I HATE being touched by my parents, but they won't respect that

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@DianaG

Why are only the parents’ feelings important? And why is the touching a “need”?

I never said touching was a “need.”

Why is it preferable to really hurt the feelings of somebody who loves you than to be mildly uncomfortable for a few seconds?

[Contrapuntal]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Why is it preferable to really hurt the feelings of somebody who loves you than to be mildly uncomfortable for a few seconds?

Why do you continue to characterize hating something to the point of distress as being “mildly uncomfortable”? It can’t be because you don’t understand the words.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@panache45

When I was a kid my mother was “normally” affectionate with me, but the only time my father ever touched me was when he was hitting me. He never ever touched anyone, including my mother, affectionately.

You are so lucky to have two parents who want to touch you. It would be such a shame if you finally realize this after they’re gone and it’s too late.<snip>

The value is not only from the giver; it is also in the perception of the recipient. Giving someone something they don’t want doesn’t make them lucky to have it; it usually just makes them annoyed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@DianaG

Refraining from kissing someone who obviously doesn’t care for it won’t fucking kill anybody either.

@NinetyWt

Prioritizing the desire to touch your child above the feelings and needs of your child is self-absorbed. Better?

Why do people keep making up shit I didn’t say?
I never fucking said anybody HAD to allow themselves to be touched.

What I AM saying is that there’s nothing wrong with parents just WANTING to touch their kids, and that a little empathy and understanding wouldn’t kill anybody.

Anmd yes, I will sy this too – parents’ desire to show some physical affection for their kids deserves more sympathy and respect than some childish desire “not to be touched.”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Contrapuntal

Why do you continue to characterize hating something to the point of distress as being “mildly uncomfortable”? It can’t be because you don’t understand the words.

If it’s really causing “distress,” then they have a disorder, and that disorder is their problem, not their parents.

[DianaG]

No, you just implied that they’re rotten people if they don’t.

Have the biggest, boldest, hissyfont you like, but you’re wrong.

Also…

@Diogenes the Cynic

I never said touching was a “need.”

@Diogenes the Cynic

I’m saying that prioritizing the desire to avoid a bit of trivial discomfort above the feelings and needs of those who love you is self-absorbed.

So if the touching isn’t the “need”, what exactly is?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Cat_Whisperer

The value is not only from the giver; it is also in the perception of the recipient. Giving someone something they don’t want doesn’t make them lucky to have it; it usually just makes them annoyed.

Also ungrateful and self-absorbed when that “something” is nothing more than parental affection.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@DianaG

No, you just implied that they’re rotten people if they don’t.

I’ll just say I’m not sympathetic to them.

[Heart_of_Dorkness]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

My problm is with those who are getting bent out of shape when a parent wants to show some honets, well-meaning affection. not some kind of coded hostility.

I’m start to thinkthat maybe all of the examples in this thread are about coded hostility rather than earnest affection, though.

I think you were correct here. I don’t think anyone is getting bent out of shape about honest, well-meaning affection. In the examples people have given, at least as I read them, the parents are choosing to do something that they *know *upsets the child, because they feel that as a parent, their own desires should trump their child’s. I can’t see anything honest or well-meaning in that. If your intent is to show affection, and you know your gesture won’t be received as such, then why do it?

ETA: For example, I love footrubs. My husband hates them. I’ve rubbed his feet in the past, as a show of affection, and he’s told me he doesn’t care for it. So I don’t do it anymore. I have other ways of showing my spousal affection that I know he’ll actually appreciate.

[Contrapuntal]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

If it’s really causing “distress,” then they have a disorder, and that disorder is their problem, not their parents.

So? The OP acknowledged as much. But the fact that it is her problem in no way means that the parents have carte blanche to ignore the problem and insist on touching her anyway.

If I have severe burns on my body that’s my problem. I’ll still scream like hell when you touch me, no matter who you are. If her parents acknowledge that she has a problem and continue to insist on touching her anyway, then they have a problem as well.

[bobkitty]

Let me see if I can put this into a perspective that everyone can agree with.

1. Parents have a biological drive to show physical affection toward their children.

2. Most of the time, this is not an issue.

3. Sometimes the parent hits upon a method of showing physical affection that the child does not appreciate (being petted like a dog, or hugged too hard), in which case:
   a. The child has the right to express their dislike of that particular method and request that it be stopped… and has the right for that request to be honored.
   b. Parents DO NOT have the right to persist ‘just because they can.’
   c. If the parents persist, the child has the right to continue to object, or even withhold affection.

4. Sometimes there are other issues at play (such as in the case of the OP), in which case:
   a. The child should understand/empathize with the desires of the parents and make every effort to show affection in ways that are less anxiety-producing.
   b. The parents should empathize with the desires of the child and shouldn’t physically push themselves on the child.
   c. Everyone should back the hell off until the issues can be worked out.

5. NO ONE has the right to touch someone if they have expressly stated it makes them anxious. They don’t have to be happy about it, they don’t have to agree with it, but they sure as hell don’t have the right to force themselves on an unwilling person.

6. We’re talking about anxiety-provoking response. Not the typical teenage angst of ‘I don’t want people seeing me hug my parents,’ but full-on stress reaction.
   I would like to add one thing.

My problm is with those who are getting bent out of shape when a parent wants to show some honets, well-meaning affection. not some kind of coded hostility.

What if the OP had a medical reason why she didn’t want to be touched- that it was physically severely painful to her, and her parents insisted on hugging her anyway? Should she accept her ‘trivial discomfort’ for the sake of the parents? I would hope not. Yet the parents aren’t necessarily being hostile… they just want to hug their daughter. Some parents don’t know that their honest, well-meaning affection isn’t honest and well-meaning. And no amount of gentle explanation is going to get that across to them.

I don’t think anyone is getting bent out of shape about someone wanting to show affection; I think people are getting a little het up over the idea that, after multiple requests of varying degrees of severity, someone persists in trying to show affection in a way that is not acceptable to the recipient, and the corresponding thought that because they happen to share some DNA the recipient should just suck it up because someday the hugger will be dead and then won’t you be sorry.

[Nzinga_Seated]

Diogenes, what do you mean by sympathy and respect? Because I think we may agree here. I think it wouldn’t hurt the kid to say to the parent, “I do understand your need to express your affection by touching, and I would probably want to hug and kiss my own child, mom, so I get that. However, I have this thing about being touched, nothing personal, and I would appreciate it if you just don’t touch me. I do love you bunches, though.”

Would that be showing enough respect or sympathy? Cause, I think that would be very nice of a kid to say. Would you then agree that the parents should not touch the kid, in that case? Cause it does sound in your screamy post that you are indeed saying that the kid (hypothetical, not Diamonds) shouldn’t have to allow anyone to touch her. In that case, I don’t think I could argue with your position, here.

[Diamonds02]

@panache45

When I was a kid my mother was “normally” affectionate with me, but the only time my father ever touched me was when he was hitting me. He never ever touched anyone, including my mother, affectionately.

You are so lucky to have two parents who want to touch you. It would be such a shame if you finally realize this after they’re gone and it’s too late.

And what’s it going to be like if you ever have kids of your own, and you refuse to touch them? I know, from my own experience, it won’t be good for them.

I’m not crazy about being touched by kids or pets, either. Therefore I do not have them.

I’m not planning on having them in the future. If I do decide, perhaps then I will try to get some help on the issue. Or maybe it won’t even be necessary, the fact there will be no baggage and they will be my kids, I would probably love to be physically affectionate with them anyway.

[BlinkingDuck]

@Vihaga

See, I agree that the OP has the right not to be touched against her will, but I don’t agree with this. She doesn’t want to touch them, but they don’t have to like it.

QFT!

This is what people don’t seem to understand. Yes, you have the right to not have xxx done to you. However, if xxx is not unusual or even expected and your reaction to having xxx is large…I have the right to not like it/consider you a flake.

This rarely pops up for me in my personal life but it does pop up from time to time in my business life. I’m sorry, but if you make clients/coworkers/underlings/superiors feel awkward because of xxx…even though you have the RIGHT…people will consider you a flake and you will suffer career-wise for it.

[Magiver]

@Freudian_Slit

Wait, you think Grapefruit is the one being self absorbed? His/her dad was petting him/her just because he could and then when GF protested, there was a beating? That’s not love, that’s a power struggle.

That’s normal contact between a parent and child. Now if he puts a Dorito on his nose and makes him eat it on command then that’s a different story.

[NinetyWt]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Anmd yes, I will sy this too – parents’ desire to show some physical affection for their kids deserves more sympathy and respect than some childish desire “not to be touched.”

Thank you for the clarification.

[Grapefruit]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This sounds like you have other issus with your dad than the touching

Well, duh. I can’t believe you managed to get through three pages of this thread without realizing that yeah, it’s an issue about controlling behavior. It’s especially mind-boggling that you missed this because the OP said as much.

then that’s not what I’m objecting to

Then stop twisting people’s words around because it’s what people are saying and giving examples of. It’s not about whatever situation you’ve conjured up in your mind. The OP’s situation is NOT about affectionate touching, mine ultimately ended up not being about affectionate touching, and many other people’s experiences posted in this thread were not about the affectionate part of touching. Do you have issues with reading comprehension or are you deliberately obtuse?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Nzinga_Seated

Diogenes, what do you mean by sympathy and respect? Because I think we may agree here. I think it wouldn’t hurt the kid to say to the parent, “I do understand your need to express your affection by touching, and I would probably want to hug and kiss my own child, mom, so I get that. However, I have this thing about being touched, nothing personal, and I would appreciate it if you just don’t touch me. I do love you bunches, though.”

Would that be showing enough respect or sympathy? Cause, I think that would be very nice of a kid to say. Would you then agree that the parents should not touch the kid, in that case? Cause it does sound in your screamy post that you are indeed saying that the kid (hypothetical, not Diamonds) shouldn’t have to allow anyone to touch her. In that case, I don’t think I could argue with your position, here.

Yes. That’s what I’m saying. Just find a way to communicate the discomfort in way that’s still tactful and affirming to the parent. “I love you but…” would be a good start.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Grapefruit

Well, duh. I can’t believe you managed to get through three pages of this thread without realizing that yeah, it’s an issue about controlling behavior. It’s especially mind-boggling that you missed this because the OP said as much.

Then stop twisting people’s words around because it’s what people are saying and giving examples of. It’s not about whatever situation you’ve conjured up in your mind. The OP’s situation is NOT about affectionate touching, mine ultimately ended up not being about affectionate touching, and many other people’s experiences posted in this thread were not about the affectionate part of touching. Do you have issues with reading comprehension or are you deliberately obtuse?

That actually isn’t what either you or the OP said in your intial posts. You both made it sound like the touching, all by itself, was the issue.

[The_Weird_One]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I’m just talking about vilifying them for wanting to. I wish people would quit putting words in posts.

I don’t see anyone vilifying parents for wanting to touch their kids affectionately; I see people vilifying parents who continue to touch their children in ways that the children have specifically asked not to be touched. If the parents’ aim really is to show affection, that’s probably not the way to go about it.