children to *not be affectionate* towards their grandparents. It is beyond sad, it is inconmprehendably weird and inhumane.

 

Bill

 

Some pedophiles have grandchildren.

[Joanne]

Some pedophiles have grandchildren.

 

I just want to be clear that my content in the affection rabbit trail isn't tied to pedophiles. It was specifically about forcing childen to give affection to anyone - even people who are healthy, fine, and not a risk.

 

We teach children the wrong things about self-protection and boundaries if we decide for them when they should offer, or accept, affection.

[KnitWit]

I just want to be clear that my content in the affection rabbit trail isn't tied to pedophiles. It was specifically about forcing childen to give affection to anyone - even people who are healthy, fine, and not a risk.

 

We teach children the wrong things about self-protection and boundaries if we decide for them when they should offer, or accept, affection.

 

Joanne, I completely agree with you.

 

And...some pedophiles are grandparents...and uncles...and fathers. I just think it's another reason to let kids decide for themselves. I am NOT saying that every time a kid backs away from showing affection that it means their *creepdar* is up. But, for some kids, it might be why.

 

For that reason, I'm disagreeing with Bill's judgment of "incomprehendably weird and inhumane". That is a blanket statement that just doesn't work.

 

My own mother refused affection toward an uncle...for good reason!

[Spy Car]

Joanne, I completely agree with you.

 

And...some pedophiles are grandparents...and uncles...and fathers. I just think it's another reason to let kids decide for themselves. I am NOT saying that every time a kid backs away from showing affection that it means their *creepdar* is up. But, for some kids, it might be why.

 

For that reason, I'm disagreeing with Bill's judgment of "incomprehendably weird and inhumane". That is a blanket statement that just doesn't work.

 

My own mother refused affection toward an uncle...for good reason!

 

Joanne is not talking about pedophiles, she is saying is is OK for children to withhold affection from normal sweet grandparents and that encouraging those children to be affectionate toward their grandparents would be a violation of the children's personal space.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

[FO4UR]

Or, my parenting pet peeve: "Go ahead, just give (Grandma, Uncle Dave, family friend Betty) a hug."

 

While I *way* don't believe Grandma, Dave, or Betty to be likely to be a pedophile, I think any time we "encourage" unsolicited, non mutual affection from our kids to another adult, we violate them and we teach them that their boundaries are inconsequential.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

 

 

 

Joanne is not talking about pedophiles, she is saying is is OK for children to withhold affection from normal sweet grandparents and that encouraging those children to be affectionate toward their grandparents would be a violation of the children's personal space.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

 

 

No, that is not what she's talking about.

 

"To withhold affection" would mean that the child wanted to give affection and the parent forbade it.

 

 

Joanne is saying that it is harmful to force a child to fake affection for the sake of the adult's feelings or wishes. I strongly agree with her.

 

 

I think forcing a child to hug against his/her will is abuse...far worse than the hot-saucing that you were so upset about. (No, I don't hot sauce...but forcing a child to ignore those instinctive boundaries sets them up for life-long vulnerability.)

 

 

My parents and IL's would NEVER want a hug that was forced anyway. That's probably why my dc offer them so willingly...b/c they know that they are genuinely loved and have mutual affection to share.

[PhotoGal]

Joanne is not talking about pedophiles, she is saying is is OK for children to withhold affection from normal sweet grandparents and that encouraging those children to be affectionate toward their grandparents would be a violation of the children's personal space.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

 

Bill, if you read "Protecting the Gift," I think you will understand what people are saying here.

 

Children should not be coerced into touching anyone if they don't feel comfortable doing it. And they should be able to say "no" if they are uncomfortable touching someone. It is just a good guideline in general, no matter who the person is.

[Galatea]

Yeah. I thnk sad for children to *not be affectionate* towards their grandparents. It is beyond sad, it is inconmprehendably weird and inhumane.

 

Bill

 

Some kids aren't comfortable with physical contact. It could be a sensory issue, it could be personal preference. Do you think these kids should be forced into physical contact with people they don't want to be, even if it is family?

 

Also, the reason you allow a child to refrain from physical contact is partly about their own personal space (why should you be the person to decide what someone else's personal space should be?), but to give them the knowledge that it is okay to have personal boundaries. If you make a child hug Aunt Betty when he/she doesn't want to, then you are teaching a young child that the desires of adults to keep up appearances or assuage feelings are more important than their own feelings of comfort. You are training that child to accept the advances of a person like Sandusky because you are training them not to trust and not to abide by their own feelings, and that the adults in their life will tell them to do what they are uncomfortable with. It is not the reason that matters with a young child, it is the training.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Galatea

[Spy Car]

No, that is not what she's talking about.

 

"To withhold affection" would mean that the child wanted to give affection and the parent forbade it.

 

 

Joanne is saying that it is harmful to force a child to fake affection for the sake of the adult's feelings or wishes. I strongly agree with her.

 

 

I think forcing a child to hug against his/her will is abuse...far worse than the hot-saucing that you were so upset about. (No, I don't hot sauce...but forcing a child to ignore those instinctive boundaries sets them up for life-long vulnerability.)

 

 

My parents and IL's would NEVER want a hug that was forced anyway. That's probably why my dc offer them so willingly...b/c they know that they are genuinely loved and have mutual affection to share.

 

Forcing? In this universe saying "go give grandma a hug" is "forcing."

 

I think this is truly bizarre. Enabling children to be non-demonstative and non-affection towards loved ones will set them up for a lifetime of being cold and self centered.

 

My head is reeling.

 

Bill

[Galatea]

Forcing? In this universe saying "go give grandma a hug" is "forcing."

 

I think this is truly bizarre. Enabling children to be non-demonstative and non-affection towards loved ones will set them up for a lifetime of being cold and self centered.

 

My head is reeling.

 

Bill

 

What would you do if the response to "go give grandma a hug" was visible reluctance or "I don't want to"?

[Joker]

.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Horton

[Spy Car]

Bill, if you read "Protecting the Gift," I think you will understand what people are saying here.

 

I know the book. It think it is a damaging, paranoia-fueling, wacko book. It is way out of proportion. When did people lose perspective and their own common sense?

 

Children should not be coerced into touching anyone if they don't feel comfortable doing it. And they should be able to say "no" if they are uncomfortable touching someone. It is just a good guideline in general, no matter who the person is.

 

When "hugging grandma" gets twisted into "coerced touching" then the balance of normal family relations and normal human affection is lost. This is the problem with paranoia.

 

Bill

[Galatea]

I know the book. It think it is a damaging, paranoia-fueling, wacko book. It is way out of proportion. When did people lose perspective and their own common sense?

 

 

 

When "hugging grandma" gets twisted into "coerced touching" then the balance of normal family relations and normal human affection is lost. This is the problem with paranoia.

 

Bill

 

When estimates say that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually mistreated by the time they're 16, can you really say it is paranoia to train your child to trust their instincts about people?

[Spy Car]

When estimates say that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually mistreated by the time they're 16, can you really say it is paranoia to train your child to trust their instincts about people?

 

No. I think people should trust their instincts and use their common sense. I don't think they should become paranoid. There is a difference.

 

Bill

[Galatea]

No. I think people should trust their instincts and use their common sense. I don't think they should become paranoid. There is a difference.

 

Bill

 

Does "people" not include children?

[Impish]

I know the book. It think it is a damaging, paranoia-fueling, wacko book. It is way out of proportion. When did people lose perspective and their own common sense?

 

 

 

When "hugging grandma" gets twisted into "coerced touching" then the balance of normal family relations and normal human affection is lost. This is the problem with paranoia.

 

Bill

I don't see respecting a child's feelings as being paranoia. It's teaching children that they have the right to say no.

[VeritasMama]

I know the book. It think it is a damaging, paranoia-fueling, wacko book. It is way out of proportion. When did people lose perspective and their own common sense?

 

 

 

When "hugging grandma" gets twisted into "coerced touching" then the balance of normal family relations and normal human affection is lost. This is the problem with paranoia.

 

Bill

I wholeheartedly agree, and I am sad to say I had first hand experience in situations like these as a child. My former stepfather was a predator. I am tiered of the media and other "advocates " trying to create a "new normal "every time something horrific happens. We don't need to be paranoid, we just need to pay attention to things that are abnormal, the Sandusky case had plenty of abnormal behavior apparent, those close to the situation simply didn't want to look too hard. I'm not saying all abuse is obvious, but you can't prevent it by suddenly classifying normal human social interaction as deviant. The predators simply adapt with new tactics, and the rest of he population is left dealing with paranoia and neurosis.

[Spy Car]

Does "people" not include children?

 

Sure. If a family had a weird Uncle Chester—I don't think I'd be around him in the first place—but, yea.

 

But parlaying the idea that a suggestion to a child that they give a loving grandparent (one who had been a loving parent to that child's parent) a "hug" into some sort of violation of the child's autonomy, or that this is "coerced touching" that will undermine the child's future potential to avoid molestation is beyond weird to me.

 

Fostering normal, loving, and affectionate family life is a far better model.

 

Bill

[Impish]

Sure. If a family had a weird Uncle Chester—I don't think I'd be around him in the first place—but, yea.

 

But parlaying the idea that a suggestion to a child that they give a loving grandparent (one who had been a loving parent to that child's parent) a "hug" into some sort of violation of the child's autonomy, or that this is "coerced touching" that will undermine the child's future potential to avoid molestation is beyond weird to me.

 

Fostering normal, loving, and affectionate family life is a far better model.

 

Bill

Suggesting to a child that he gives gma a hug is fine.

 

If the child refuses, that needs to be respected.

 

Forcing a child whose refused to hug grandma is inappropriate.

[Kirch]

Sure. If a family had a weird Uncle Chester—I don't think I'd be around him in the first place—but, yea.

 

But parlaying the idea that a suggestion to a child that they give a loving grandparent (one who had been a loving parent to that child's parent) a "hug" into some sort of violation of the child's autonomy, or that this is "coerced touching" that will undermine the child's future potential to avoid molestation is beyond weird to me.

 

Fostering normal, loving, and affectionate family life is a far better model.

 

Bill

 

I don't think people are talking about suggesting that a child hug or even kiss a grandparent being a bad thing. They're talking about pushing or trying to make a child do so who is reluctant for whatever reason. I've seen situations where a child was reluctant for whatever reason and either the parents or the grandparents tried to force the issue by convincing/pleading, guilt-tripping, or physically forcing. Those situations never end nicely, and I think it does send a message to the child that his or her physical boundaries aren't to be taken seriously and respected. That's the kind of behavior people are talking about.

[Spy Car]

I don't think people are talking about suggesting that a child hug or even kiss a grandparent being a bad thing.

 

We could both hope this was true, but it is not the case:

 

Or, my parenting pet peeve: "Go ahead, just give (Grandma, Uncle Dave, family friend Betty) a hug."

 

While I *way* don't believe Grandma, Dave, or Betty to be likely to be a pedophile, I think any time we "encourage" unsolicited, non mutual affection from our kids to another adult, we violate them and we teach them that their boundaries are inconsequential.

[Meriwether]

We could both hope this was true, but it is not the case:

 

I'm pretty sure Joanne was talking about an unwilling child.

 

I'll tell my kids to give hugs and kisses goodnight when at my parents' house. I even encourage them to hug my inlaws who are stiff and ill at ease with the kids most of the time. I would not make them hug someone they didn't want to - my inlaws, or even my parents if it ever came to that.

[Kirch]

We could both hope this was true, but it is not the case:

 

Well, maybe Joanne will clarify. I guess I interpreted "go ahead" and "just" as implying that the child had already been approached for the hug, was resisting, and was being pushed to "go ahead" and "just do" it. I know when I remind my kids to hug their grandparents before we leave them, I don't use those words--they'd be out of place unless I was trying to convince them.

[Little Nyssa]

My sweet, kind, MIL would love a hug. Sometimes my kids are being stubborn and won't do it. It's not because they are feeling that something is wrong with MIL. They are just feeling put on the spot and contrary. MIL has been vetted! She is trusted by our family. DC should be able to hug her, no problem. I confess I do get annoyed when they won't. I don't think I'm trampling on their individual liberties by encouraging them to do so.

 

That is totally different from making them hug someone that I or they don't feel right about. Some distant relative that see seldom, or who is a little 'off.' In that case I would pay attention if I saw they were reluctant.

 

I have to say I agree with Spycar on this one, though I do think that PTG is a good book and he doesn't.

[Negin]

I printed this out and am reading it slowly. Great article and thank you for sharing.

 

There is a huge difference between a coach who touches a child appropriately, and one who is overly touchy, overly involved, and weird.

 

people like Sandusky either look for neglected kids, or work VERY hard to get you to like them FIRST and then let down your guard around them, parents are turning a blind eye to red flags.

 

When you go to buy a car and the car dealer is overly nice to you immediately know why. You put up your defenses and you don't trust the guy. And it needs to be the same way with your children. It's not that the coach can't pat your kid on the shoulder and say, "good job kid!" or take your kid out for ice cream. It's that if they want to hang around your kid a bit too much, or are really overly touchy feely, you need to really keep your eyes open. One red flag, one funny thing, DEFINITELY seriously examine the situation. You don't have to point fingers or flip out, but there is nothing wrong with saying, "Gee, maybe I should really look into this situation more closely...."

Great post. Very well said.

[Negin]

only to let kids be with adults who welcome their parents at all times.

Yes. :iagree:

 

And it should also be mentioned that it's not just men who behave inappropriately towards children. It gets reported a lot less, but women molesters are actually more likely to fly under the radar.

Yes, I had a friend of a friend who worked with offenders in So. Cal and she told me that it covers both genders and all age groups - even women in their 60s and up - as well as all cultures and backgrounds. She'd had clients who were the total grandmother-type. :glare:

 

If anyone wants to spend too much time with your kid, watch out. I love kids and all, but mine are enough.

:iagree:

[Catherine]

THAT would be the big red flag. Look at how Sandusky apologized to that Mom who suspected him. He said he felt terrible and that he wished he were dead or somesuch. As soon as he was suspected, there was major backpedaling-for that potential victim. His entire process was directed toward finding victims, which the vast majority of his contacts were not.

 

The point is that pedophiles persuade parents to leave their kids alone with them. In the case I personally know of, he spent literally YEARS persuading them to do this. If the person in question has never tried to make that happen, then you probably have nothing to worry about.

[kwg]

Forcing? In this universe saying "go give grandma a hug" is "forcing."

 

I think this is truly bizarre. Enabling children to be non-demonstative and non-affection towards loved ones will set them up for a lifetime of being cold and self centered.

 

My head is reeling.

 

Bill

 

:glare:

 

Here is how it worked in my family. Ds was 3 or 4...and you would say 'ok grandmama has to go now, go give her a hug' and he wouldn't.

 

I didn't force the issue. I figured it was putting everyone on the spot. How my mother handled it:cheerfully said goodbye anyway. How my MIL handled it: fake "tears" and "boohoos" b/c her feelings were hurt ( they were not really, she was just "playing" with him). Her response irritated me fwiw.

 

How my ds handles it now at 10- he hugs them both cheerfully. At that age, he had trouble with goodbyes. Geeze. I don't think he is set up to a lifetime of being self centered and cold. :tongue_smilie:

[Joanne]

Forcing? In this universe saying "go give grandma a hug" is "forcing."

 

I think this is truly bizarre. Enabling children to be non-demonstative and non-affection towards loved ones will set them up for a lifetime of being cold and self centered.

 

My head is reeling.

 

Bill

 

That's a leap. Allowing a child to choose their affectionate moments, just as adults are allowed, sets them up from being cold and self centered?

 

My own children were allowed to offer, accept, or decline affection as they wanted. They are affectionate, loving teens. They are no more age-expectedly self centered than their peers.

 

Further, humans including children have the capacity to be demonstrative and affectionate on many levels; with words, deeds, playfulness and time. A child drawing a picture "for grandma" or playing back verbally with grandpa is just as affectionate and demonstrative as a hug - and certainly no better or worse.

 

 

I think, Bill, you are deliberately taking my position out of context and provoking me.

[Zebra]

Suggesting to a child that he gives gma a hug is fine.

 

If the child refuses, that needs to be respected.

 

Forcing a child whose refused to hug grandma is inappropriate.

 

 

The bottom line is, if kids aren't taught that they have a say over their own bodies, they might not be realize they are allowed to say no to people trying to force them into things they aren't comfortable with.

 

Making your child say "thank you" or be polite to someone is fine. Forcing physical contact is not. Why would you want a hug from a child who doesn't want to give it? Having control over who touches your body is the most basic of boundaries. No one would ever force one adult to hug another adult.

 

Frankly, if you back off and let a kid make their own decision they will most likely hug the people they love, eventually. Children should never be taught to be "compliant" when it comes to issues of body touching. When a child knows they don't have to touch anyone they don't want to, they are much more likely to feel that they are allowed to say "no" to bad touches.