An article I think we should all read

[Impish]

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.

:iagree:

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

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.

 

The point is not that your MIL might be a pedophile. The point is that teaching children that physical contact and affection are required to show love, even when they don't want to do it, can contribute to a mindset that pedophiles love to use against children. Many pedophiles tell kids things like, "I love you, so doing this is OK," or "If you love me, you'll do this for me." Teaching kids that they must override their own feelings of reluctance in order to show love is teaching them that their own instincts and feelings can't be trusted, which is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing—and which is, incidentally (and bizarrely), precisely what Bill is arguing for.

[Spy Car]

The point is not that your MIL might be a pedophile. The point is that teaching children that physical contact and affection are required to show love, even when they don't want to do it, can contribute to a mindset that pedophiles love to use against children. Many pedophiles tell kids things like, "I love you, so doing this is OK," or "If you love me, you'll do this for me." Teaching kids that they must override their own feelings of reluctance in order to show love is teaching them that their own instincts and feelings can't be trusted, which is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing—and which is, incidentally (and bizarrely), precisely what Bill is arguing for.

 

And your post illustrates perfectly my contention that too many people have been taken in my "pop-psychology" rather than using their own common sense.

 

I do not believe for a moment that encouraging children to be loving and affectionate towards their grandparents sets them up for child abuse. This is paranoia at work.

 

Bill

[Impish]

And your post illustrates perfectly my contention that too many people have been taken in my "pop-psychology" rather than using their own common sense.

 

I do not believe for a moment that encouraging children to be loving and affectionate towards their grandparents sets them up for child abuse. This is paranoia at work.

 

Bill

No, it's common sense.

 

You teach a child that they don't have the right to say no, and it leaves them vulnerable.

[Spy Car]

No, it's common sense.

 

You teach a child that they don't have the right to say no, and it leaves them vulnerable.

 

Balderdash.

 

Bill

[Impish]

Balderdash.

 

Bill

:lol: Well, there's a strong, logical argument. :lol:

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

And your post illustrates perfectly my contention that too many people have been taken in my "pop-psychology" rather than using their own common sense.

 

I do not believe for a moment that encouraging children to be loving and affectionate towards their grandparents sets them up for child abuse. This is paranoia at work.

 

Bill

 

Actually, it's completely common sense to me.

 

You sound very authoritative about this. Are you a therapist? A survivor of sexual abuse? A volunteer with survivors or perpetrators? What are your sources/criteria for judging this particular belief to be paranoia rather than common sense?

[fairfarmhand]

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

yes. But coaches and teachers should be wise in the way that they do so that noone can lob false accusations at them. I have a male friend who taught Karate for years. When he had to put his hand on a student to demonstrate or correct things, he did it almost roughly. So that no one could ever misunderstand it.

[fairfarmhand]

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.

:iagree:

 

I don't like to be touched, especially by people I don't know well. I respect my kids' rights to decide whether they want to hug or receive a hug. I do require that, if they don't want to give a hug, that they at least give a high-five or handshake.

 

Anyone who gets their panties in a wad over whether a 2 yo wants to hug or kiss them needs to grow up anyway.

[Spy Car]

:lol: Well, there's a strong, logical argument. :lol:

 

This is a forum built around the educational principle that children need to be "trained" by parents/teacher to maximize the children's potential. We are urged train the children to learn phonics, to do memory work, to learn their sums, and maybe even learn Latin—whether the child really feels like it, or not. But there is no hew and cry about "force" or "coercion" About these things (expect perhaps from the radical unschoolers :D)

 

Sometimes we as parents (because this is our role) need to ensure children tie their shoes, brush their teeth, eat their dark-leafy greens, write "thank you notes" they might rather not, and all sorts of other things a child might not "will" to do on their own. In there matters shares of coercion do not fly. It is normal.

 

It is also normal to teach children to be kind to their grandparents, as most grandparent live for such kindness from their grandkids (acknowledging in advance that there are no doubt some cold elders who were likely never show affection themselves in youth).

 

Inculcating normal kindnesses towards grandparents will not destroy a child's sense of autonomy or invalidate thie sense of boundaries. It will help make them kind human beings.

 

It is sad that people's reason and common sense get tossed aside in favor of pop-physiologists who make money selling paranoia.

 

Bill

Edited September 24, 2012 by Spy Car

[BlsdMama]

You know, the article mentions "insurance" against predators. He said children with vigilant parents were discarded.

 

DS (13) does Boy Scouts. If Dad can't go on a trip or do an activity, DS doesn't go. I love Boy Scouts, but I've never figured out why grown men with no children involved will spend hours and free weekends going on trips with boys they aren't related to. It mystifies me. I am glad there are unselfish, wonderful people out there that are willing to sacrifice, but at the same time, no child of mine is spending unsupervised time with any adult.

[TravelingChris]

Totally disagree with Bill about Protecting the Gift. There is nothing in that book that should make you paranoid. It is all about honing your natural instincts to protect yourself and your loved ones. Basically, getting more attuned to your body's natural danger indicators that are subconcsiounce and can be used to protect you. Too many people are hesitant to offend. It wasn't a book saying all men are evil or think everyone is a boogeyman. It was saying there is crime out there, there are predators out there, but most people aren't predators and part of our human nature is an ability to distinguish predatory behavior from non predatory behavior and we need to use this ability.

 

On a further note, I would like to bring up a great advance in technology brought to us by DARPA and announced last week. It involves what we think we see and what our brains really see. They have discovered that our brains see more than we think. In specific, they knew that soldiers watching for enemy approaching missed a lot of them. They supposedly didn't see them and it was right, their conscience brain did not see them. However by attaching a helmet that monitors brain visual signals of the soldier, the rate of missing enemy dropped to almost zero and without lots of false positives.

 

This is exactly the sort of thing that Protecting the Gift encourages us to do. NO, not attach brain monitoring helmets but do become more cognizant of your body's responses and take heed from them. The article about the new helmets was focusing on technology however, I would be interested to know if even without the helmet on, were there any changes in behavior or any bodily responses when those supposed unsighted enemy were on the scene. My theory is that there were but the soldiers had been drilled not to fire without confirmation and that would override any concern they had.

[Farrar]

And your post illustrates perfectly my contention that too many people have been taken in my "pop-psychology" rather than using their own common sense.

 

I do not believe for a moment that encouraging children to be loving and affectionate towards their grandparents sets them up for child abuse. This is paranoia at work.

 

Bill

 

To me, the reason not to force a child to hug, even a grandparent, isn't really about some road to abuse. It's more about a respect for a child as individual. There are some things I'm perfectly fine with forcing kids to do for their safety, so they can learn needed things, etc. However, I wouldn't feel comfortable forcing a kid to hug, even a grandparent. It's his body, his emotions, his self. Nothing to do with the potential for abuse down the road, more to do with giving a child a sense of autonomy on as many things as is reasonably possible.

 

But for the record, my kids have always been pretty affectionate with all their grandparents and great-grandparents, even their grandfather who was very ill and therefore not looking so lovable.

[Spy Car]

Totally disagree with Bill about Protecting the Gift. There is nothing in that book that should make you paranoid. It is all about honing your natural instincts to protect yourself and your loved ones. Basically, getting more attuned to your body's natural danger indicators that are subconcsiounce and can be used to protect you. Too many people are hesitant to offend. It wasn't a book saying all men are evil or think everyone is a boogeyman. It was saying there is crime out there, there are predators out there, but most people aren't predators and part of our human nature is an ability to distinguish predatory behavior from non predatory behavior and we need to use this ability.

 

On a further note, I would like to bring up a great advance in technology brought to us by DARPA and announced last week. It involves what we think we see and what our brains really see. They have discovered that our brains see more than we think. In specific, they knew that soldiers watching for enemy approaching missed a lot of them. They supposedly didn't see them and it was right, their conscience brain did not see them. However by attaching a helmet that monitors brain visual signals of the soldier, the rate of missing enemy dropped to almost zero and without lots of false positives.

 

This is exactly the sort of thing that Protecting the Gift encourages us to do. NO, not attach brain monitoring helmets but do become more cognizant of your body's responses and take heed from them. The article about the new helmets was focusing on technology however, I would be interested to know if even without the helmet on, were there any changes in behavior or any bodily responses when those supposed unsighted enemy were on the scene. My theory is that there were but the soldiers had been drilled not to fire without confirmation and that would override any concern they had.

 

The book encourage parents to be in 24/7 "cop-mode." To be constantly suspicious of everything and everyone.

 

Now there are time when we certainly need to be alert to danger. Anyone with half an instinct for self-preservation and an common sense understands this.

 

But such moments are hopefully rare (unless one lives in a war zone). Otherwise it is psychology harmful to remain in an ongoing state of hyper-vilagence, as if you are a hired security force or bodyguard—which is the business Gavin De Bercker is involved in. It is simply not a way to live and enjoy a psychologically healthy life.

 

What happened to common sense?

Bill

[dangermom]

Totally disagree with Bill about Protecting the Gift. There is nothing in that book that should make you paranoid. It is all about honing your natural instincts to protect yourself and your loved ones. Basically, getting more attuned to your body's natural danger indicators that are subconcsiounce and can be used to protect you. Too many people are hesitant to offend. It wasn't a book saying all men are evil or think everyone is a boogeyman. It was saying there is crime out there, there are predators out there, but most people aren't predators and part of our human nature is an ability to distinguish predatory behavior from non predatory behavior and we need to use this ability.

 

 

I'd agree. The purpose of Gift of Fear and co. is to get rid of paranoia and fear, relax, and realize that you are already equipped to know when something is wrong. It's possible, though, that Bill does not realize how much fear women routinely feel, and think that they have to feel in order to stay safe. Lots of people are already in "24/7 cop mode" and De Becker shows that's unnecessary and counterproductive.

Edited September 24, 2012 by dangermom

[Spy Car]

I'd agree. The function of Gift of Fear and co. is to get rid of paranoia and fear, relax, and realize that you are already equipped to know when something is wrong. It's possible, though, that Bill does not realize how much fear women routinely feel, and think that they have to feel in order to stay safe.

 

You really think "The Gift of Fear" and "Protecting the Gift" are books about learning how to relax? :lol:

 

Bill

[dangermom]

You really think "The Gift of Fear" and "Protecting the Gift" are books about learning how to relax? :lol:

 

Bill

 

I've read it 3 or 4 times. That's the message I took from it every time. If you can trust that, when you do feel fear, it is probably for a good reason that should be acted upon, then you don't have to go around worrying all the time.

[Spy Car]

I've read it 3 or 4 times. That's the message I took from it every time. If you can trust that, when you do feel fear, it is probably for a good reason that should be acted upon, then you don't have to go around worrying all the time.

 

And someone needs to read a book to understand this?

 

Is it not the most basic part of the human condition that when we sense fear we become alert? Who needs to enrich a guy like Gavin "This Book Could Save Your Life" De Becker when this knowledge is in our natures?

 

Bill

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The book encourage parents to be in 24/7 "cop-mode." To be constantly suspicious of everything and everyone.

 

Now there are time when we certainly need to be alert to danger. Anyone with half an instinct for self-preservation and an common sense understands this.

 

But such moments are hopefully rare (unless one lives in a war zone). Otherwise it is psychology harmful to remain in an ongoing state of hyper-vilagence, as if you are a hired security force or bodyguard—which is the business Gavin De Bercker is involved in. It is simply not a way to live and enjoy a psychologically healthy life.

 

What happened to common sense?

Bill

 

:confused: You are the one person I have ever heard say this, and pretty much everyone I know has read this book. Everyone I know who has read it says exactly the opposite of what you say here--that the book discourages 24/7 cop mode, that it's fine to talk to strangers if your inner alarm bells aren't going off, that kids need freedom, that we should NOT be paranoid of everyone and every interaction, that what people fear WRT to sexual abuse is NOT what the statistics bear out. Have you actually read the book? Because all the arguments you're making seem to be exactly what every person I know who HAS read the book takes away from it.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Is it not the most basic part of the human condition that when we sense fear we become alert?

 

Yes, it is, and it has been subverted, especially for women and children, by the overarching societal emphasis on politeness and courtesy. It's why women keep talking to men even when they get a weird vibe from them. It's why kids do what the pedophiles who want to hurt them tell them to do during the grooming process. It's why adults who hear the signals abused children are sending out ignore them. And it's why parents force children to give physical affection when children do not want to. Because it would impolite to do otherwise.

 

Oh, and you still haven't mentioned your qualifications for the strong position you're advocating :bigear:

[Guest submarines]

I'd agree. The purpose of Gift of Fear and co. is to get rid of paranoia and fear, relax, and realize that you are already equipped to know when something is wrong. It's possible, though, that Bill does not realize how much fear women routinely feel, and think that they have to feel in order to stay safe. Lots of people are already in "24/7 cop mode" and De Becker shows that's unnecessary and counterproductive.

 

:iagree:

 

I wonder whether men and women see this book differently because for women to listen to their gut feeling is more natural (And doesn't mean to be in the alert mode for 24/7) than for men.

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

I wonder whether men and women see this book differently because for women to listen to their gut feeling is more natural (And doesn't mean to be in the alert mode for 24/7) than for men.

 

No.

 

Bill

[Cindy in the NH Woods]

I'd agree. The purpose of Gift of Fear and co. is to get rid of paranoia and fear, relax, and realize that you are already equipped to know when something is wrong. It's possible, though, that Bill does not realize how much fear women routinely feel, and think that they have to feel in order to stay safe. Lots of people are already in "24/7 cop mode" and De Becker shows that's unnecessary and counterproductive.

 

Regarding the bold text.... how sadly true! Literally the first time our fourteen year old dd walked on her own near our home, with our German shepherd dog, a middle aged man in a car stopped her to "ask directions" to the town store just up the road. (We routinely do the buddy system to walk in our area, as it is very rural. I don't have a problem with the kids walking alone in town.) Big deal for a grown man to approach a young girl alone in a more secluded area? In my book, yeah it is. When my dh and I were first married, a similar thing happened to me as well; a man pulling up and mumbling quietly so I would approach his car. And no, I really am not paranoid. I have worked in inner city projects and been in urban environments. For reasons of privacy, I won't elaborate, but the worst of predators may be closer (and "nicer") than one thinks. That sick feeling in the pit of the gut, the one that is so easy to justify or ignore, is a potent tool. I found the saddest part of the article cited was that essentially no one was hearing those kids' subtle cries for help. While we truly value kindness and love, our kids know that they do not have to worry about being polite toward people who make them feel very uncomfortable whether it is because that person is very "affectionate/touchy" or is frequently trying to spend time with them alone. :tongue_smilie:

Edited September 24, 2012 by Cindy in the NH Woods

[Guest submarines]

No.

 

Bill

 

:lol:

 

Done your research, have results ready, don't you?

[Spy Car]

Yes, it is, and it has been subverted, especially for women and children, by the overarching societal emphasis on politeness and courtesy. It's why women keep talking to men even when they get a weird vibe from them. It's why kids do what the pedophiles who want to hurt them tell them to do during the grooming process. It's why adults who hear the signals abused children are sending out ignore them. And it's why parents force children to give physical affection when children do not want to. Because it would impolite to do otherwise.

 

Oh, and you still haven't mentioned your qualifications for the strong position you're advocating :bigear:

 

That is why it is important to raise children in an environment where they can distinguish normal and healthy human affection and weirdness. If inter-family relations are weird—like not having affection between children and grandparents—what hope is there of developing that inner-intelligence?

 

It is nothing more than common sense to not be oblivious to danger, and to not be oblivious to warning signs in children's behavior.

 

Bill

[Carol in Cal.]

The book encourage parents to be in 24/7 "cop-mode." To be constantly suspicious of everything and everyone.

 

Now there are time when we certainly need to be alert to danger. Anyone with half an instinct for self-preservation and an common sense understands this.

 

But such moments are hopefully rare (unless one lives in a war zone). Otherwise it is psychology harmful to remain in an ongoing state of hyper-vilagence, as if you are a hired security force or bodyguard—which is the business Gavin De Bercker is involved in. It is simply not a way to live and enjoy a psychologically healthy life.

 

What happened to common sense?

Bill

 

Dude. You are male. You have no idea, no idea whatsoever, what kind of vigilance is required of females in our society. None. And I agree with you that it is unhealthy. Unfortunately, it is also necessary. You have a daughter. Figure this out. It's part of your responsibility as a parent.

 

To clarify about the book--it does not teach being hyperaware or paranoid. Rather, it is relaxing in that it teaches you to believe your instincts when they are warning you. There is a tremendous amount of angst that floats around in deciding whether or not to believe that you might be threatened, and in deciding whether to openly take some action regarding this. It is actually calming to hear that you should go ahead, take this stuff seriously, and believe your instincts. I am glad that this empowering book exists to assist in that transformation. Too many women have allowed embarrassment or not wanting to hurt someone's feelings to prevent them from taking simple steps to protect themselves, sometimes with tragic results. Enough already.

[Impish]

That is why it is important to raise children in an environment where they can distinguish normal and healthy human affection and weirdness. If inter-family relations are weird—like not having affection between children and grandparents—what hope is there of developing that inner-intelligence?

 

It is nothing more than common sense to not be oblivious to danger, and to not be oblivious to warning signs in children's behavior.

 

Bill

Weird is demanding affection from a reluctant individual, teaching children that they do not have the right to say no, regardless of who it is that wants to have physical contact w/them.

 

By the time you're aware of warning signs in a child's behaviour, damage has occurred. Bit late, imo.

 

Teaching children that they have the right to say no, that nobody has the right to demand physical contact w/them when they do not wish it is empowering a child to realize there are boundaries to be respected, that they don't have to be 'good' or 'compliant' w/every/any adult that demands it.

[Soror]

I'm with Bill here. I see a lot of paranoia and fear and I don't think that serves any child well. I'm a women and I don't feel fear all the time. I thought the article was fine but I can see conclusions being drawn that don't seem to correlate with the article. I've seen the extreme fear of men play out as well and it was harmful for the whole family.

[Spy Car]

Dude. You are male. You have no idea, no idea whatsoever, what kind of vigilance is required of females in our society. None. And I agree with you that it is unhealthy. Unfortunately, it is also necessary. You have a daughter. Figure this out. It's part of your responsibility as a parent.

 

This is an awfully presumptuous contention.

 

To clarify about the book--it does not teach being hyperaware or paranoid. Rather, it is relaxing in that it teaches you to believe your instincts when they are warning you. There is a tremendous amount of angst that floats around in deciding whether or not to believe that you might be threatened, and in deciding whether to openly take some action regarding this. It is actually calming to hear that you should go ahead, take this stuff seriously, and believe your instincts. I am glad that this empowering book exists to assist in that transformation. Too many women have allowed embarrassment or not wanting to hurt someone's feelings to prevent them from taking simple steps to protect themselves, sometimes with tragic results. Enough already.

 

Who is against people—males or females—relying on their own instincts? Human evolution has gifted us as a species with very highly-tuned instincts for danger. It is wise to tap into those instincts. But we need a book to tell us that?

 

What children need is a sound understanding of the difference between normal human affection and weirdness. Fail to teach that and you get tragic results.

 

Bill

[Guest submarines]

This is an awfully presumptuous contention.

 

 

 

Who is against people—males or females—relying on their own instincts? Human evolution has gifted us as a species with very highly-tuned instincts for danger. It is wise to tap into those instincts. But we need a book to tell us that?

 

What children need is a sound understanding of the difference between normal human affection and weirdness. Fail to teach that and you get tragic results.

 

Bill

 

Agree with the above. However forcing an unwilling child to "hug your grandma" is nothing but weirdness and doesn't even come close to "normal affection." But I guess here we have to agree to disagree. :tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

I'm with Bill here. I see a lot of paranoia and fear and I don't think that serves any child well. I'm a women and I don't feel fear all the time. I thought the article was fine but I can see conclusions being drawn that don't seem to correlate with the article. I've seen the extreme fear of men play out as well and it was harmful for the whole family.

 

I agree with you about paranoia, but I'm betting you do have fear all the time and don't even recognize it.

 

Women are nervous about walking home ir to their car alone at night in a way that men simply are not.

 

Women get nervous about unlocked doors or open windows at night for reasons men do not.

 

Women worry about their daughters dating for reason they don't about their sons.

 

We hold our keys on those walks to the car differently than men do. (heck they might not even hold their keys ready!)

 

These things are such a part of being a woman that most women don't even think about it until those moments when they feel uncomfortable bc they find themselves feeling unprotected. We all do it. And we all raise our daughters to do it to.

 

Of course that's not to say men and boys don't worry about assault or whatever, but most men don't go for a walk and get nervous when they realize it's getting dark and no others are out walking with them. And if they do, it's usually worry about being mugged, not raped and left for dead.

 

Yet most women would not say they live in fear. And they don't bc these things are just viewed as normal life for women.

[Cindy in the NH Woods]

 

What children need is a sound understanding of the difference between normal human affection and weirdness. Fail to teach that and you get tragic results.

 

Bill

 

Sadly, this is not always cut and dried. Especially when the person initiating the weirdness is the very person who is supposed to love and protect you the most. Like coach. Or even worse, like Daddy.

[Soror]

I agree with you about paranoia, but I'm betting you do have fear all the time and don't even recognize it.

 

Women are nervous about walking home ir to their car alone at night in a way that men simply are not.

 

Women get nervous about unlocked doors or open windows at night for reasons men do not.

 

Women worry about their daughters dating for reason they don't about their sons.

 

We hold our keys on those walks to the car differently than men do. (heck they might not even hold their keys ready!)

 

These things are such a part of being a woman that most women don't even think about it until those moments when they feel uncomfortable bc they find themselves feeling unprotected. We all do it. And we all raise our daughters to do it to.

 

Of course that's not to say men and boys don't worry about assault or whatever, but most men don't go for a walk and get nervous when they realize it's getting dark and no others are out walking with them. And if they do, it's usually worry about being mugged, not raped and left for dead.

 

Yet most women would not say they live in fear. And they don't bc these things are just viewed as normal life for women.

I live rurally most of the things you speak about are not things that would cross my mind to worry about.

 

Both dh and I worry about dd dating and from talks to him we both worry about it for the same reason.

 

Not that I don't have any worry mind you but not about those things. Either they are not things that generally occur, or it isn't something I worry about.

[Soror]

Sadly, this is not always cut and dried. Especially when the person initiating the weirdness is the very person who is supposed to love and protect you the most. Like coach. Or even worse, like Daddy.

 

Or mommy.

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

 

Can we encourage one-on-one interactions between kids and adults? I don't think we can. Can we encourage kids to interact with a variety of adults in group situations where there are at least two adults present? I think so. But, I know it's hard.

 

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?

 

I agree.

 

This is an awfully presumptuous contention.

 

To say, you don't know what it's like to be female? I don't think it is. Why don't you start a poll and ask how many women have had at least once encounter where they truly felt endangered by a man. I bet it would be close 100 percent.

 

What children need is a sound understanding of the difference between normal human affection and weirdness. Fail to teach that and you get tragic results.

 

You really have no idea how fine those lines can be. I have friends who say they "lost their virginity" to grown men at age 12 or 13. Even *they* don't always look at those situations as abusive. Somewhere along the line they were tripped up on what a normal boundary looks like. Teaching kids to trust their feelings is one step toward helping them establish boundaries for themselves.

[I.Dup.]

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.

 

:iagree: except I haven't read PTG. I'm already paranoid enough as it is, and do believe reading an explicit book would push me over the edge. It was hard to even finish the article. I do think the subset of our culture that is already "protected" if you will tends to go overboard on this, whereas the real at-risk kids will continue to be at risk.

[Soror]

I do think the subset of our culture that is already "protected" if you will tends to go overboard on this, whereas the real at-risk kids will continue to be at risk.

:iagree:

 

I think most moms here likely are already vigilant and unfortunately this info is usually targeted at them, which those who really need the info don't get it.

[FaithManor]

Weird is demanding affection from a reluctant individual, teaching children that they do not have the right to say no, regardless of who it is that wants to have physical contact w/them.

 

By the time you're aware of warning signs in a child's behaviour, damage has occurred. Bit late, imo.

 

Teaching children that they have the right to say no, that nobody has the right to demand physical contact w/them when they do not wish it is empowering a child to realize there are boundaries to be respected, that they don't have to be 'good' or 'compliant' w/every/any adult that demands it.

 

 

Absolutely right! Once warning signals in a child's behavior occur, it is a sign that the inappropriate physical contact has already happened. Damage control is the best one can do at that point.

 

Respecting adults does not have to take the form of physical affection. It shouldn't. Clearly, if a child is uncomfortable FORCING it even when you the parent think it is appropriate, teaches your child to "push past" their inner instincts. If the grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. are decent people, they'll back off until the child is comfortable and by backing off and letting the relationship develop naturally, the child will feel like those people can be trusted without violating his or her inner instinct to wait and see. We have friends whose son has issues being hugged and cuddled. He doesn't trust people easily. One set of grandparents - truly decent, loving people - absolutely FORCED themselves on that little boy through his toddler, pre-school years and berated the parents because their son didn't want to hug them. The net result, he does not trust those grandparents and won't spend time with them willingly.

 

In contrast, the other grandparents respected the child, spent time with him in a non-threatening way, spoke respectfully to him, even said in his presence "He should never be forced to hug or kiss someone he doesn't feel ready to approach yet," and instituted the handshake system of greeting him. They always reminded him that they loved him. Guess what, this kid is 10 and LOVES to be with that set of grandparents, LOVES to hug them, will sit on his grandpa's lap, spends the night at their house, works in the barn with grandpa, etc. all because they had the COMMON SENSE to recognize that forcing physical affection on a child that isn't ready to trust is damaging and they didn't ASSUME the worst about their grandson because he wasn't ready for that cuddling. They have an awesome relationship with him. The other grandparents, nada and they are still stupid enough to try to force themselves on this child. He'll never trust them because they've never accepted him.

 

There are plenty of ways for children to show kindness without being forced into a physical situation that is uncomfortable for them. My children wrote notes, sent artwork, made special things, etc. for their grandparents.

 

I won't regale you with what nearly happened to me because my dad wouldn't listen to my instincts and kept trying to force me to spend time with and huge a family friend that creeped me out. But for the timely entrance of another family friend into the room at just the right moment, things would not.have.ended.well.

 

Oh, and I gave all of the right "warning signals" for several months. The good news is the nightmares went away after a couple of years. :tongue_smilie:

 

So much for my parents' common sense!

 

Faith

[Galatea]

This is an awfully presumptuous contention.

 

 

 

Who is against people—males or females—relying on their own instincts? Human evolution has gifted us as a species with very highly-tuned instincts for danger. It is wise to tap into those instincts. But we need a book to tell us that?

 

What children need is a sound understanding of the difference between normal human affection and weirdness. Fail to teach that and you get tragic results.

 

Bill

 

How do you teach "a sound understanding of the difference between normal human affection and weirdness" to a 3 year old? How do you do that while ensuring you're not actually teaching them the wrong lesson, that they must do what they're told, not listen to what they feel?

 

Did you read the original article? Do you understand what "grooming" is and why and how it is used by predators of children?

 

And you never did answer what you would do if the answer to "give grandma a hug" was visible reluctance or "no, I don't want to."

[FaithManor]

I live rurally most of the things you speak about are not things that would cross my mind to worry about.

 

Both dh and I worry about dd dating and from talks to him we both worry about it for the same reason.

 

Not that I don't have any worry mind you but not about those things. Either they are not things that generally occur, or it isn't something I worry about.

 

I live rurally too in a county with a very, very low crime rate and the reality is that women still do just as Martha mentioned. Seriously! I can't imagine NOT doing that. One of the teen girls in this neighborhood was violently minor and she was able to finish walking home. She'd been stranded coming home from a school dance by an overheating car engine...she was one mile from home in a town in which nothing ever happens in a county in which nothing ever happens. She was NOT prepped for self-defense, she didn't have a cell phone, and she had been conditioned to believe it is safe to be 16, female, and walking along the road after dark in this area.

 

Not thanks. I don't live in fear and paranoia. I do live with a healthy sense of not taking unnecessary risks, being alert, following my instincts, and being VERY careful. I refuse to make the life altering assumption that assault is something that only happens to women who live in the city.

 

Of course, I'm probably even more jaded by the fact that dd is a paramedic and some of the situations she has had to deal with, some of the patients she has had to treat....women, teen girls, little boys.....it's sickening and far more prevalent than most would like to admit.

 

Faith

[PeacefulChaos]

Hmm.... I kind of agree with Bill, but to each their own - whatever.

I do think it is awfully rude of the pp wh said he isn't aware of these things just because he is a male. Seriously? Sexist much?

 

What I'm wondering now is, if we don't encourage the kids to hug grandma when they leave her house, what about us? Because when I'm leaving you can be sure that I yell out, 'hey, kids, I'm leaving!' And they usually run to give me a hug. But if I were a leaving for an extended period of time, I would make sure to see each one and make sure to hug them before I left. Is that me forcing them? When they are standing next to me and I give them a hug when they didn't necessarily ask for one, would that equal bad parenting or inappropriate contact in your eyes?

I'm just wondering where the line is drawn here.

[Mrs Mungo]

I do think it is awfully rude of the pp wh said he isn't aware of these things just because he is a male. Seriously? Sexist much?

 

How is it sexist to state that men and women experience their own culture through different lenses? Nobody is suggesting an inherent inability to gain understanding.

[Galatea]

Hmm.... I kind of agree with Bill, but to each their own - whatever.

I do think it is awfully rude of the pp wh said he isn't aware of these things just because he is a male. Seriously? Sexist much?

 

What I'm wondering now is, if we don't encourage the kids to hug grandma when they leave her house, what about us? Because when I'm leaving you can be sure that I yell out, 'hey, kids, I'm leaving!' And they usually run to give me a hug. But if I were a leaving for an extended period of time, I would make sure to see each one and make sure to hug them before I left. Is that me forcing them? When they are standing next to me and I give them a hug when they didn't necessarily ask for one, would that equal bad parenting or inappropriate contact in your eyes?

I'm just wondering where the line is drawn here.

 

The line is drawn with visible reluctance or "I don't want to." If you showed visible reluctance or said "I don't want to" to another adult, would you expect them to abide by your wishes?

[PeacefulChaos]

How is it sexist to state that men and women experience their own culture through different lenses? Nobody is suggesting an inherent inability to gain understanding.

I read it to imply that a man isn't aware of these things - that he (general he, any man) doesn't have the radar, so to speak, that women have for predators and such.

What you say makes sense. If that is what that pp meant, I misunderstood.

The line is drawn with visible reluctance or "I don't want to." If you showed visible reluctance or said "I don't want to" to another adult, would you expect them to abide by your wishes?

 

I get that. And I don't know what it has to do with what I'm asking...

 

I'm asking, what about US. As the parents. Are we also not allowed to hug our children without express permission?

[I.Dup.]

I'm asking, what about US. As the parents. Are we also not allowed to hug our children without express permission?

 

I would assume that would be the natural flow of things if grandparents aren't allowed to hug the children, either.

[fairfarmhand]

I live rurally most of the things you speak about are not things that would cross my mind to worry about.

 

Both dh and I worry about dd dating and from talks to him we both worry about it for the same reason.

 

Not that I don't have any worry mind you but not about those things. Either they are not things that generally occur, or it isn't something I worry about.

I live very rurally and I do think about all of those things. In fact, I've been more weirded out on my deserted road than I ever have in town/

[TravelingChris]

I just realized that I was commenting on the book, The Gift of Fear. I have not read, Protecting the Gift, but THe GIft of Fear was certainly about how to go with your instincts and actually relax more of the time.

[Galatea]

I read it to imply that a man isn't aware of these things - that he (general he, any man) doesn't have the radar, so to speak, that women have for predators and such.

What you say makes sense. If that is what that pp meant, I misunderstood.

 

 

I get that. And I don't know what it has to do with what I'm asking...

 

I'm asking, what about US. As the parents. Are we also not allowed to hug our children without express permission?

 

If your child was showing visible reluctance to a hug or saying no to a hug from you, would you force one? If so, why? Do you think that your need for a hug is more important or takes priority over your child's need to be separate from you or to have their own feelings respected?

[Joanne]

I just realized that I was commenting on the book, The Gift of Fear. I have not read, Protecting the Gift, but THe GIft of Fear was certainly about how to go with your instincts and actually relax more of the time.

 

The same with PTG. PTG is *liberating*. It affirms the truth that predators give you information that says "predator". It explains *why* back in 1974, you felt weird about that guy at church who became friends with your family. It explains how culturalization puts you (and children) at risk. All kids are told "be polite", "be nice" and this ultimately serves to mute the danger/radar signals.

 

The "be nice" script is especially true for girls.

 

PTG give real info about real danger. It teaches you that you don't have to worry about your child being snatched from your front yard by a stranger, and how to distinguish if the soccer coach is a risk.

 

"It's all there, black and white...........Good day, Sir!". ;)

[Galatea]

I would assume that would be the natural flow of things if grandparents aren't allowed to hug the children, either.

 

There is a big, big difference between "grandparents aren't allowed to hug the children" and children shouldn't be FORCED to hug grandparents. We are talking about the latter, not the former.