Well, of course. But if that person didn’t extend his or her hand, maybe explaining that in their culture, they don’t shake hands with the opposite sex, (Some strict Orthodox Jews, for example, I believe cannot touch a person of the opposite sex), or if they say, “Hey, I have a cold,” you wouldn’t grab their hand and shake it anyways, right?
And I know it sounds far-fetched, but considering how paranoid people are these days when it comes to kids and strange adults, I’m not taking any chances.
I see the point about not keeping kids/babies in a bubble–and I agree with it, to a point. But really, it is not a civic duty to give a baby a cold.
WhyBaby is exposed to all manner of germs just by being in the store–why push the envelope? I was not comfortable with my babies being touched etc until they were about 3 months old–no rational reason, just I felt they were very young and vulnerable(lack of head control probably had alot to do with it). Grocery carts are as dirty as money–there is no risk of not challenging the immune system, even if you wipe off the handle with a wetwipe.
How much “immune challenge” is enough or too much? We don’t know, since every scenario and infant is different, so it’s a decision for the parent. IOW, ASK before you handle a baby.
IMO, you should be asking first anyway–common courtesy and also Baby may be infectious (these things do go both ways).
I look at all new moms as lionesses–and I don’t mess with 'em. If Mama looks non-stressed, Baby is awake and not fussy, I may coo etc. But, having been there, I respect Mama’s personal space, and Baby’s, too.
WhyNot, your baby is adorable (the face she’s making in the second picture is priceless).
My mom once told me about the first time she and my dad took me out to a store as a baby- an elderly woman tried to touch me. My mom said my dad practically growled at her.
Get that H.G. Wells bullshit outta here! 
I totally agree.
-Wolfian, who rarely uses soap when washing his hands
First you go get one of these and then as soon as someone reaches for little one simply clasp baby to chest announce that she bites. Hard.
Though I have no children, I do have this issue with my dogs who do not like children. I guess that’s where I came up with the above solution. Hmm…maybe it won’t work afterall.
How about asking if they’d rather hold your hand instead? 
Trunk, brickbacon and GingeroftheNorth. I’m not out of line. I’m blunt. I’m definitely not factually wrong. If you’re a woman who has unprotected sex and end up with an unplanned pregnancy, that demonstrably proves you didn’t care enough about sperm or germs at the time of conception to safeguard against the two major risks of having sex. Based on what I’ve witnessed about the level of attentiveness of 16, 17-18 year old unwed mothers with regard to their children’s grooming, hygiene and general cleanliness of their homes, play areas and clothes, I don’t think I’m THAT off the mark generalizing on their general lack of concern for germs after the nativity, either. As Wolfian points out, that may not necessarily be a bad thing when it comes to building up your child’s immune system, but in terms of your own sexual health, it’s stupid behavior.
I wouldn’t mind someone touching my baby if they ask. If you have problems with it, maybe you can do it this way:
Freindly stranger: How precious, can I hold her?
Germophobe Mom: Sure, but here, use a wipe…she’s kind of sensitive…
I have the opposite problem. People are always making me hold their babies, as soon as they meet me. I spend have my time at funerals, weddings and other gatherings, trying to unload other people’s kids. I’ve been pooped on, peed on, spit up on, and snotted on within minutes of my arrival.
I’ve re-read the OP, Askia, and I don’t see any indication of how old the woman is, or if she is wearing a wedding ring. You are making some pretty big assumptions.
Susan
(bolding mine)
Waving and cooing and making faces I’m cool with, but I might have a problem with someone gigging my baby.
Susan. Heh. Can we call them “big-assed” assumptions? Also I’m not writing about any specific woman. I was commenting on the touchy-feely community of young black mothers in general and their tagalong friends, and editorializing on the stupidity of unprotected sex.
Why did you assume that the young african-american mothers were unmarried, 16 or 17 year olds who had sex with any Tom, Dick, or Harry who asked?
Why couldn’t they be young, 20 something african-american mothers who were married to their baby’s father - their one and only sexual partner?
You were TOTALLY out of line.
It’s not a black thing or a hispanic thing. White people used to coochie-coochie-coo babies too you know. IMHO it’s the last couple of generations of suburban parents who are just insanely overprotective. I pass by an elementary school on my way to work and am completely horrified - all these children are being driven or escorted to school. WTF is going on with these parents that they can’t let their children walk on their own?
I’m a million percent with weirddave. And I’ll go further - I think you people have serious ISSUES. Jesus, babies are made to interact with their environment and with strangers too, believe it or not. Humans interact with babies through touch. It’s natural. Get over it. Your children are going to be afraid of EVERYTHING by the time you’re done with them. They’re going to think every stranger is a potential sex offender or disease carrier or God knows what.
You are both out of line and factually wrong. First let’s look at what you actual said instead of the argument you are making now.
You didn’t say the average un-wed teenage mother who had an unplanned pregnancy, you said average young black woman. I don’t think the “average young black woman allows herself to have unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy”. Unless you have a cite that says most black woman are doing that, they you are factually wrong. In addition, the OP never mentioned anything about the people touching her baby that would allow you to conclude that they are like the women you described.
Plus, it is illogical to assume someone who doesn’t take health precautions in one area will not do so in another. It’s like saying someone who cheats on his taxes or in sports will also cheat on his wife/girlfriend. Just because some people may decide to have unprotected sex, doesn’t mean they don’t care about germs or cleanliness in their daily life.
Another issue that hasn’t been raised: The average mother of a newborn has spent several months having her personal space invaded by complete strangers who reach out to touch her round tummy! She’s sleepless, cranky, and, when in public, desperately trying to accomplish something important before dealing with another messy diaper/feeding/naptime/etc. Reaching a hand toward this woman is likely to provoke a baaad reaction! (So says RunAmok, mother of four.)
I don’t know how much of the “touching babies” is cultural, though: My grandma never could resist touching little ones either, and she was as white as it’s possible to be without albinoism (is that a word?). However, I did finally convince her that, if she couldn’t resist touching, to touch the tops of their heads – one bit of the newborn body that doesn’t easily “contaminate” other bits. Personally, I can’t resist babies either, but I just smile, make faces, and play peek-a-boo with random strangers’ kids.
**alice_in_wonderland. ** Okay. YOU are reading into my post motivations and attitudes that simply aren’t there.
brickbacon. Okay. YOU should know ME better. Also, you left out the word “if” --which indicated a specific hypothetical group – admittedly only inferred to be a subset of all young African-American women. So I can see how someone unfamiliar with me might assume I’m calling them all the girls in WhyNot’s OP pregnant hoochies, but, brick, bruh, I thought you knew me better than that.
Secondly, my post was about this specfic subset’s attitudes towards unprotected sex, not that the whole of young African-American womanhood is out there screwing anybody indiscriminately without sexual protection, as you and alice_in_wonderland (and others) seem to think I think.
We’re not talking about “some people.” We’re talking sexually active young teenagers, most of whom are either so dumb or so convinced of their immortality they don’t take sexually transmitted diseases seriously.
No, I don’t have a cite and don’t care to look for one, either. Maybe it is prejudiced of me to think this, but I listen to my gut. My gut tells me it’s pretty likely that young teenage girls who don’t take simple precautions in sex to prevent pregnancy and safeguard themselves from disease are going to have a pretty lackadasical attitude towards germs in general. It’s not illogical. It’s an indicator. It’s a like saying a man who cheats on his wife isn’t too concerned with fidelity and devotion and may well also cheat on his mistress.
Also: many inexperienced and unprepared young mothers can start off with the best intentions about keeping their baby clean, but frankly, their immediate support groups are going to be 1) their own mothers, faced with being a grandmother and with having another mouth to feed and 2) their dippy little teenage girlfriends. Rarely with the father or the father’s family be involved. There will financial and relationship tensions that are more immediate than the prospect of their kid catching a disease. Now: I have have seen them on the subways and buses, I have been a guest to their houses, I gave them my furniture free when I moved, I have had them volunteer in my classes, I have counselled them in getting jobs and revising their resumes and some have been the parents of my students and one of my sisters is one, so I THINK I can say with some authority: their babies catching germs from strangers, or their giving germs to babies they encounter out in the street, is not an immediate concern with most young African-American mothers.
(Sorry this went so long without a reply - we were at the pediatrician’s office.)
Weirddave, Icarus, Trunk, Wolfian, An Arky, uglybeech, I am the farthest thing from a germophobe. Look back at my posting history and see the statements I have firmly and consistently made against anti-bacterial items around the house, compulsive handwashing and mandatory vaccination. (OK, maybe I haven’t been vocal about that last one, but yeah, I’m against it.) You’re right, babies need to be exposed to germs to develop an immune system. That doesn’t mean they need to visit the polio ward, the leprosy camp and the consumption wing all before they’re six months old. SOME controlled exposure to SOME innocuous bacteria is a good thing. But dammit, I’m the only one who has her medical history, knows how challenged she’s been already this week, and knows whether or not she’s just gotten over something nasty. Why should YOU (I’m speaking in the general “you” here) have the right to decide when to expose my child to your germs? I’m not talking casual walking by and breathing or touching the same store shelf exposure, but skin to skin and snotty nosed mucus on fingers exposure. The two are incrementally different.
She is not immuno-compromised. There are far sicker babies out there than she is. I’ve been encouraged by her doctor to treat her as a one month old baby, which means taking her to a grocery store occasionally, letting my friends and family hold her and play with her - but not to let anyone with obvious illness or recent illness touch her quite yet. She’s still a functional newborn. Since I can’t tell from looking at folk’s whether or not they’ve been sick recently, and it’s obvious from reading this thread that other people can’t be trusted not to touch her if they’ve been sick, than I have every right to be filled with grr when people touch her without asking first.
I have always put my hand inside a plastic bag to fetch out unwrapped produce, and I wish more people did the same. But it keeps my hands as clean as the plastic. Likewise, at this age, I do not put her in a grocery cart or let her chew on my keys or wallet. When she’s older, I will. When she’s older, more and more of an immune challenge will be a good thing. But when that is is my decision to make with the aid of her doctor.
Besides, even I don’t have to touch her much until we get to the car, so my hands being dirty with other people’s germs or not is irrelevant. She sits in her sling until I plunk her in the carseat and then we go home and wash up.
It was clearly stated in the OP: “She’s a premie! I told you that already when you first asked me how old she is!” and “Everyone asks how old she is, because she seems too little to be out and about.” Every single person I’m ranting about knew she was a premie.
It certainly won’t build up an immunity to those pathogens, but it’s still questionable whether or not that’s really a problem. I tend to think it is, and that it’s responsible for our current rash of auto-immune disorders, but let’s not kid ourselves - that’s still just an unproven theory.
I have no problem with this. Read the title: “WTF? Don’t touch my baby without asking!” I love it when people want to play with her - but fucking well ask first, goddammit! I will choose who I want to offer her a dose of germs, when and for how long.
Do you make sure to get a good handful of snot first? Do you grab their hand from the side of their body to shake it and then chuck their chin with your forefinger? Do you rub their arm and poke their cute little nose? Do you pinch their cheeks and run your dirty finger over their lips? No, I didn’t think so. A consentual handshake is in no way analagous to the behavior I’m talking about. (All of these were attempted by various people before I could step back and get her away from them.)
Fuck. You. You have no idea what we’ve been through with this baby, what her doctor’s told us to do or how much of an immune challenge she can handle right now. I interact with my baby through touch. So does my husband, my son, my mother, my girlfriends, my grandmother, my uncle and anyone else who asks me first and washes their hands.
Are you a pediatrician? Are you my daughter’s pediatrician? 'Cause she and my husband are the only ones besides me who gets a say in the medical care of this little baby.
Whether or not touching strange people without their consent is “natural,” is besides the point. We do lots of things that aren’t natural because they work better in our very unnatural environments (wearing clothes and seatbelts, for example.) The fucking fact of the matter is that this sort of behavior shown to an adult without consent would be inconceivable.
For anyone out there claiming they didn’t know premies are more susceptible for their first few months or that gallons of immune challenges all in one day aren’t a good thing for a newborn baby - well, now you know. Be a decent human being like **elanorigby **and simply say “Oops! I did not know that. Won’t be doing that again!”
Psst–I think you’re thinking of chatelaine–not me, but you go!
uglybeech-
It is NOT neurotic to be concerned about a newborn’s or premie’s exposure to germs. It IS neurotic to keep that level of anxiety up for all childhood. Comparing strangers who want to coochie-coo a baby to sex offenders is just plain weird. Way to generalize.
Exposure to bugs is all well and good, but only up to a point.
For example, for you and I, Respiratory Syncitial Virus will cause a bit of a runny nose for a day or two, if that. For an infant (even a perfectly healthy one of normal gestation) it can cause bronchiolitis. It’s a lower respiratory tract infection, and is common in babies under 12months old.
About 10% of babies (again, normal, healthy babies) with bronchiolitis will need hospital admission and may require oxygen therapy. About 1% of babies with bronchiolitis will be sick enough to need intubation and ventilation.
If you don’t wash your hands before you touch a baby, or touch a baby while you have a cold, or have been in contact with someone who has had a cold, you are not doing that baby any favours. Don’t kid yourselves that you are.
Oops, you’re right. I’m sorry, chatelaine!
But you’re a pretty decent human being yourself, elanorigby.
As for the RSV **irishgirl **is talking about, we’re spending $700 each month from September to March for immunizations against RSV. That little sniffle you have WILL land her back in intensive care, no questions asked, without those immunizations. The APA strongly recommends that all premies get them for the first two years of life during RSV season.
[grumble]“Natural,” my ass. If it was all “natural,” I’d have a dead baby right now. There’s nothing “natural” about being born four months early and living. [/grumble]