I'm reading a great book called Sensory Secrets (please don't move)

[ArmsOfLove]

and it's talking about different issues with touch and sensory stimulation that build on what I've read in Ashley Montagu's "Touching" and other things. They made a very interesting observation/suggestion which is that the lack of sensory stimulation given to young babies and children may be contributing to the earlier and earlier sexual activity among children in our culture. That they are so desensitized to touch and feeling that they desire anything to make them FEEL!

Thoughts?

[milkmommy]

I can see this I can also see the extreme opposite my parents while loving were NOT touchy people I never was and no as much as I deeply love my DH feel ziltch in the sexual department to be honest it wont suprise me if we just kind don't bother once our family gets to the size were meant to.

Deanna

[righteous mama]

and it's talking about different issues with touch and sensory stimulation that build on what I've read in Ashley Montagu's "Touching" and other things. They made a very interesting observation/suggestion which is that the lack of sensory stimulation given to young babies and children may be contributing to the earlier and earlier sexual activity among children in our culture. That they are so desensitized to touch and feeling that they desire anything to make them FEEL!

Thoughts?

Oh my gosh, Crystal...dh's parents barely touched him. I just read that and said out loud, "Oh my gosh!" and dh in the other room said, "What?" This is absolutely fascinating and completely heartbreaking.

[glassangel]

I remember reading 'somewhere' about how a baby's skin is so receptive and that how when wrap them in soft blankets etc it desensitises them and that a 'rougher' blanket would stimulate them more :O sorry can't remember the exact thing --

I think what you have read is very interesting :think is it talking skin to skin touch with parents? or jsut touch in general?
It makes sense...it's like they are craving touch...yes?

[ArmsOfLove]

well the book talks about stimulation for all of the senses but especially touch--and addresses sensory integration issues and what causes them and how to overcome them with OT, color therapy, all sorts of things :tu EXCELLENT book imo :grin

It actually talks about babies spending all their time in car seats and strollers and cribs without any comforting in arms :cry It praised the baby carriers that carry babies upright and have them stimulated by mother's heartbeat and breathing and touch and how being at eye level helps with visual development.

[mamahammer]

and it's talking about different issues with touch and sensory stimulation that build on what I've read in Ashley Montagu's "Touching" and other things. They made a very interesting observation/suggestion which is that the lack of sensory stimulation given to young babies and children may be contributing to the earlier and earlier sexual activity among children in our culture. That they are so desensitized to touch and feeling that they desire anything to make them FEEL!

Thoughts?

Oh my gosh, Crystal...dh's parents barely touched him. I just read that and said out loud, "Oh my gosh!" and dh in the other room said, "What?" This is absolutely fascinating and completely heartbreaking.


I believe we have been fighting through many of the same things in this arena, Marcella, and I had the same reaction. :cry

[glassangel]

well the book talks about stimulation for all of the senses but especially touch--and addresses sensory integration issues and what causes them and how to overcome them with OT, color therapy, all sorts of things :tu EXCELLENT book imo :grin

It actually talks about babies spending all their time in car seats and strollers and cribs without any comforting in arms :cry It praised the baby carriers that carry babies upright and have them stimulated by mother's heartbeat and breathing and touch and how being at eye level helps with visual development.


This sounds like a very good read :tu

[Quiteria]

:bheart

[righteous mama]

and it's talking about different issues with touch and sensory stimulation that build on what I've read in Ashley Montagu's "Touching" and other things. They made a very interesting observation/suggestion which is that the lack of sensory stimulation given to young babies and children may be contributing to the earlier and earlier sexual activity among children in our culture. That they are so desensitized to touch and feeling that they desire anything to make them FEEL!

Thoughts?

Oh my gosh, Crystal...dh's parents barely touched him. I just read that and said out loud, "Oh my gosh!" and dh in the other room said, "What?" This is absolutely fascinating and completely heartbreaking.


I believe we have been fighting through many of the same things in this arena, Marcella, and I had the same reaction. :cry


:hug2

Dh said he was in a car for ages at least 3 to at least 5. His parents decided to travel the U.S. and South America. He was confined back there most of the day without any interaction. His parents didn't want him to speak much, they were irritated with him a lot, and when it was time to get out and see a site, he wanted to play and his dad would yell at him for not appreciating the beauty before them. He remembers all of this. He also remembers playing with a toy and because he was making too much noise his dad grabbed it and threw it on the highway as they drove. :(

Sometimes I think he's a little boy just begging people to tell him he's alright. It's really sad.

[Heather Micaela]

that is so sad marcella :(

[Atarah]

I think there are many things that are contributing to early sexual activity in our culture, and I do think that this lack of touch/sensory input could be a huge factor.
I also think a good *emotional* attachment (particularly with the parent of the opposite sex) is key to meeting those needs so a child/young person doesn't have to look elsewhere to get the need met. That being said, I think the research supports that early *physical* attachment is suppportive/encouraging of a continued emotional attachment between parents and their children. Without the early physical attachment, the parents are less likely to be well emotionally attached.

I also agree with Deanna that in *some* people a lack of early touch can manifest in a 'lack of activity' later - if you turn off that part and re-wire the brain, it may be hard to 'turn it back on' later.

[mamahammer]

:hug2

Dh said he was in a car for ages at least 3 to at least 5. His parents decided to travel the U.S. and South America. He was confined back there most of the day without any interaction. His parents didn't want him to speak much, they were irritated with him a lot, and when it was time to get out and see a site, he wanted to play and his dad would yell at him for not appreciating the beauty before them. He remembers all of this. He also remembers playing with a toy and because he was making too much noise his dad grabbed it and threw it on the highway as they drove. :(

Sometimes I think he's a little boy just begging people to tell him he's alright. It's really sad.


:cry Matt is working so hard on physical/emotional touch where our children are concerned because it's just not something he ever experienced as a child. His mom has told them over and over again how she (SAHM) fought to get them into preschool early (they have late summer bdays) becuse she just couldn't stand to have them around 24/7 anymore :no2 All of his need for touch has been focused on sexual needs since intimate/emotional needs were so neglected as a child.

[ArmsOfLove]

I don't think this is the forum for being specific or talking about dh's who may struggle with this specifically, but based on some of the comments in the book and in this thread I had a thought . . . I wonder if all of the "sitting and viewing the world go by without any (or with limited) touch" is leading to the increasing issues with porn addiction--where you *view* sexually stimulating material from a seated position and there is no actual touch from the other person. I wonder if it speaks to the desire to be touched? To be loved? That is being unmet in our unfeeling/untouching culture? And I wonder if so many can justify it as not being "cheating" because they considered real love any touch of a parent/wife and not the world they viewed untouched as a child? :think

Add to that a Christian context where actual cheating would be abhorrent to most men and yet porn addiction is rampant and it must mean that there is something about internet porn and it's lack of touch that is familiar to them??? :think

[SouthPaw]

Interesting, that last post.

So do you think if we put our babies in a bouncy in front of Baby Einstein instead of holding them, they will learn to crave visual stimulation even over tactile? :think It makes sense.

[ArmsOfLove]

I'm suggesting that could play a huge factor in development. Now, the occasional moment for mommy where Baby Einstein is the medium is :tu imo. But mom being the occasional break to Baby Einstein :td

One of the suggestions was that even in daycares, overfilled and under staffed, there is a propensity for desiring babies to be complacent and easy and keeping them in seats and cribs over working with them to develop the physical efficiency needed. I mean, when my 21 month old climbed on top of the table I was :woohoo because he'd mastered climbing FINALLY and only after starting movement lessons! Yet "how do I keep my 21 month old off the table?" is often posted as a "discipline" issue as though it's "bad" for a child to be climbing. (I know it's frustrating and yes, persistent climbing onto an unsafe place needs to be addressed and there are solutions there ;), but I'm talking about the cultural idea that normal physical progression in and of itself is or presents discipline problems :think )

[Jillian]

I think it is very likely. Makes alot of sense. :(

Mostly just :popcorn

[Marsha]

I've often thought so. I read Dr. Erickson's Childhood and Society, written way back like 50 years ago and in there, he said something about unhibited access to sweet, warm breastmilk helping to develop sensuality...not sexuality, but rich senses.
And it made sense to me. He studied several cultures and their attitude to bfing and weaning, and how that affected as a whole, not individually, the culture of a particular society, etc. But that part aabout bf on demand stuck w/me.

[Bonnie]

Wow.

[DogwoodMama]

I've often thought so. I read Dr. Erickson's Childhood and Society, written way back like 50 years ago and in there, he said something about unhibited access to sweet, warm breastmilk helping to develop sensuality...not sexuality, but rich senses.
And it made sense to me. He studied several cultures and their attitude to bfing and weaning, and how that affected as a whole, not individually, the culture of a particular society, etc. But that part aabout bf on demand stuck w/me.


:yes I can definitely see this... breastmilk tastes different depending on what mom eats! Formula always tastes the same. Anyone who has nursed a toddler knows how much they just love breastmilk and nursing- the cuddling, the warmth, the "yummy milk." :heart I like to think about filling my dd up with love and touch now so she doesn't go looking for it in the wrong places later.

[Chris3jam]

I did a lot of reading about baby stimulation, baby brain development, etc. before I had my now 10 yo. And it falls right in line with the kangaroo care, the fact that the immature nerves need the touch and stimulation to grow, how skin touch is directly linked to brain development, etc. I can tell the difference in the babies I held more and massaged and stuff and the babies I did not. And, it's not what people would *think*. The baby I held the least had/has more neurological problems and has absolutely no idea about personal space and correct sexual behaviour. :bheart I can so see the hunger now. . . .why couldn't I see it then? :bheart

[glassangel]

This is really fascinating - and rings SO true :think

[mom2threePKs]

I think this stuff is fascinating!!!!!! But I also think that all the research has been done. We know that close physical cntact to the mother is VITAL to infants. We kow that Kangaroo care does stuff for preemies that the best technology in the world can't reporduce. Anyone with half a brain can extraolate all the preemie stuff to full term babies. We know that babies that are cared for in institutional type settings DO NOT thrive. Look at Romanian orphanages. When that stuff was first coming to light America was horrified and people ran out to adopt those children only to find out that a five year old with an attachment disorder doesn't blend well with an establish family (sarcasm intended) and we STILL tell mothers it is just fine to put your babies in institutional settings for 8 or 9 hours a day and call it "socialization".

See, I think the very saddest thing about all this is we know it, we do and we look at the results and say, "well, that's good enough." I have told enough moms that their babies will fuss less if they will just hold them more and seen the look in their eyes that says, "No, that's too much trouble, this is good enough." Its the same reaction many people have to the breast vs. bottle debate. You can't deny the risks of formula feeding. It has been established over and over and over. Yet, the end of many discussions about the "benefits of breastfeeding" is "of course we were all raised on formula and we turned out just fine." Good enough.

I gotta get that book. Of course I'll probably go ballistic after every page turn and dh will have to take it away from me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Magan

[Chris3jam]

Of course I'll probably go ballistic after every page turn and dh will have to take it away from me

My dh would do the same thing. Only because I would be weeping and crying and lamenting about how I totally ruined my children because I didn't _________!

[cklewis]

amazing. makes total sense.

i remember hearing a ezzo dad say that he didn;t have any problem not rocking his son to sleep, but his Dd he just had to. :scratch what about the boy? I know this has been a kick I'm on lately. but i watch my sons genuinely affectionate toward each other, and i see how normal and healthy it is.

they say that daddies rough-house with their kids because that's the way they get the touch in.

it also makes me thankful for the way they do it at our day care. in gavin's room, it's one grandma per baby. :giggle not kidding!!

and it also makes sense that we've sexualized all touch. so when kids are craving touch they think they are craving sex. :(

sigh. . . . what i don't get is -- it's NICE to hold a baby. they smell good. they FEEL good. look at this little bundle snuggled up here breathing sweetly. who wouldn't want that?

C

[glassangel]

See, I think the very saddest thing about all this is we know it, we do and we look at the results and say, "well, that's good enough."  I have told enough moms that their babies will fuss less if they will just hold them more and seen the look in their eyes that says, "No, that's too much trouble, this is good enough."  Its the same reaction many people have to the breast vs. bottle debate.  You can't deny the risks of formula feeding.  It has been established over and over and over.  Yet, the end of many discussions about the "benefits of breastfeeding" is "of course we were all raised on formula and we turned out just fine."  Good enough. 

Yeah :think yeah...that just rings true...

sigh. . . . what i don't get is -- it's NICE to hold a baby. they smell good. they FEEL good. look at this little bundle snuggled up here breathing sweetly. who wouldn't want that?

:happytears :happytears -- yeah I don't get it at all.

[DogwoodMama]

amazing. makes total sense.

i remember hearing a ezzo dad say that he didn;t have any problem not rocking his son to sleep, but his Dd he just had to. :scratch what about the boy? I know this has been a kick I'm on lately. but i watch my sons genuinely affectionate toward each other, and i see how normal and healthy it is.

they say that daddies rough-house with their kids because that's the way they get the touch in.

it also makes me thankful for the way they do it at our day care. in gavin's room, it's one grandma per baby. :giggle not kidding!!

and it also makes sense that we've sexualized all touch. so when kids are craving touch they think they are craving sex. :(

sigh. . . . what i don't get is -- it's NICE to hold a baby. they smell good. they FEEL good. look at this little bundle snuggled up here breathing sweetly. who wouldn't want that?

C


:yes I *love* holding my babies! Sometimes it actually makes me cry, I love it so much. :happytears And I've had NO agression problems with C toward the baby... just episodes of too much lovin' that I have to watch for. :O

[fruitofthewomb]

Interesting. I was not touched much as a baby. My mom did try to breastfeed me, and made it until I threw up on her, maybe a couple of weeks. Better than nothing. I know she is freaked out by babies and mainly puts my kids (as babies) in plastic babysitters, so I can only imagine what it was like for me. Consequently (I guess), I am touch deprived. I have always looooooooooved going to get my hair done. Sometimes it would take 4 or 5 hours, and I could spend $200+, but I didn't care (preChristian/more money days). It felt soooo good. Sometimes I would just fall asleep in the chair. Tricky thing is, since I didn't come from a touchy family, I grew up giving off vibes that I don't want to be touched, but I sooooo want to be touched. I crave the hugs my friends would give other friends. Touch my hair and you are my best friend. It's a weird thing. And I had a boyfriend from kindergarten on (first kiss at 14, sexually active at 15), always in a relationship. This gives some insight! :think

[Chris3jam]

We were not a 'touchy' family. My mom would try to do the "Oh, give your mommy a hug!" when we were in high school, and I would literally RUN (all of us would). I am not 'touchy-feely'. I have offended people who have seen misery on my face, moved to hug me, and were hurt when I pulled back into myself. I don't hug. (This translates to the 'net. . .. . .so, you *know* I mean it when I give cyber hugs!!!) BUT. . .when it comes to babies and small children, I can't get enough of them. Hugging babies and children is very non-threatening. As they get older, it gets more difficult for me. But. . .as an older teen and young woman, I was very 'touchy-feely' with the opposite sex. I was what was known as a c**k-tease. I didn't really want to "go all the way", but I would do everything else. Hm. My dh says I would make a fascinating psychological study. :P

[fruitofthewomb]

I was what was known as a c**k-tease. I didn't really want to "go all the way", but I would do everything else. Hm.

Me too!!!! I thought my parents must have instilled such great values in me because I didn't actually do "it" until I was 15 (or was it 16?), but I was doing just about everything else with lots of guys, sometimes several in a night, refusing to do "it". Whoa. Yay me. :rolleyes

[Marsha]

We were not a 'touchy' family. My mom would try to do the "Oh, give your mommy a hug!" when we were in high school, and I would literally RUN (all of us would). I am not 'touchy-feely'. I have offended people who have seen misery on my face, moved to hug me, and were hurt when I pulled back into myself. I don't hug. (This translates to the 'net. . .. . .so, you *know* I mean it when I give cyber hugs!!!) BUT. . .when it comes to babies and small children, I can't get enough of them. Hugging babies and children is very non-threatening. As they get older, it gets more difficult for me. But. . .as an older teen and young woman, I was very 'touchy-feely' with the opposite sex. I was what was known as a c**k-tease. I didn't really want to "go all the way", but I would do everything else. Hm. My dh says I would make a fascinating psychological study. :P


I can definitely relate. I was not a cuddly baby and it offended my mom, and tehn I think after she had another baby, she just got her touch needs met there and didn't try really with me. And my dad is touchy but I hated him, and actively kept him from touching me EVER, I HATED it...but yeah on all the guy stuff too..........and getting my nails done, and hair....I LOVE my hair played with, and getting massages.....

[ArmsOfLove]

this definately fits with the craving touch and to be needed and loved :grouphug

I have to say, I have found one of the most healing things the Lord has had me do on several occasions has been to hold grown women while they cried and just "mother comfort" them. They step away different women :think

[Atarah]

For a while when I was single, I was attending a church with weelky small group meetings. It was a 'mixed' group, but @ half of the people were singles in their 20s/30s. The leader at the time was a married couple with teen-aged children, and the wife (dear, sweet Barbara) made it a point to give each of the singles a big, long mama hug each week (provided the single was o.k. with it). She said singles need lots of touch, too, and she wanted to contribute to our 'touch banks' in a healthy manner. From a woman with a HUGH touch need, Thanks, Barbara..... :hug :happytears

[Lilly_of the_ Fields]

the cultural idea that normal physical progression in and of itself is or presents discipline problems :yes Agree totally!!!

A friend at uni was saying the other day that the act of dropping/throwing an object is a MAJOR step in a child's development away from the grasp reflex, it represents really sophisticated neural patterning (she was telling me all the brain"bits" but I forgot, lol ) AND she suggested that to stifle that, particularly in infants, is a major no no.

And yet think of the typical punitive recommendation to parents on dealing with the food dropping baby in high chair scenario :rolleyes
normal physical progression interpreted as discipline problems

Re the sensory stimulation idea - I agree. I have a phys touch love lang and early promiscuity was certainly the case for me - that was affection I simply was not recieving appropriately at home...I mention "appropriately" as my parents were actually quite affectionate toards me, but as a replacement towards intimacy with one another - theirs was a "needy" affection, where there was unspoken pressure on me to fulfill them emotionally. And of course a subverted sexual element which contributed to gender preference issues as well. Not good.

[Quiteria]

On the positive side, as we all hope the best for our kids--my mom was much more touchy..somewhere between AP and mainstream permissive...didn't bf, but used to do her chores holding me almost like babywearing, and hates it when people let babies cry, very responsive. We used to give each other foot rubs and back rubs, growing up. Appropriate stuff, and appropriate hugs and such with dad, too.

I really wished that someone had talked to me better about where to draw the line physically in dating, because I did start dating early to fill a social void...but, I was very clear about no premarital s__, and really didn't struggle with maintaining that boundary that until after I was engaged. I struggled with not knowing the boundry should have ultimately been set higher (like, closer to hand-holding :O) to avoid some bad situations, but while friends of mine were willing to put up with just about anyone offering physical affection, I think I had a comparatively easy time prioritizing character and making it clear that I'd rather break up if dating someone who didn't have the character to respect me. Oh, I had crushes and I really missed some guys after break-ups, and had some temptation that I should have fled from (teach your dd's that verse early!) because there were some compromises that I know God didn't approve of, but I would never have kept someone around just for the physical stuff, kwim?

I hope that didn't come out pretentious, because I really did make mistakes and all, but when I look at the number of my friends "permanently" attached to one loser after another, I think their too-soon attachment often starts with the physical stuff happening before they've had time to evaluate the guy. And considering how needy I was socially, and some of the sleezy guys I started dating, and situations I was in...I have always figured that I was a hairs-breadth from ending up the same. Maybe my touch needs were met... :think :hug

[Mamatoto]

I think it definitely has to do with touch...but nothing to do with Baby Einstein. ;)

It's easy to forget how much stimulation it is for baby's to even nurse...much less sit in front of a TV. Until you have that baby who has SID who has an awful time nursing because the stimulation of it actually hurts them...then you know how much stimulation those little things really are for a baby.

[Marsha]

[quote]
Re the sensory stimulation idea - I agree. I have a phys touch love lang and early promiscuity was certainly the case for me - that was affection I simply was not recieving appropriately at home...I mention "appropriately" as my parents were actually quite affectionate toards me, but as a replacement towards intimacy with one another - theirs was a "needy" affection, where there was unspoken pressure on me to fulfill them emotionally. And of course a subverted sexual element which contributed to gender preference issues as well. Not good.


hmmmmmm, yes, I think that's what I was getting at w/me not liking my dad to touch me. And yes, Ive had gender preference issues as well.

[fruitofthewomb]

[quote]
Re the sensory stimulation idea - I agree. I have a phys touch love lang and early promiscuity was certainly the case for me - that was affection I simply was not recieving appropriately at home...I mention "appropriately" as my parents were actually quite affectionate toards me, but as a replacement towards intimacy with one another - theirs was a "needy" affection, where there was unspoken pressure on me to fulfill them emotionally. And of course a subverted sexual element which contributed to gender preference issues as well. Not good.


hmmmmmm, yes, I think that's what I was getting at w/me not liking my dad to touch me. And yes, Ive had gender preference issues as well.

[fruitofthewomb]

[quote]
Re the sensory stimulation idea - I agree. I have a phys touch love lang and early promiscuity was certainly the case for me - that was affection I simply was not recieving appropriately at home...I mention "appropriately" as my parents were actually quite affectionate toards me, but as a replacement towards intimacy with one another - theirs was a "needy" affection, where there was unspoken pressure on me to fulfill them emotionally. And of course a subverted sexual element which contributed to gender preference issues as well. Not good.


hmmmmmm, yes, I think that's what I was getting at w/me not liking my dad to touch me. And yes, Ive had gender preference issues as well.


oops, sorry, i didn't mean to hit post. Anyway, I'm afraid I'm doing this to my daughter. I have a need to hold her, and I'm doing it I think so she'll meet my need, not so I can meet hers. Please expand on that subverted sexual element - I want to make sure I'm not going there!

[Sarai]

sigh. . . . what i don't get is -- it's NICE to hold a baby. they smell good. they FEEL good. look at this little bundle snuggled up here breathing sweetly. who wouldn't want that?



Oh, yes! DS smelled so sweet, and would gaze up at me with his enormous blue saucer eyes while nursing (or bottle-feeding- I always held him close and fed him to get it as close to BF as possible). Those times were the most relaxing of my day. :hearts Even now, at 3, I love holding him when he drinks his sippy of milk before bed- he's so much bigger now, but still wants to climb in my lap and cuddle- he gets as close to a "cradle hold" as he can get LOL!

I hated using the carseat and WISHED DS liked his sling more (he didn't :/).

[Marsha]

[quote]
Re the sensory stimulation idea - I agree. I have a phys touch love lang and early promiscuity was certainly the case for me - that was affection I simply was not recieving appropriately at home...I mention "appropriately" as my parents were actually quite affectionate toards me, but as a replacement towards intimacy with one another - theirs was a "needy" affection, where there was unspoken pressure on me to fulfill them emotionally. And of course a subverted sexual element which contributed to gender preference issues as well. Not good.


hmmmmmm, yes, I think that's what I was getting at w/me not liking my dad to touch me. And yes, Ive had gender preference issues as well.


oops, sorry, i didn't mean to hit post. Anyway, I'm afraid I'm doing this to my daughter. I have a need to hold her, and I'm doing it I think so she'll meet my need, not so I can meet hers. Please expand on that subverted sexual element - I want to make sure I'm not going there!


oh, I don't think that, I got LOTS of my needs met and healed by my first baby, and probablty by my second, too, I just am not that far along.
It's just that the first person who mentioned and myself mentioned that a lot of the touchy feely was in lieu of proper touching between husband and wife. My dad and mom had a rough time for many years, probably due to about 1000 kids (11 really) and therefore it was pretty clear to me that my dad used me as a surrogate wife. Not sexually per se but he definitely kind of set us up as competing for his approval, affection, etc. No wonder I am f---- up. I haven't thought about this cr-- in years!!!!

[fruitofthewomb]

Whoa. So even if there wasn't touching *there* it pretty much can still be called s*xual abuse? I am sorry. No child needs to be confused by that inappropriate display of touch/emotion. :hugheart

[Marsha]

Whoa. So even if there wasn't touching *there* it pretty much can still be called s*xual abuse? I am sorry. No child needs to be confused by that inappropriate display of touch/emotion. :hugheart

Ok, I feel bad cause this is way OT now, sorry Crystal, but you know many many therapists over the years swore I had been s*xually abused because of all my many and weird symptoms which I will spare you all.
And I swear I wasn't, unless it is severely repressed and I can't fro the life of me think who would have, yk? But I never thought about that really icky dynamic that made me feel so torn between my mom and dad. You know wanting to be approved by dad but at the expense of mom, and kind of vice versa.
I haven't thought about this stuff for a LONG time!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ArmsOfLove]

:hugheart

I definately believe that we have a lot of our needs met via our children--they are a blessing from the Lord :amen But when a child becomes a substitute for providing what others should be providing (a spouse, or the Lord himself) then the child bears a scar from being responsible for meeting needs rather than having their own needs met. Think of the little child who has to take care of the alcoholic mother--who is the mother? who is taking care of whom?

So it makes sense that it would affect in the area of touch and sensual stimulation also. And I believe that the emotional stuff that provides the context for touch is going to have a lot to say about how the touch is experienced.

[Lilly_of the_ Fields]

:highfive Amen to that - I agree totally.

Just to clarify. I'm not saying it is wrong to find physical touch/affection from your child fulfilling. That's a huge blessing from God, imho, and part of the bonding process. That's all good.:tu

What I'm saying is that, even for a child who is naturally affectionate (such as myself with a phys touch love lang) if the underlying reason a parent is affectionate with their child goes beyond the naturally deep and wonderful parent-child bond to a deeper craving; that of an unmet need for significance/intimacy in the marital relationship...

then, chances are, the child will pick up on it.

I certainly did. But it took me years to figure out why I simulataneously craved my parents affection but was also repulsed by it. With my parents there was also a deeper need still - neither of them are Christians and there was (still is) a huge black hole in their hearts that only Christ can fill. :bheart

In a Christian family, you might imagine it as a reversal in the Biblical order of submission. I don't mean 'submission' in that horrible cold authoritarian sense but 'submission' in terms of where we look to draw our strength. And the Biblical model is that parents find strength in their submission to the Lord and the practical expression of that; submission to one another.

It is a impossibly draining burden to put on a child to fulfil needs which can only proprerly be met by their spouse and, more significantly, the Lord himself. And as such it's a kind of subtle spiritual abuse. Families Where Grace is In Place has been a big healer in helping break that cycle with my how I relate with my own children. :yes

And in terms of the sexual element; I'm not saying my parents intended anything sexual towards me - either overtly or even covertly. BUT by coming to rely on their relationship with me to find the significance/intimacy they did not have with one another or the Lord, it nonethless had sexual ramifications for me by the simple fact that part (not all, but certainly part) of the healthy affectionate relationship with one another that they craved WAS sexual.

Does that make sense? :scratch Crystal said it a lot more easily, LOL.

[Lilly_of the_ Fields]

PS...

but you know many many therapists over the years swore I had been s*xually abused because of all my many and weird symptoms which I will spare you all

ditto! :hug

[Mamatoto]

I have read that emotional abuse symptoms can be very similar to sexual abuse symptoms. :think

[Sarai]

:highfive Amen to that - I agree totally.

Just to clarify. I'm not saying it is wrong to find physical touch/affection from your child fulfilling. That's a huge blessing from God, imho, and part of the bonding process. That's all good.:tu

What I'm saying is that, even for a child who is naturally affectionate (such as myself with a phys touch love lang) if the underlying reason a parent is affectionate with their child goes beyond the naturally deep and wonderful parent-child bond to a deeper craving; that of an unmet need for significance/intimacy in the marital relationship...

then, chances are, the child will pick up on it.

I certainly did. But it took me years to figure out why I simulataneously craved my parents affection but was also repulsed by it. With my parents there was also a deeper need still - neither of them are Christians and there was (still is) a huge black hole in their hearts that only Christ can fill. :bheart

In a Christian family, you might imagine it as a reversal in the Biblical order of submission. I don't mean 'submission' in that horrible cold authoritarian sense but 'submission' in terms of where we look to draw our strength. And the Biblical model is that parents find strength in their submission to the Lord and the practical expression of that; submission to one another.

It is a impossibly draining burden to put on a child to fulfil needs which can only proprerly be met by their spouse and, more significantly, the Lord himself. And as such it's a kind of subtle spiritual abuse. Families Where Grace is In Place has been a big healer in helping break that cycle with my how I relate with my own children. :yes

And in terms of the sexual element; I'm not saying my parents intended anything sexual towards me - either overtly or even covertly. BUT by coming to rely on their relationship with me to find the significance/intimacy they did not have with one another or the Lord, it nonethless had sexual ramifications for me by the simple fact that part (not all, but certainly part) of the healthy affectionate relationship with one another that they craved WAS sexual.

Does that make sense? :scratch Crystal said it a lot more easily, LOL.



Shoshoi - it makes total sense and is incredibly eye-opening for me. I can see a lot of that in my own childhood and current relationship w/my parents. I am just :jawdrop reading this.


I have more questions but am not sure I want to "go there" on this public board. :shifty

[Knitted_in_the_womb]

This is really interesting.

I'm in the midst of a really stressful project--moving my learning disabled sister to the town that I live in. This is a move across state lines, about a 4 hour drive. The coordination with government agencies is very difficult. She has been in an "assisted living" program for the last 12 years, but they have been trying to get her out because of budget cuts. I will have to take over their role (5 "kids" now...except that one is older than me and will not live in my house--HELP!).

Anyway...I kind of had a "lightbulb moment" last week, and now this thread is tying into it. My sister's sensitivity to noise & light of any kind while she sleeps has always frustrated me. She wears ear plugs and a mask. When she lived with my grandparents my grandmother's room was next door to hers, but had been sound proofed when they built the house. My sister would complain about our grandmother's TV being on, and our grandma would turn it down to the point that she couldn't even hear it, and even with ear plugs in and the sound proofing, it would still keep my sister awake! I had viewed all this with exasperation and a bit of "can't you just grow up and deal with this???" But then last week it hit me--no, she can't just "grown up"--she's got sensory integration issues.

So anyway...very interesting in light of what this book says. She was neglected as an infant (I was too, but only for about 6 months--she was 18 months). Left alone in her crib all day, bottle was propped. When our father left our mother and took us (and our older brother) to live with his parents, she was barely wearing 9 month size clothes, and our grandmother said that you could sit her on the floor and she would stay there indefinitely--at 18 months old! She did not reach up to be lifted up.

So I'm thinking that the neglect during infancy may have led to her sensory issues. I should try to find this book at my local library.

Jenn

[Chris3jam]

Does the book say anything about any kind of "therapy" or anything to do with older children or adults who may be affected by "sensory neglect"? I remember my mom telling me of a little boy she would watch sometimes. His mom would keep him in a bare room all day, with maybe a couple of toys, with the door closed. When my mom watched him, she said he would "blossom". A friend at church told of a mom who had to work because the dad would not, but he would stay home with the kids, and he would sit in front of the TV and drink all day, while the babies would stay in their rooms in their cribs. They had a bottle, and that's it. I always wonder about those children today. The last I heard about the two neglected girls (where the dad stayed home), they were having problems at school. :cry

[ArmsOfLove]

:cry

The book gives GREAT solutions for how to start working on these things at home :tu And does give ideas about when to seek professional help :yes

[UltraMother]

When my oldest was a baby, I too wondered about babies who were only touched for diaper changes, and how it would affect them when they were older. :think

[mamame]

and it's talking about different issues with touch and sensory stimulation that build on what I've read in Ashley Montagu's "Touching" and other things. They made a very interesting observation/suggestion which is that the lack of sensory stimulation given to young babies and children may be contributing to the earlier and earlier sexual activity among children in our culture. That they are so desensitized to touch and feeling that they desire anything to make them FEEL!

Thoughts?


I haven't read any of the responses but this so totally makes complete sense - and makes me so sad. It's so sad to see these girls practically throwing themselves at boys and the way that even GIRLS are looking for sex and not relationships anymore. Just way too sad!

[chelsea]

Very interesting, and it totally makes sense! Sounds like a very interesting book! :tu
It used to be that young men were considered to be the ones who couldn't "keep their pants on", so to speak. Now both boys AND girls are seeking sexual activity, and at a much younger age. :(
And I agree that the amount of men (or women) with "internet porn struggles" could very well be caused (or promoted by) not being touched enough as infants. Instead of going to their room to be with their wife, they would rather sit in front of a computer and have their needs met (or so they think) because they simply are not comfortable with the whole interpersonal aspect of sex. An interpersonal relationship requires "too much work", just like their parents probably said those very words when these people were babies ("it's too much work to carry my baby all day...he's doing just fine in his crib.")
Our world is becoming more and more a "technological" one and less an interpersonal one. Just listen when you call most companies, you get a computer instead of an actual voice. And computer games are becoming our way of entertaining our children rather than interaction with ourselves and other children. The list could go on and on...it's rather scary when you consider how the majority of this generation is so untouched and the ramifications that will be because of it. :(

[ArmsOfLove]

it's rather scary when you consider how the majority of this generation is so untouched and the ramifications that will be because of it.I've been thinking of cutters :(

[fourbygrace]

I am bumping this up with a question.

I have a friend who is about 6 weeks away from adopting a baby (14 months old) from a Russian orphanage. Would this book be helpful for her? She wants to try to nurse him and this seems like it might help her do more to stimulate him.

Blessings,
Mary

[fourbygrace]

Rene,

Thanks for the suggestion. My friend does not seem to have a great support network and she has never had children, so I have been trying to give her as much advice as I can. That book sounds great!

Mary

[jenn3514]

:popcorn :nak, want to come back when I can.