Of course people do things they hate because it makes other people happy. I’ve waded through plates and plates of grilled vegetables because my in-laws wanted to try a new steak house (for my birthday, no less) because it makes them happy.
Do I like it? No. Does my husband take me somewhere I like the next day? Of course. But just becasue I’m a vegetarian and the smell of cooked meat makes me gag a little, doesn’t give me the right to be mean to my inlaws.
They are trying to be nice. They are trying to show that they care and be affectionate, just in a way I don’t particularly care for. I suck it up because I’m a grown up and sometimes grown ups do things they don’t like, or hate, even, because it will make someone they love happy.
I don’t do it all the time, but once and a while really isn’t going to kill me. I can’t see how giving dad a pat on the shoulder or mom a peck on the cheek is going to kill the OP either.
As someone who is also rather touch adverse, it would not bother me, because hugging my parents is not a luxury, it is a burden to be endured. Not because I don’t like them, but because I do not get ANYTHING from their hugs except a sense of being stifled and controlled. I know it is confusing to people who show love with huggy touching but going through the motions to satisfy my parents ego is not an aspect of our relationship I will miss when they’re gone.
BTW, its not a pat on the shoulder I’m referring to when I say I’m adverse to touch - its “overhugging” as I like to call it, hugging you clingingly and for an uncomfortable amount of time because “your my daughter and I luv you so so so much” like a puppy you won’t let go until it bites you.
If you’re a parent, it’s the latter by a mile. It isn’t being touched by “someone,” it’s being touched by a parent. To be willing to hurt a parent that much is not normal if you love them.
How did our society get so pathologically fearful about normal human contact and so self-important about personal space?
The comparison to sexual assault is asinine, by the way, so don’t bother to try.
I suppose the question is, does the parent’s desire to touch the child trump the child’s request to have their boundary respected? I think in the case of adult children, the child’s request prevails.
I don’t see how not wanting people to touch you is being ‘self-important about personal space’.
Well, yeah, but if going to a steakhouse genuinely upset you to the point of feeling stifled or perhaps having a panic attack, wouldn’t it be just as nice of your in-laws to offer another venue?
I mean, I do think that both sides need to be empathetic. But I don’t think “Suck it up and deal” is the answer. If she genuinely does want to eventually endure or enjoy being touched by the parents it might, as the other posters point out, take therapy. Which would mean her dealing with some of her problems and perhaps working towards being touched as well as her parents meeting her half way and perhaps not touching her till she’s ready.
If we do agree that her being touched/not touched is an issue, can we at least agree that them just doing it isn’t really the answer? I think giving her the time and space to work up to it is important.
I also don’t see why the sexual assault comparison thing is asinine. If this is a result of rape or coercive sex, then it might very well be that a traumatic sexual encounter has caused her to dislike being touched by anyone.
In response to Dio…OK, realize you’re saying that touching someone against their will isn’t necessarily sexual assault. I guess I’d argue that no one has the right to touch you against your will. It’s not necessarily sexual assault to do it but it’s still bad. I mean, your parents teach you when you’re little that no one should touch you if you don’t want them to (doctors and other situations aside). It seems a little contradictory to then say, “Oh yeah, except for me, I get to do it whenever I want.”
If being touched against your will is so frightening or upsetting for whatever reason, I don’t see what difference it makes whether that person is related to you or some guy on a date with you. I mean, your mom hugging you when you hate it isn’t sexual assault, but she’s no more entitled to do it than some guy is because he bought you dinner. If a couple is married for thirty or forty years, they obviously have a strong family tie but you can’t argue that either the husband or wife is entitled to touch the other if one day they just decide they don’t want to be touched anymore. It’s upsetting, yes, and something that maybe should be addressed in therapy, but ultimately, you aren’t entitled to do it even if you really want to.
Word on this. I suspect some of the people in this thread are going to have a lot of difficulty maintaining personal relationships as long as they have this erroneous percepton that they should never have to be the slighest bit uncomfortable or sacrifice for anything else.
And you’re right that these people letting a parent give them a hug or a kiss on the cheek is not going to kill them. I see a profound self-absorbtion in the idea that “anything that causes me the teeniest discomfort is a crime against the universe.”
I think these people need to get over themselves, quite frankly, or get some therapy. It won['t make me popular to say it, but this “touch aversion” thing us NOT something that desreves to be respected. If it’s really neurological or deeply psychological, it’s a disorder that needs to be treated. If it’s not a disorder, then it’s just self-absorbtion.
It is ego because compliance is demanded. If you fail to comply you are obviously hateful and rejecting regardless of the other loving things you might do for your parents… all the helping, being there, listening, supporting, doing things together, valuing their opinion, etc., in the world means zero because you refused a hug.
Of course my parents love me, and I love them as well. I do not love or even like being hugged, and it does generate hostility, over time, when you realize your parents do not care a whit for your feelings on particular issues.
Back to Freudian Slit point, my mom was a victim of sexual abuse and always taught me NO ONE has the right to touch you against your will, but, that turns out not to be the case, because, again, rejection of a hug is the most evil thing a child can do to a parent.
I think the desire deserves at least the same amount of respect and empathy. I see a lot of “oh you poor baby” going on for people who don’t want to be touched, but nothing but hostility and attacks against parents simply for wanting to hug their won children.
If you think enduring a couple of seconds of discomfort is not as important as the feelings of those you supposedly love, then you’re being self-important.
Others have. I was being preemtive. Unnecessarily, I guess. My apologies.
Well, I just meant the blanket term touching someone against their will–whether it’s a stranger on the street grabbing your breast or grandma kissing a squirming four year old or a creepy uncle hugging his fourteen year old niece a little too long. It’s such a general term it might encompass sexual assault, it might not.
And that is how I handle every single thread I come upon on the dope. I always just check to see if the topic is interesting to build on, then go from there. Doesn’t matter the specifics and backstory or authenticity of the OP or whatever.
Now, I can understand if a parent is withholding physical affection from a child. That is wrong. We know that children thrive off of physical affection and a parent that makes the decision to have a child needs to provide that.
But the idea that parents can run some kind of guilt trip on their children about something that the child has plainly stated causes her distress…yuck. That makes my skin crawl.
I do agree with you Dio that parents desire to hug is a natural thing. The problem is, both parties find the compromise position (child cringingly endures awkward, insincere embrace) emotionally unsatisfying.
Dio, the only one I’m seeing any hostility from is you.
Anyway, I do think that it is normal for a parent to want to touch their child. And that it is something perhaps that the OP should work on. I just disagree with your interpretation which seems to be, “This is abnormal–just deal with it.” I don’t see what’s so out of line about suggesting that both parties make some compromises. They enter therapy, the OP tries to work on her issues, and the parents in the mean time give her some time and space. Do you think that’s a healthy approach?
ETA: I personally never said that the parents need to just suck it up and deal. I think if they want to be happy maybe both parents and child need to compromise and listen to each other.
?!?!?!?!