Is our protection of children overzealous and actually harming them?

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
25,744
3,043
280
Earth
While I know the psychological and physical benefits of hugging and touching, the idea of hugging or touching a kid here has me imaging full-well how an onlooker would interpret it. "He's a pedophile." In our desire to protect children, we've eliminated all the beneficial human contact so important to childhood development. Studies back before animal rights really caught on showed what happens to infant primates deprived of physical contact from their nurturing mothers.

"Deprived of their mothers, Harry Harlow's monkeys were at times apathetic, at times hyperactive, and given to outbursts of violence. Raised in isolation, they were socially inept: they often held themselves and rocked like autistic children.

What Harlow could not know at the time of his dramatic experiments in the late 1950s and 1960s was that these behavioral disturbances were accompanied by brain damage. More recent studies suggest that during formative periods of brain growth, certain kinds of sensory deprivation -- such as lack of touching and rocking by the mother -- result in incomplete or damaged development of the neuronal systems that control affection (for instance, a loss of the nerve-cell branches called dendrites). Since the same systems influence brain centers associated with violence, in a mutually inhibiting mechanism, the deprived infant may have difficulty controlling violent impulses as an adult. "
Article: Alienation of Affection
"Alienation of Affection"

Are we making all 'good-touch' 'bad touch?' And in doing so, making normal human empathy diminish in ourselves, and putting kids into an even worse state? Can anyone imagine returning a child's hug in this day and age? One of the boys here a few years back was evidently a hugger-type and when he first hugged me I remember going rigid with stress. And thinking back to my own childhood, I was just like that hugging teachers all the time. Yet over the years, and since becomming an adult, I've stopped hugging. Even feels weird hugging my Mom. And yet I fully understand the benefits of it. Has society conditioned me, and the rest of us, not to hug children out of fear of being thought a pedophile?

Are the people reading this now assuming I must be a pedophile? Case in point. We've been so conditioned to protect children, that any interactions between adults and children is thought inappropriate or worse. Even writing of it triggers the over-protective conditioning.

National Hug Day Is Jan 21: Have You Felt The Benefits Of A Hug?

"Myriads of studies have shown that physical contact between humans — such as kissing, hugging, or simply touching — is essential for overall mental and emotional well-being. Hugging, in particular, can improve psychological development, boost your immune system, decrease levels of the stress hormone cortisol, and lower the risk of heart disease: all perfect reasons to take part in National Hug Day, which falls on January 21st."

The only solution I see then, is reconditioning ourselves. And that begins with education and making people aware of the problem. If people don't understand they've been conditioned to feel a certain way about a certain thing, they'll continue on oblivious to it or how damaging the conditioning is.
 
so your issue is what here....hugging? i hug....kids....yeppers.....funny i give them big unconditional hugs....pat their bottoms....give them belly bombs...etc and so forth....no one accuses me of being perv....now why do you think that is?

you dont force kids to hug...if a child goes rigid...let go....if the child does not want to hug...a child does not have to hug...
 
so your issue is what here....hugging? i hug....kids....yeppers.....funny i give them big unconditional hugs....pat their bottoms....give them belly bombs...etc and so forth....no one accuses me of being perv....now why do you think that is?

you dont force kids to hug...if a child goes rigid...let go....if the child does not want to hug...a child does not have to hug...

Are you male or female? Women are given a pass to hug non-relative kids, but not men. If a man does it he's thought a pervert. It's like my baking cookies for people, if I were a widowed gray-haired lady, no one'd think about it twice, but because I'm a middle-aged single man it's viewed suspiciously. That's the social conditioning.
 
I see some man that is a stranger to us hugging orr touching out children there is going to be a problem...that goes for some stranger woman also.
 
I see some man that is a stranger to us hugging orr touching out children there is going to be a problem...that goes for some stranger woman also.

Exactly. Any physical contact is viewed with suspicion. As it probably should be, erring on the side of caution like, but in doing it that way we're hurting kids even more depriving them of something beneficial. Worth asking how physical parents themselves are with their own kids if they have this sort of view.

The extreme consequence being how serial murderers rarely grew up with pets, thus missed out on the empathy-development that's so important. If you don't have a pet to hug and touch affectionately, don't hug and receive contact from parents, or anyone else, what's that doing to your development? Well, we know exactly what it does. So why would we continue doing it?
 
I see some man that is a stranger to us hugging orr touching out children there is going to be a problem...that goes for some stranger woman also.

Exactly. Any physical contact is viewed with suspicion. As it probably should be, erring on the side of caution like, but in doing it that way we're hurting kids even more depriving them of something beneficial. Worth asking how physical parents themselves are with their own kids if they have this sort of view.

The extreme consequence being how serial murderers rarely grew up with pets, thus missed out on the empathy-development that's so important. If you don't have a pet to hug and touch affectionately, don't hug and receive contact from parents, or anyone else, what's that doing to your development? Well, we know exactly what it does. So why would we continue doing it?

I don't think it's going to be depriving our kids of anything not letting strangers hug and touch them.
 
I see some man that is a stranger to us hugging orr touching out children there is going to be a problem...that goes for some stranger woman also.

Exactly. Any physical contact is viewed with suspicion. As it probably should be, erring on the side of caution like, but in doing it that way we're hurting kids even more depriving them of something beneficial. Worth asking how physical parents themselves are with their own kids if they have this sort of view.

The extreme consequence being how serial murderers rarely grew up with pets, thus missed out on the empathy-development that's so important. If you don't have a pet to hug and touch affectionately, don't hug and receive contact from parents, or anyone else, what's that doing to your development? Well, we know exactly what it does. So why would we continue doing it?

I don't think it's going to be depriving our kids of anything not letting strangers hug and touch them.


I don't believe strangers hug kids by and large. If they do, certainly that's cause for attention if not fullblown alarm.

Stranger danger was a myth. Stats bear out that the primary threat to children are parents and relatives, followed by family-aquaintances. Actual strangers only account for 3% of child-related homocides. Rest was either a parent, relative, or close-family friend.
 
I see some man that is a stranger to us hugging orr touching out children there is going to be a problem...that goes for some stranger woman also.

Exactly. Any physical contact is viewed with suspicion. As it probably should be, erring on the side of caution like, but in doing it that way we're hurting kids even more depriving them of something beneficial. Worth asking how physical parents themselves are with their own kids if they have this sort of view.

The extreme consequence being how serial murderers rarely grew up with pets, thus missed out on the empathy-development that's so important. If you don't have a pet to hug and touch affectionately, don't hug and receive contact from parents, or anyone else, what's that doing to your development? Well, we know exactly what it does. So why would we continue doing it?

I don't think it's going to be depriving our kids of anything not letting strangers hug and touch them.


I don't believe strangers hug kids by and large. If they do, certainly that's cause for attention if not fullblown alarm.

Stranger danger was a myth. Stats bear out that the primary threat to children are parents and relatives, followed by family-aquaintances. Actual strangers only account for 3% of child-related homocides. Rest was either a parent, relative, or close-family friend.

Stranger danger is no myth. All our children were taught it. Bottom line, if they are not your children keep your hands to yourself
 
Google stranger danger fact or fiction. It's fiction. And it's actually gotten kids killed by making them fearful of asking adults for help like uniformed police officers, firefighters, etc..

Was a thing just a year or two ago where some kid got lost and avoided numerous helpful adults because he or she was taught about stranger danger.

In full-disclosure, stranger danger and being raised by a cop family likely saved my life when the stereotypical van pulled up and asked me to get in to help look for a lost puppy. Not even joking.
 
Last edited:
Google stranger danger fact or fiction. It's fiction. And it's actually gotten kids killed by making them fearful of asking adults for help like uniformed police officers, firefighters, etc..

Oh good grief stop making shit up to bolster your position (which by the way reeks of creepiness)
 
Google stranger danger fact or fiction. It's fiction. And it's actually gotten kids killed by making them fearful of asking adults for help like uniformed police officers, firefighters, etc..

Oh good grief stop making shit up to bolster your position (which by the way reeks of creepiness)

Can google any federal law enforcement or child safety resource you like and confirm it. Why would anyone make something up online when google's less than a minute away?
 
you dont touch kids that you dont know.....damn....the kids i am hugging are normally kids i see a lot of.....simple as that...parents know me....kids know me....
 
I think that a lot of women shouldn't think so monstrously of men and infer they are pedos. It's a dsgusting allegation to make against someone.

lesbian pedophila s FAR more common than male pedophila. They just honestly think there is nothing wrong with it. It's becoming virtually impossible to finish a teaching degree if you don't turn lesbian. Where thefuck do you morons think this is going?
 
I think that a lot of women shouldn't think so monstrously of men and infer they are pedos. It's a dsgusting allegation to make against someone.

lesbian pedophila s FAR more common than male pedophila. They just honestly think there is nothing wrong with it. It's becoming virtually impossible to finish a teaching degree if you don't turn lesbian. Where thefuck do you morons think this is going?

Lesbian pedophilia is not more common than male. In terms of convictions think males account for like 95% of child sexual abusers.
 
you dont touch kids that you dont know.....damn....the kids i am hugging are normally kids i see a lot of.....simple as that...parents know me....kids know me....


Precisely.

Keeping Children Safe: Rhetoric and Reality

"The Myth of the Stranger

Research on the victim/offender relationship in child abduction/molestation cases is not new. Using a sample of 148 offenders who sexually assaulted youth and were sent for observation to a Massachusetts treatment facility, Groth and colleagues (1978) concluded that only 29 percent of the offenders studied were complete strangers to their child victims. In 71 percent of the cases, the offender and victim knew each other at least casually, and in 14 percent of the cases, the offender was a member of the child's immediate family."
 
"the psychological and physical benefits of hugging and touching, the idea of hugging or touching a kid here has me imaging full-well how an onlooker would interpret it. "He's a pedophile." In our desire to protect children, we've eliminated all the beneficial human contact so important to childhood development."



nope, it's just YOU and your creepiness...

grown men hug children appropriately and without incident all the time. now you know.
 
Sex Offender Management Myths and Facts

""Myths and Facts"
April 2014

Myth: Most sexual offenses are committed by strangers.
Fact: Most sexual offenses are committed by family members or acquaintances.

* According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 86 percent of all sexual assault cases reported to law enforcement were committed by someone known to the victim (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
* Approximately 47 percent are victimized by family or extended family (Briere J. and D.M. Eliot, 2003)
* The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 93 percent of victims under the age of 17, and 73 percent of victims age 18 and older, were assaulted by someone they knew. Where the victim was a child, 34 percent of offenders were family members and 59 percent were acquaintances (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).

> Strolling, "As of April 2014, about 2 percent (769) of the people required to register under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) were female (data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Sex Offender Registry)."

Myth: Adolescents do not commit sex offenses.
Fact: Adolescents represent a fair number of sex offenders.

"Nationally, 36 percent of sexual assault offenders against children were juveniles (Crimes Against Children Research Center, UNH, 2010)."
 
"the psychological and physical benefits of hugging and touching, the idea of hugging or touching a kid here has me imaging full-well how an onlooker would interpret it. "He's a pedophile." In our desire to protect children, we've eliminated all the beneficial human contact so important to childhood development."



nope, it's just YOU and your creepiness...

grown men hug children appropriately and without incident all the time. now you know.


We'd already established the thesis was true, but thanks for adding to it.
 
today your premise was supposed to be that protecting children is harmful to children.


since your creepiness here is well established, it's just another fail...
 

Forum List

Back
Top