When this article first surfaced, I saw so many like-minded people going on and on about how great the message was.  But, like you, I recoiled at the notion of comparing hugging Granny with rape.  How do we fall so far as a society?
I think you’re spot on in your assessment:  people who are ok with abortion try to staunch the wound it leaving in their soul with things like this.  Things that look like you’re caring for children, but when you look closer, there’s still blood seeping through the bandage.

“Certainly no parent would wish for their teenager or adult child to feel pressure to reciprocate unwanted sexual advances, yet many teach their children at a young age that it’s their job to use their bodies to make others happy,” [Lehr] said:”
**************************
And this is coming from the same culture that wants to hand out contraceptives in middle school to girls who are being sexually used,often by older males? And is against parental notification when those girls seek abortions?
From what I’ve observed, public schools, health clinics,Planned Parenthood, etc are selectively blind when it comes to what constitutes wanted/unwanted sexual advances.

I can’t really respond to this in any meaningful way.  My children are adopted and children of trauma. They are at-risk and I do allow them control of their bodies. I live in a world where children are not being raised in “normal” homes, maybe you live in a different world.  But I think it is important to give our children control over their own bodies in this important way.  Oh, and I am Catholic and opposed to abortion. I’m hoping there’s no blood seeping through the bandage!  But there is another world out there of children who have been used, abused and abandoned.

Simcha.  I love your blog, and I share it with friends and relatives.

The article with its title may be over the top, but I am okay with it if it brings more attention to asserting for kids the dignity of their personal space (their bodies) and their right to expect respect for it.  The kind of grooming that pedophiles work their victims over with would be cut off quickly by a child who knows clearly his or her freedom to be affectionate or not.  It ties in for me the issue of TSA invasive searches at the airport.  For our kids, we just give them the option of hugs or high-fives when relatives are leaving.

Forgive me, but I am struggling with your logic about two sides of the same coin.  What do I do with my passion in this area when the other side of my coin consists of equal passion for the dignity of all human life from conception to natural death?  It seems to me more like a progressive who supports abortion rights and is overly protective of their child’s bodily dignity is living an intolerable dichotomy of values.  My hopeful side wants to believe that there might be some opportunity for change in there somewhere.

Or maybe we just come from a culture that has seen a huge uptick in reported and public sexual abuse, and parents are understandably panicking about how to prevent it.

The thing about rape culture is that it does shoot forth its roots in tiny and often unmentionable ways. We probably shouldn’t freak out or write long self-congratulatory articles about it, but it’s no bad thing for parents to be thinking about how the way we behave day to day affects the way we behave worst-case scenario.

I’m torn, too.  I never make my kids hug someone, maybe because I hated that as a child.  It just felt so uncomfortable.  I’m still not a hugger.  But I don’t get all sanctimonious about it. I don’t think it leads to their being abused, for heaven’s sake.  And the child has to blow a kiss or shake hands instead, or whatever (even though that is HIS hand!). 

But, really, parents can take principles too far.  I have a friend who allows her children to tell Grandma she is fat, because it’s the TRUTH. She doesn’t want to teach them to LIE.  Maybe if we all just used a bit of common sense in parenting and dropped all the fancy-schmancy justifications, things would be simpler.

I wish there was a “like” button next to every comment so I could like yours, Kathleen! :)

I love this article, yet so many children from normal healthy families do end up being victims of sexual abuse and for whatever reason keep quiet about it.  The statistics are staggering.  So I really can’t fault parents hypervigilance over this issue.

I can’t fault parents for this either.  Small actions add up and small habits strengthen us for hard work, and the small message “you don’t have to kiss a grownup just because a grownup says you should” may resonate later.

I agree with every word you’ve written, now I can’t resist telling my hug story.  I believe there’s a line between fostering good self esteem and demanding our kids keep respectful of elders - I tend to err on the side of my children’s genuine self esteem.  And if I’m honest with myself, I think it’s because sexual abuse runs rampant among the women in my husband’s ultra polite family.  On my family’s (much ruder) side, there’s none that I know of.
.
What follows is a true real life example of my thinking in this area.  My cleaning lady sometimes brings a helper.  One particular helper was a grandma type who couldn’t stop asking my four year old for hugs.  He kept responding, “No thank you” and waving his hand.  She finally went up and hugged him.  So he did the only thing he could: he popped her one.  She immediately released him but was clearly shocked, “He hit me!” she exclaimed.  My little guy was very upset and came running over to me in tears, I picked him up, hugged him and said, “It’s ok buddy, you said, ‘No, thank you.’”  I could feel her looking at me with daggers in her eyes.  I knew she was thinking I was a bad mother.  But I don’t care - in my mind she had it coming.  When my kid says don’t touch him, don’t touch him.

I can see both sides over this particular issue, but I’m 100% with the general principle Simcha enunciates: that concerns over every jot and tittle of physical safety have risen in proportion to the lack of concern for moral safety.

I can see your point here and do believe people can act courageous and stand up for certain ideals in order to compensate for ignoring the elephant in the room…But, I think this is an important topic and there is a connection between forcing children outside their physical/emotional comfort zone and larger issues like sexual abuse and sexual activity at younger ages.  Obviously I have no data to back this up, just my own beliefs.  My mother was sexually abused by her grandfather that lived next door and when she told her parents, they did nothing (I’m not sure what she told them as she was young (seven) and there was never physical rape, nonetheless, she told them he was behaving in a way that was physically uncomfortable to her).  They continued to force visits with him and physical contact.  Both my husband and myself were raised in families that made us feel bad or withheld approval if our emotional/physical feelings were not inline with what they thought they should be.  For me this led to a very strong tendency to question EVERYTHING I felt/thought because it must be wrong (even amoral feelings) if it displeases someone else. I have had a very difficult time hearing and confidently believing that God’s will for my life is accurate and I really believe it was because I was constantly being told my feelings and thoughts were wrong.  My husbands family becomes severely offended and accuses my five year-old of being selfish and rude when she shakes her head when asked for a kiss, they try to tell her she shouldn’t feel that way. 

I say applaud the author for taking steps in the right direction, maybe she’s still blind to some very serious moral issues in the culture today, but I don’t feel that makes her less credible in speaking about this topic.  Maybe, in a way, she’s able to subconsciously make a connection between all of the experts telling us how we’re supposed feel:  “It’s not a baby” even though most post-abortive mothers will affirm that they denied a feeling it was something more; “Sex is nothing more than a biological function, you’re too uptight about it”, all the while having an underlying feeling while they’re reluctantly giving up their purity that it is indeed something more.

“When you stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. ” I can’t help often noticing the Idols parents today make of their “chosen children ” & thinking that they’re putting an insupportable burden on them by always claiming they can do no wrong. Maybe that’s one of those things you have to be a grandma to know

This raises some interesting thoughts for reflection. Whether or not Simcha has it “right” or is merely seeing one facet of the situation remains to be determined.
.
Eileen, I think your hug story is an important one. I remember reading an article not too long ago where a woman was lamenting how people seem to have lost their sense of boundaries with strangers. Now, I don’t agree with her final assessment (she was African American and saying people did it to her out of racism), but I think there is some truth to her statement. People say the most outrageous, impolite, excessively PERSONAL things to total strangers, and it never occurs to them that they are being rude—they have a right to free speech, don’t they?  The same thing with that gramdma-type lady; she had it in her head that she had some kind of “right” to hug your son, even though he clearly didn’t want to.
.
Now, I happen to be a physical-touch kind of person—I love hugs and reaching out with my hand to touch a shoulder—so I know that occasionally, I can get a little too close to other people for their comfort. But I do TRY to be sensitive, especially with children. In fact, I often approach new people as I would an unknown animal—very cautiously, “feeling out” the situation before acting in some way that could startle them and provoke an unfortunate response. Too many people don’t consider consequences to THEIR actions, and that’s when they get popped and yet it’s somehow the other person’s fault.

I see Simcha’s point about two sides to the same coin ... children today are very often seen as a commodity (as in “I’ll take two, one boy, one girl, spaced precisely three years apart when we’ve bought a house and have enough money saved and I’ll dress them in the cutest designer styles and they’ll play two sports and ...”).  They protect them then with the same weird fervency that they protect their property (even while saying “my child’s body doesn’t belong to me”).  They’re not growing them into adults, but trying to preserve them as the commodities that they do seem to believe they own (and acquired only when they decided they wanted them).  They’re not gifts from God, but acquisitions.

I agree with other commenters that there is something excellent about teaching children respect for *all* bodies, from unborn to adulthood, other *and* self.  Just this morning I had to give my 10yo a little talk about being too physically affectionate because some children just like you and don’t want to say, “that makes me uncomfortable.” It’s a normal problem.
.
I also understand what you are saying, about the guilt. I see it in hyper-consciousness of all kinds in parenting…together with this illusion of control, like if we just do *these* *certain* *things* then our kids will turn out ok.  I also see it in the liberal pet cause of Planned Parenthood.  “Donate to them and you have done all you need to do to eliminate poverty and exploitation of women!!!”

Oh, Donna, I didn’t see your comment before I sent mine. I think your point is right on.  Children as commodities: on some level, some parents are just trying to protect an investment they have made!

Good point about the helicopter parents overcompensating when they finally carry a “chosen” child to term.  I think another angle to look at this is the fact that generations used to have more of a continuum, meaning that since the beginning, as a mother was bearing her last children, her oldest children were beginning to bear their first.  You and I know what “huggers” children become when a new baby joins the family.  In the same way, it seems to me that women who have been brought up holding and loving babies would approach their first pregnancy with a more “maternal” disposition.  I think this is why it is so much rarer to hear of a mother with children already, aborting a child she became unexpectedly pregnant with.  There must be a lot of terror and suppressed grief for women who are stunned by how much they cherish their first child that they let live, and whom must know by extrapolation what they missed out on in by aborting the one(s) that came before.  How heartbreaking.

I see it with the hypermoralism over food, and with the melodrama over a certain kind of boringly clinical (if not exactly pleasant) diagnostic exam…
-
I dunno…I am struggling to see the connection and see the risk in a setting closely supervised by parents.  “If mommy and daddy aren’t there, you don’t have to” doesn’t seem like a difficult concept for anybody.  As an adult I often have to “make nice” with people I’d rather not, or at times when I’d rather not.  While it doesn’t usually involve touch, it does mean appreciating when you’re going to hurt someone who means you no harm for no particularly good reason.  Obviously it’s good for children to have boundaries, but they can also be fickle and temperamental, no?

I might need to add, I don’t see anything wrong with Eileen’s story.  There’s a difference between someone who actually *is* Grandma, and a stranger who acts like a grandma.

@enness: The problem is in most sexual abuse cases the perpetrator is not a stranger who acts like grandma, they are a family member or close friend of the family.

I see the general point about not making kids do what makes them feel uncomfortable, but like with most things, it goes too far.  In fact, I think Simcha has a good point that engaging the children in normal acts of affection shows the children what is healthy and acceptable.  Besides, how could a child not able to overcome natural repulsion over having to kiss Grandma on the cheek ever become a saint who can tend a dying person’s wounds?  Sometimes allowing the child to be “skeeved out” over doing a good deed that helps or comforts others can be meritorious.

Interesting analysis. A point that somewhat goes along with this: In the work of some spiritual writer (can’t remember) I read something like this: The more people base their decisions and opinions on sentiment rather than reason and revelation, the more they are capable of hideous brutalities, all the while believing they are good people. And the reason is that sentimentality has to do with one’s own pleasure, and one bases the idea of one’s goodness on how one feels, not the objective reality of what one is doing. Basically, it boils down to selfishness.

This is why people like the Nazis could on the one hand murder millions of innocent people and on the other hand, be conaisseurs of the arts and appreciate beautiful symphonies and love animals… They were the civilized ones, after all, right? And so we today think we are the enlightened era, meanwhile violently killing human beings in their mothers’ wombs and throwing them away like trash. But we’re all good people, right?

I do think that there might be a point about making someone show affection where they don’t want to, though…I don’t have a huge opinion on that. My point has to do with the insanity of being obsessed with children’s rights, while destroying their very right to life!!

Most child molestation occurs from family members or someone the child knows well, right? Common knowledge. In other words, by someone the child was probably taught to respect. Giving a child the message that they can choose whether or not to kiss granny, is not because granny may do something bad, but because it makes the child comfortable with making their own choice even with someone in authority.

I know we all like to think our extended family (and parishes) are creep-free, but the truth is it makes good sense to help our children practice turning down an unwanted kiss.

Well, due to my own childhood I felt it was important to allow my kids to set their own personal boundaries in regards to their body.  I’m trying to teach them not to ignore their own inner voice so to speak.  I never brought up the topic of abuse, I just told them if they didn’t want to hug someone they didn’t have to.  On that note, I also excused my daughter from sex ed class for the same reason.  She didn’t want to learn about sex in a group setting.  Again, I didn’t want to give her the message that she should ignore her own personal inner boundaries regarding sexuality.

In regards to the hyper protection over every little thing but not the big things I just don’t know why.  Maybe it’s because we’ve rejected the authority of God as a society.  Or maybe it’s because we feel the encroaching evil surrounding us like a dense fog.  Maybe we’re just trying to create our own little island of safety for our family.  Wrestle some sense of feeling in control.

@Michelle - I never forced my kids to kiss or hug Grandmom.  Grandmom has earned all her hugs and kisses - kissing Grandma’s not a skeevy act to my children.  I did, however, force my children to help care for their 98 year old great aunt, which involved plenty of skeevy things.  Kids learn to do good deeds that skeeve them by actually doing good deeds that skeeve them.  Kissing Grandmom is not an objectively good deed.  It might make Grandmom happy, but if grandma’s going to be genuinely upset over not gettting hugged, well, maybe grandma’s got some issues and the kid’s right to be skeeved.

@Eileen:  “Kids learn to do good deeds that skeeve them by actually doing good deeds that skeeve them.”  I have to politely disagree on that one.  I think kids learn to do good deeds that skeeve them out by watching mom and dad or other close role models do good deeds that seem skeevey.  Then one day they are bold enough to choose to do so out of love.  Likewise, if my children learn appropriate affection by seeing me hug Grandma in a loving way they may one day choose to hug Grandma even if she used to skeeve them out.  She has properly processed the feelings/emotions with guidance of the example of loved ones she trusts.

You reminded me of Walker Percy when you said, “It’s no coincidence that modern people are capable of both deep cruelty and overly fastidious care:  these are two sides of the same coin.”

Recently (this last month) in Australia we had a school principal that banned children from touching each other at all even their friends. If they were caught high fiving their friend three times they were expelled. They weren’t even allowed to put an arm round an upset friend. First no adults are allowed to touch the children now even other children can’t touch each other. Of course no contact sports were allowed in that school. This was all done in the name of safety even though most of the parents were horrified and upset at such a policy.  Children deprived of healthy physical touch will only craved touch and then they are much more vulnerable to the wrong kind.
A grandmother or close relative has a right to be greeted by a hug, kiss or handshake depending on the customs of their ethnic group. For myself I never remember being hugged as a child or youth by my parents or relatives except for my older sister who always gave us big hugs and kisses whenever we saw her. However I was expected to kiss on the cheek my mother and other female relatives in polite greeting and to shake hands with my dad and male relatives. Later as an adult I used to force hug my parents and brothers-and my mother used to complain if I or my younger brothers who followed my example hugged her saying we were putting her neck out or something as she felt embarrassed to be hugged. It took her many years to get used to it and to actually start initiating hugs to her younger grandchildren. Did I do the wrong thing to start hugging my parents whether they liked it or not? they grew to like it and to even be more publicly intimate with one another. I remember my sister being so shocked when she saw my mother and father walking arm in arm together in public in their later years. My mother told me she had never in her whole life ever been hugged by her mother or father eventhough she adored her parents and I never heard her ever say one bad thing about them.

Personally, I think the root cause of this sort of thing is the fact that our society is now (rightly) aware of the need to protect kids from predation, but it (wrongly) lacks the moral guidelines about sexuality that would truly protect kids.  In a society that thinks anything goes sexually between consenting adults, it’s very hard to come up with any rule to tell the kids besides “whatever makes you uncomfortable” is bad.

The trouble is, something abusive and sexual might sometimes not seem uncomfortable to a kid, and vice versa - what happens when little Johnny decides he finds having his diaper changed or his toenails cut “uncomfortable”?  Or when a clever predator teaches a preteen boy to enjoy what he’s doing?

I think my sister and her husband have a much better approach: they tell their kids nobody should touch their private parts because it’s wrong, because they’re sacred for marriage.  And above all, they’ve taught them that anybody who tells them to keep secrets from mom and dad are wrong and untrustworthy, and they should tell right away.

To me, hugging Grandma is in fact a proper and courteous thing for a grandchild to do and be expected to do, in a culture where that’s the normal way to express family affection. Just like in a hand-shaking culture, kids are expected to shake hands with people they meet out in public.  Being “uncomfortable” with doing so would be rude, in fact.

@Michelle - I must’ve misunderstood what you earlier posted.  I thought you were saying that kids need to be made to kiss grandma so they can learn to do good deeds that skeeve them.  I’ll agree with you that kids learn by watching their parents, but I also know that none of my teens would go anywhere near an old or homeless person if I didn’t force them.  The younger kids I can still persuade by example and guilt.  But the big kids?  Not so much.

@Brother Gilbert and ARM - I’ll agree there comes a time in a child’s life where handshakes can be strongly encouraged.  I still wouldn’t force my kids to fit in that way if they felt strongly about it.  I’d simply teach them to bow.    One of my kids came into our family with an extremely troubled past.  He’s slowly but surely healing and will now generally shake hands in church if a hand is extended to him.  I would guess that he’s already recovered enough to the point where he’ll one day be able to extend his hand first in introduction situations once he hits the age where that becomes appropriate. 
.
However, I would NEVER force that on him.  If he needed to bow because the touch was too painful to him, I would honor that.  And because I’m aware of the situation with him, I would honor and return a bow that was given to me without questioning it.  We all project our own experience on the world.  We need to be extra careful of judging others if our own experience does not involve abuse.

I had a great aunt who was often cross and smelled bad (nasty perfume, not body odor or anything like that).  Honestly, I don’t think my parents (or my cousins’ parents) were wrong to make us give her a kiss and a hug as a greeting.  She was family and that is how we showed respect in our family.  If she was singled out it would have been sad for her.  She was elderly and childless and I’m sure she enjoyed having us around, although she was not used to children. 

I suppose one could say if a child is reticent to hug/kiss ANYONE that forcing is not good, but singling out family members who would be left out for childish reasons doesn’t fly in my book.

It’s wonderful to see such beautiful commonsense answers to the question which is implicitly posed by the CNN author.  But I’m having a hard time reconciling these two extremes: real parents engaged constuctively with real family issues, and the plastic fantastic world of CNN.

Is it really possible that we’re talking from the same human species, or even inhabiting the same planet?  As I read more and more PC verbiage, I’m coming to the conclusion that most “progressive” human beings are very unhappy, very deranged creatures.  Certainly this article indicates a mother who is constrained in an iron-maiden like worldview.

I’m wondering why the fresh air of real life has not reached this person in her concrete canyon?  There really are so many beautiful things to celebrate!

One kid is a trophy child.  Two kids are Eden children.  Three or more kids is a society.  (Three or more kids forming their own society and thus learning how to live in society comes from Love and Responsibility—all other opinions are my own.)

BTW, just to clear things up, there is more than one Michelle posting in this thread.  I posted the comment about making kids kiss Grandma even if they might have to overcome a bit of natural repulsion to do so, on the theory that it could prepare them for overcoming natural repulsion at tending the wounds of the dying.  I haven’t commented in the thread since, up to this point.  IMHO, grandmothers do not need to “earn” their ration of kisses and hugs, and children do not “pay out” in kisses and hugs when Grandma allegedly does “earn” her peck on the cheek.  Rather, I think Grandma deserves a kiss or a hug on the basis that she is a beloved elder, and the child gives a kiss or a hug as a gift of love, even when the child doesn’t particularly “feel” like it.  The child must learn that some things we do because they are the right thing to do, whether or not we feel like it.  As another commenter pointed out, that can prepare them to kiss or hug Grandma when old age has hulled her out and she is far less physically appealing to hug or kiss than she was when the child was 3.  I agree with Simcha that it is possible to both teach children appropriate physical boundaries while also insisting that the child give ordinary tokens of affection to family members.

I have the opposite problem: if you sit down, my children will be in your lap. And we recently had to make the rule of ONLY kissing family, not friends or teachers or anyone else. I know this has to do with their ASD which programs in them a lack of normal, social boundaries. But I am struggling to teach them appropriate behaviors in the other extreme: Don’t hug your friend if they don’t want to, Don’t kiss your cousin if they say no, etc. At what age do you stop hugging teachers? Most people at our church know who my kids are and what their issues are so don’t mind when my son sits next to them and hugs them, but if we allow this behavior at church, can he understand not to do this at the grocery store or movie theatre?

This also means my children are prime targets for any predator, which is why I tend to be a hover-er type of parent; I wouldn’t expect to hear about inappropriate behavior on someone else’s part from my children. Lord, have mercy on us and protect my kids.

My children are rocks.  As in: “I have set up a rock in Zion to make men stumble,” and “if this rock falls upon you it will crush you.”  I assess the faith and love of a person by how they respond to my children.  Both of them are so unusually loving that they truly could be angels incarnate.  And as messengers from God, they cut between bone and marrow.  If I can’t send them to the mailbox because they might be interviewed by a CNN reporter, that is certainly a call to judgment.  I only hope that I, myself, will not be too harshly judged.

I have to admit that the idea that making kids do skeevy things that push the limits of their physical sense of self, in the belief that it will make them more open to the skeevy people they meet as adults, really pushes all my buttons. I am not a cuddly person, and the only people I want to kiss or hug are my husband and daughter. I STILL hate hugging Grandma.

But I’m also a nurse, so I LITERALLY care for the sick, comfort the dying (as best as I can of course) and wash the dead. I’m not a saint by any means (actually I’m pretty sure I’m a real piece of work), but I don’t think you need to be huggy to be a saint either.

My husband works in the mental health field as a program manager, but by an accident of fate (He has degrees in theology and counseling but is no longer a protestant pastor, as we became Catholic a few years ago, yay.).  When I read this to him this morning, he began snorting as the mental health clinician was quoted.  “Say no more,” he said, “We all know where this is going.”  As a general rule, in his world, all they know of children and families and ethics comes from textbooks or other clinicians.  They have no idea about real life. His advice is that if a mental health clinician says something, it’s probably trendy, politcally correct babble, and one would probably receive better counsel from that old couple in church (about kissing granny, or anything).  But they are court-mandated reporters and must be tread carefully around. 

So a little bit of a rabbit trail, but his snorting and sarcasm was a charming way to begin my day!  His, too, as he drove off to a day filled with that foolishness. 

Carry on, Simcha!

Simcha, as a parent, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I hope you do not mind, but I piggy-backed off your article to try and dig deeper into the issue:

http://catholicshockers.blogspot.com/2012/07/cruel-tenderness.html

I do not make my kids show physical affection to anyone and no one outside the immediate family is allowed to have show physical affection to my kids unless they want it.  We are a very affectionate family but my kids (boys) do not feel comfortable with physical displays of affection with other people, whether that is grandma or a friend.  It is their choice and I make sure everyone respects that. I also do not like physical contact outside my immediate family so please don’t come up to me and give me a hug or hold my hand at mass during the Our Father.  A handshake is different because is doesn’t seem touchy-feely—it’s more of a polite salute than an expression of intimacy.

I agree that secular parents tend to be more overprotective but I think the reasons for it are they have fewer kids (one or two) and so they have the time to overfocus. Also, if there is no heaven and this life is all there is, they want to make sure they live it as long as they can.

This is what I wanted to say in my first comment, but didn’t get around to saying:  I think the CNN article was a way to give parents an excuse to X-out the children’s grandparents and make the grandparents feel like predators.—whether that was the author’s intent or not.

Posted by RichardC on Thursday, Jul 19, 2012 12:46 PM (EST):”...  Three or more kids is a society.  (Three or more kids forming their own society and thus learning how to live in society comes from Love and Responsibility—all other opinions are my own.)”
**********************
Sorry, but “the Lord of the Flies” came to mind when you mentioned three or more kids forming their own society.
:)
I know that’s NOT what you meant.

I believe I am getting what the author wants to discuss. It might be the same feeling I have with the German judge who recently ruled against circumcision of Jewish and Muslim boys as being ‘a mutilation’. And that in a society that has no moral objections against abortion.
but I am puzzled with the ‘hugging thing’. Isn’t that the result of a mindset that has disconnected a ‘love act’ from its origin and end? If a hug is the expression of a REAL mutual bond (I mean an affection that is founded on a true commitment), how can it be inappropriate or unwanted?
I’ve got the idea that this is what is missing in so many families, and that compensation is sought where available, causing all these problematic situations. Am I right or wrong?

The devil truly is in the ‘details’. You see, when cultures get so wrapped up in the weeds, so intrinsically bogged down and embedded in the minutiae of every little stupid, a**inine detail so far beyond common sense, the devil throws a friggin’ parade! It’s exactly what he wants——monkey brain for everyone; which of course takes us away from our Heavenly Father.

Simcha, you obviously learned this: “What you do is you tell your kids, “Look, unless I say it’s okay, like at the doctor’s office, nobody is supposed to touch you under your clothes, and nobody is supposed to get near the parts of your bodies that are covered by underwear.  And if somebody does something that makes you feel creepy, you tell Mom or Dad right away.”  And then you give them lots and lots of examples of normal affectionate behavior, so they can tell the difference between things you go along with, and things you fight.”

...from parents and grand-parents whose intent it was to provide to their daughter a life-lesson that could be EASILY understood and passed on when she (you) had little ones of your own. It wasn’t loaded down and bloated under reams of supposed child behavior research psychology and cultural sensitivity garbage. It was simple, direct, to-the-point and LASTING——Amen!

And thank you for it, because although I have no children of my own, if and when my nieces/nephews ask, this is my go to lesson. God bless you, and NEVER STOP WRITING——you’re a national treasure!

Simcha, I agree with your overall point, but I’m with the original columnist (as reported here) on not forcing kids into PDA.  Partly because my personal experience is that long-engrained, compulsive people-pleasing really does open up girls to sexual predators—if you can’t say No in the little things, it’s a lot harder to say No in the big things.

And my other reason is that the only people I’ve ever known to insist on receiving physical affection from others were obnoxious, clueless, oppressive jerks. So yeah, I just don’t know any people would both a) insist my child hug or kiss them, and who b) don’t make my skin crawl.  Sheesh.

Jen <—uses NFP, actively pro-life, makes children buckle and wear bike helmets, but looks the other way when Dad lets them climb way too high on those tall rocks over there.

It’s astounding how basic manners don’t seem to play a role here. It’s rude to force people to hug or kiss others. It’s rude to demand hugs and kisses. It’s rude to make physical demands in what should be a social setting. If your child is showing signs of anxiety around certain people, including relatives it to be observed and picked apart very, very carefully, because there are bad guys out there. It’s another thing, though, to allow a child to be rude and refuse an alternative (“Oh, it looks like little Suzy is shy today…maybe we can just shake hands instead”-I’ve used that one a lot). My four year old is a huggy person with me and with her daddy and one or two of her friends, but not many others. She knows who she can trust because she’s never been allowed to be around anyone who sent my little red flag up, relative or otherwise. But, that being said, she is required to know how to shake hands, say how do you do or it’s nice to meet you, and has also learned that no one ever touches under clothes or in areas generally covered by bathing suits (unless mommy or daddy is there and it’s for a doctor or hygiene. I think that, as in so many things with parenting, balance and observation are the keys. We’ve tried to teach her how to appropriately and kindly speak to homeless people or mentally ill people and to begin to recognize signs of danger. Keeping an eye open and making sure you enforce polite behavior both from children and from those you meet are skills every parent needs to have under their belts. If I had the above mentioned cleaning lady requesting hugs from my obviously unenthused child and my child hadn’t popped her one, I would tell the cleaning lady as nicely as possible that the behavior was inappropriate. Rudeness is ultimately a lack of charity and chronic rude behavior, especially physically rude behavior, can be an indicator of something being very off.

Whoa!!  Just read the original CNN piece.  The author is turning giving hugs and kisses into a big freaking hairy federal case.    Among my children are a child from a abusive background with attachment issues as well as a (healthily attached) bio child who punched a huggy cleaning lady - So obviously, I err on the side of empowering kids, but that lady is not giving her daughter a healthy perspective about hugging.
.
To prepare her daughter for Grandma’s visit, the author says something to the effect of “I want you to hug Grandma but I understand if you don’t want to.”  Wha??  Who talks like that to a 4 year old?  And if it’s really up to her daughter to choose, why is the mother telling the kid her preference?  If there was some reason to focus on hugging with that particular child, I missed it in the article.  But the whole focus strikes me as really messed up.

Simcha, I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one.  We can infer anything we want about about the author’s unknown stance on abortion, but she’s talking about sexual abuse, and I think the conversation should stay there.  Most abuse is committed by family members, and there’s really no way to tell if your loved ones are capable of such crimes - predators are often very good at concealing their evil and seeming like good, normal people.  We all think that we’ll pick up on their creepy vibes, but in reality people you love and trust can abuse your kid for years, and the child can be trapped in this weird bubble of silence.  Breaking that bubble before it forms, making it possible for the child to understand what is happening and tell you - that’s probably the only way an abuser will ever be caught.

The author is doing the exact opposite of treating her child like an expensive consumer item.  She treating her child like a human person with human dignity and free will.

Is there a “direct, possibly inevitable line between “Please give Grammy a kiss, because it makes her happy” and “Please put out for the entire varsity football team, because it makes you valuable as a person.”“?  Direct, no.  But sexually abused children often do grow up to be promiscuous teenagers and adults.

It’s a pleasure to read this much good sense from every single one of the commenters.  Good sharing, different perspectives, gentle and well-measured divergences of opinion, over-all respect amongst all y’all (plural) and a listening spirit.

Not even one troll, snarkaholic or combox creep.

Simcha, you must attract the good ‘uns.

I agree with you. To me, asking a child to give Granny a kiss or hug is part of teaching them about kindness. And it’s helping them to make emotional connections with their family. Really, hugging a creepy relative does not lead to that relative, or anyone, sexually abusing the child. That is caused by secrecy, lack of trust, fear, threats. It seems to me that if we allow our children’s natural squeamishness about hugging and kissing go so far as to divide them from other people in their family - to disconnect them from healthy love, and allow them to think that Granny is “icky” or untrustworthy, then that child will have fewer people she feels safe to seek help from when a *truly* icky person approaches them.

ARM’s first paragraph made me go, “Bazinga!”  S/he is right on about this society feeling hypervigilance is necessary because of its overall lack of sexual morality.

Really good conversations going on here…
One point I liked was that anna lisa brought up about the continuum I think so many of us had growing up Catholic.  Even if we didn’t come from big families ourselves, we knew plenty, and there were always babies around.  I was amazed a few years ago when my secretary became pregnant with a “chosen child” and became completely obsessed with her pregnancy and later her child (she quit working after her maternity leave was up).  I think this hyper focus came from her NOT having that kind of upbringing where, yes, babies are a miracle and each one is special, but no, yours is not the only one in the world.

@Cathy: “she quit working after her maternity leave was up”...Are you saying that your secretary was overly obsessed with her child because she quit her job to stay home with him?  Maybe I misunderstand your point…

This is an timely essay for me because I had to have a discussion with my young teenage daughter about not being afraid to say “no” if something goes against her conscious and what we’ve forbidden even if it means her best friend may become angry. By nature she is a pleaser and non-confrontational. That’s just the way she is. It is going to take more moral effort for her to set her boundaries and live by them than it will for my pugnacious choleric son who loves a good fight.

My reserved children have no problems hugging their maternal grandparents whom they know well and have developed a strong relationship with under our guidance. They would be more reticent if my husband’s parents showed up and asked for affection since they do not know them very well and rarely see them since they live half way across the country. What’s wrong with the natural consequences? Close, healthy relationships = signs of that relationship (i.e. physical affection). Distant or non-close relationships = formal or civil signs of that relationship (i.e. handshake or pleasant greeting). A hug or kiss is a sign of genuine (hopefully) love for a person. Whoever you are not close to can get a handshake, a smile, a bow, a curtsy, whatever. Our society has just gotten way too touchy-feely, huggy-kissy and lost all sense of respect and boundaries.

Interesting, Simcha. I can see your point but I also agree with a certain part of the CNN article - I’ve seen horrific consequences from families where children were taught (through actions) that their natural boundaries were inappropriate. And I *do* think that allowing a child not to hug/kiss someone - ESPECIALLY a relative as unfortunately that’s where most sexual abuse comes from - can send an important message, that it’s ok to say no to an adult over something that bothers you.

But I also think that our society has taken away the right to say “no” effectively from anyone who is considered “old enough” for sexual activity. A girl who doesn’t want to have sex is considered “unhealthy” and is mocked and set up with guys. The guys consider it their “right” to have sex with whatever woman they please, because we’ve all been taught that sex is a good to be pursued whenever and wherever possible.

And I think that *that* is the dichotomy. Children are told they have the right to say no to kissing creepy Uncle Bob, but thirteen-year-old girls are shoved into a sex ed class and subsequently sexually tormented by their male classmates, mocked for their virginity until they lose it (not give it away), and then told that they’re “too sensitive” for being unhappy with it all. Perhaps I’m just re-stating what you meant in my own words, however.

When my sister tells my nieces/nephew to give me a hug goodbye, I say they don’t have to. Its great if they do but I wont get offended if they don’t feel like it at the moment. Love is much, much more than hugs. And there are many people who use the sign of peace like that. Creeps one out. I think we can blame Leo Buscaglia.

Oh yeah and I am totally against forcing children to sit on Santa’s lap to have a photo of him crying. Disgusting.

A child hugging whom they will, when they will is called a boundary. If you constantly violate your child’s sexual boundaries, they will defend themselves less.

The Pontifical Council on the Family has already written documents on this. If you do not like Vatican authority, I suggest you find another Church.

@Michelle - sorry, I didn’t mean to infer that - I just meant that she’s not my secretary anymore (in fact, I strongly suspect that she only took the job to get the insurance to pay for having the baby, since she told me - after we hired her - that she planned on getting pregnant as soon as the insurance kicked in, which she did, then skirted the issue of finding daycare, and didn’t turn in her notice until her maternity leave was over - also covered by our company short term disability insurance).  By “obsessed” I meant that she had a website for her unborn baby with almost daily updates, and everything became about her pregnancy, as if she was the first woman to ever give birth and it was all part of her “master plan”.  I think those of us who have grown up with a more open view to life tend to be more, I don’t know, “relaxed” about it.  And what follows is maybe a more relaxed style of parenting and teaching our children about dangers without having to be hyper about it.
Don’t get me wrong - I’ve been a facilitator for my diocese’ safe environment program for 10 years, so I know what’s out there.  But I also know that teaching them in a calm way about boundaries, by demonstrating positive behaviours, and repetition can be much more effective that “freaking out”.

One thought: begin to teach children early that the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that their bodies belong, not to them, not to their parents, but to God. With their bodies, as with their souls, they will know, love, and serve God, and be loved by Him through this life and life eternal.  Everything they do with their bodies should include these goals. And all your other lessons will follow naturally. Love to Simcha and to all your beautiful children.

This doesn’t really have so much to do with the “hugging” issues, but I’ve noticed a change in the adult/child hierachy-for lack of better wording.Some time ago I began to notice parents interrupting adult conversation to give lengthy explanations to children’s questions that could have waited til later.I can’t remember as a child being allowed to interrupt adults, especially guests or being a center of attention when company was present.
It seems like there’s been a shift in balance to the point where kids are spoken to/deferred to as peers rather than children.I’m not sure overall that’s something in the best interest of the child.

We should kiss our gramma, it won’t lead to anything. It would be some thing altogether different if we were forcing our kids to hug and kiss strangers, but gramma? Aunt Ruth? Not likely a problem.

THe point that jumps out at me after reading all of the comments is that we have all had different experiences, shaping our perspectives. 
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, the world is not over-run with sexual predators - they are a reality, but not the majority.
Never having been sexually abused, I would ask for non-judgmental understanding when I encourage my children and grandchildren to offer hugs and kisses to me and their 91 year-old great-grandmother.  The eldelyr person needs loving physical contact every bit as much as the child does.  The profound loneliness that accompanies old age can’t be satisfied with a kitten or puppy, no matter how good that may seem as a therapeutic substitute.

I have read too many comments already but would like to add a couple of my own as a psychologist. Children do not know their needs or how to express them properly—it is the responsibility of the parent to help them learn different things at different stages of their lives. Children tend to see things in an all-or-nothing manner and are definitely more bent on feel good that do-good. Letting the child rule its body during toilet training is called permissive, even neglectful, parenting. It is the parent’s responsibility to teach the child how to protect their body (as many have stated) however, realize that children who are not held do not thrive in their relationships (especially adopted children of trauma—read the Boy Who was Raised as a Dog by Bruce Perry). So when they have that initial repulsion to being hugged and kissed, that is the sign for the parent to teach the child discernment in getting their needs for physical expression of affection met: what is appropriate, from whom, when and how. If those needs are not met appropriately they will be met inappropriately—that could mean early physical/sexual encounters with peers (or otherwise that older guy is becoming a problem for the teenage girls in my practice)—a failure to learn appropriate boundaries under the distorted thought that “It feels good therefore it is good.” Absolutes are cognitive distortions that arise from emotional thinking. Infants need to be held to thrive; when they start to push away they are ready to learn how to discern FROM THEIR PARENTS - and handle the emotional reaction with some intelligence.

PS That “cruel and caring” has emotionality in the title. The terms for good parenting are responsiveness and demandingness—and the authoritative parent has the particular balance EACH child needs because they are in touch with THAT child’s needs and not falling to some rule—especially an approach sold with such emotional terms. Emotion is necessary (therefore hugs) but, informed with reason—that marvellous gift for which we strive ourselves and then can teach our children

Wow…I wrote a whole post on June 20th (at www.churchworkhome.com).  When my children were small (under 4) I did not require them to hug a family member if the family member initiated the contact and the child did not want it.  I did ask my children to hug and kiss their grandparents, aunts, and uncles when arriving and leaving.  It’s one thing for the child to initiate the contact and another for the adult.  Now, most times my children didn’t mind when asked but on the rare occasion they did, I didn’t force them..  My children are openly affectionate with us and their relatives and friends.  I think it’s easy to read too much into the original article.  Annette

So “those who embrace every modern degradation of sex, marriage, and childbearing, are the ones who are the most likely to go completely overboard when trying to keep their children safe?”

My partner and I definitely fit the former, but not the latter—and I would have to argue against the general truth of this statement. Our kids are 100% “free range”—it’s part of my “detachment parenting” philosophy. I think it’s families who lean conservative who tend to overemphasize safety.

I think L has a point.  The truth is, it can go either way.  People with large families out of necessity have to step back from going overboard with safety and protectiveness.  Then there are people like me, who have small families (not by my choice, by the way) and are also on the conservative end of the spectrum (I hate that term, but can’t think of a better way of expressing what I mean).  I am very vigilant, but try to balance that with letting my son have a normal childhood.  And I detest the term “helicopter parent”.  I think it is used unfairly toward people who are taking the time to be responsible parents.  I’m not talking about those who are over-the-top and want to keep their kids in a bubble, or parents who don’t let their kids experience the natural consequences of poor choices.  But parents who take reasonable precautions don’t deserve to be dismissed as helicopter parents in a derogatory way.  I do think that more mainstream parents can be prone to being overprotective, but I think L is right that it can also go in the opposite direction of free-range.  My parents were very liberal (again, for lack of a better term), dual-careers, you name it, and didn’t take the time to adequately supervise us, spend lots of time with us, etc.  When they saw parents who did, they laughed them off as overprotective, and would have used the term “helicopter parent” if it had been around back then.  They did that to justify the lack of effort that they put in to parenting.  I vowed that I would learn from their mistakes, and while I unfortunately have yet to overcome some of the personality/temperament traits that I developed from growing up in that household, I definitely stuck to my word in terms of making it a priority to spend time with my son, take time to implement safeguards and other measures for his well-being, etc.  Would I do as much if I had a large family?  Probably not, but I don’t think I would go to the opposite extreme, either.  So when people call me a helicopter parent, I let it roll right off my back because I know I’m doing what’s right for our family.

@ Nurse Rebekkah…Im also a non-Saint Nurse who does lots of skeevy things and I didnt like to kiss grandma either. When I was bathing my grandma in the hospital, I wore gloves and tried to not look put off (Im used to caring for babies, not old people) and into the room comes a CNA who hugged my grandma sticking her face completely into my grandmas neck and then gave her a HUGE kiss on the face…I think I almost fainted hahaha !  God bless this dear woman who gave hugs so freely to old people who may have been starved of it, but I would NEVER be able to do that !

I have no children and as a no-longer-young single person I am extremely sensitive to how I might be percieved by others. Neighbor children have never been allowed in my house without their parents (even though for a while I had a hedgehog that they desperately wanted to hold). Related children are offered hugs with a question: “May I have a hug?” It’s simple, it gives them a choice, and after a while I generally don’t have to ask.

I suspect the commenters who insist that it is normal and healthy to expect children to hug and kiss relatives all came from basically decent families. There are families that, while not physically or sexually abusive, are nonetheless full of underhanded nastiness and use outward signs of affection to manipulate and control. Those of us who had lovely grandmothers can have a hard time imagining a child not wanting to kiss Grandma, but not every Grandma is loving. There are also predators who don’t want anything as obvious as sex.

Even good people can push children too hard for displays of affection they may “deserve”. I have a wonderful neighbor who started teasing my young daughter for a hug every time she saw her. My daughter is a very, very affectionate girl—to the point that I’ve had to speak to her about respecting other people’s personal space. Yet this neighbor clearly made her uncomfortable when she started demanding hugs and pouting or berating her as “bad” when she didn’t get them. I didn’t make my daughter hug the neighbor, and I tried to coach her to say, “Please don’t tease me, Miss __!” I advised the neighbor to back off from my daughter because if given the choice whether or not she wanted to hug, eventually my daughter would be giving more hugs than she could shake a stick at. I was right, too.

It is definitely possible to be warm, loving, and affectionate with people without ever touching them, and I consider it appallingly insensitive to force hugs on anyone, child or adult. Those old people in nursing homes who are supposedly owed hugs by the young would probably be even more appreciative of just having people come to see them regularly, make meaningful conversation, and listen to their stories with interest.

I would never force my child to allow anyone to touch them, kiss them and I am an active Catholic and pro-life. To me, that is clouding the issue. “You’re not comfortable with touch, then, how about drawing a picture for Grandma and giving it to her when she’s leaving or calling her at night to share a bedtime story or prayer?” Not, “Grandma loves you, you love Grandma, Grandma wants to touch you, kiss you. That makes her happy and if you love her, you want to make her happy, so you’ll let her kiss you.” Nope. Fast forward 10 or 12 yrs. “That boy loves you. You love him. He wants to kiss you, touch you, because he loves you. If you love him, you’ll show it by allowing him to kiss you, hug you…....” That is confusing the physical act with love. Start young. Let your children know that touching is not loving.

Whoa whoa whoa…...I agree with boundaries, but you just went too far!  Compartmentalizing sex as separate from love is a huge part of our societal problems!

This article is right on point. Pressured by pc and a morally bankrupt secular society, parents face a conundrum about what to tell their children and how to protect them. Parents who may disagree with abortion, artificial birth control, and gay marriage will find that their children are blithely handed condoms in school and indoctrinated with the message that homosexuality is merely an alternative lifestyle. Disagreement with these positions is labeled bigotry. What else can parents do to keep their kids safe but tell them to “cross at the green, not in between,” or some other such socially acceptable or politically contrived hype. Not only are reason and morals all but extinct, common sense seems to be an endangered species.