to ask people not to touch toddlers not related to them?

[evalyn]

Out yesterday with DGC. DGC walking, within grabbing distance, but not holding hands. Middle aged woman, 'Aah, gorgeous!', gently ruffles DGC's hair, smiles broadly at me. DGC shrinks away. I say to this woman, 'Yes, but you shouldn't touch, please.' Woman sniffs, nose in air, walks off in huff.

AIBU to think that even 2-year-olds have the right not to be touched at all, however affectionately, by strangers? And to be really annoyed that this woman thinks she has the right to ruffle my DGC's hair like that?

What is the OED's definition of "touching up" I wonder?

Or, for that matter, "reasoned argument". I'm willing to bet the word "evalyn" won't appear in the definition

I Was patted on the arm and told I was a good girl by an older gentleman

It was in a shop a week ago and I am 45!!!!!!!!

And I manged not to be rude to him

"How personally challenging it seems to be for some of you to have well-entrenched prejudices questioned. Strange reactions here" you said it!! But see how well it could describe you

And in the interests of full disclosure I wouldn't touch a strange child, unless it was to steady them or stop me from knocking them over

Actually, OP, 99.99% of children cannot carry a tune until they are at least 8 years old. She probably does recognise the tune, but if you are not a great whistler, she probably knows which song it is because that is the one you always whistle - repetition is a great teacher. And yes, as a musician, i know that Tipperary and Pack up your Troubles can be sung together.

I am really disturbed by you saying that this person was 'touching up' your DGC. I honestly feel that you have a deep-seated problem with touch and i really hope that you do not pass on your own problems to the DGC. How do her parents feel about touching? I suspect your own DC also have problems with touching, which is very sad.

The moral to take from it is that if you are unshakably certain in your views don't bother asking for honest opinions.

Page, don't kiss the op or she will call child line.

"touching up" Evalyn, is that how you see it. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

I wonder how the musical prodigees mum reacted when Granny announced that the child was 'touched up' during an outing.

I'm suspecting the op is having a bit of a laugh here.

I wish, nicename. For that poor child's sake, I really wish that was true. Sadly, no sense of humour has been displayed.

I hope whichever of DGs parents that is not related to OP has a more balanced world view and manages to counteract this nonsense or the child is going to be really screwed up thinking a hand on the head is "touching up."

Still reeling that anybody could possibly equate the two things. Its possibly the most unreasonable thing I've ever read on AIBU because it is just so warped.

touch up 1 give finishing touches to or retouch (a picture, writing etc).
2 Brit slang a caress so as to excite sexually. b sexually molest.
3 strike (a horse) lightly with a whip.
So which of those did you mean OP?
I notice that you haven't replied to any of MrsdeVere's posts who has summed up the whole argument for me eloquently and movingly without resorting to verbosity which, has been pointed out, is not the same as intellect. You're not a moral philosopher, you come across as extremely smug and very rude. People disagreeing with you is not the same as them abusing you.

Maybe the ops first language isn't English?

'Touching up' vs 'touching'. How is a child to know the difference? This was one reason I thought strangers shouldn't touch children.

(To get retaliation in early, so to speak, no I'm not assimilating what that woman did to DGC with sexual abuse, although I fully expect to read the accusation that I am fairly soon.)

But is the acceptability of touching a child you don't know in this way to depend on your thoughts as you did so? Urgh. Surely not. So perhaps, as I've been suggesting, we might allow children the same autonomy over their bodies as we require for ourselves and other adults?

It's interesting how talk of children's autonomy in such cases mirrors fairly closely much recent discussion of low-level sexual harassment, everyday sexism and the bodily autonomy of girls and women. I wonder if anyone noticed that?

(More early retaliation. If you're tempted to think and/or post along the lines of 'evalyn thinks that affectionately ruffling a child's hair is the same as sexual harassment', think again. I don't think that. I haven't said that. You are only so tempted because you mistake how discussion and argument work.)

(What's the weather like where you are, ilovesooty?)

Re the purpose of AIBU threads. I'd thought I might find a discussion useful. I was aware some people don't agree with me and wanted some explanation of why. I could be wrong, after all; and a discussion might help me assess my own thoughts. Epic fail. I now realise MN AIBU doesn't work like that. A discussion, those of you who don't know, goes something like this:
A: 'x'
B: 'no, not-x because p, q, r ...'
A: 'But have you thought, regarding p, that a ... or that if you think q then you'll have to accept y ... '
B: 'Maybe, but for your part, have you noticed that your a contradicts something else you've said...'

... And so on. Get the idea? I actually think that works much better than
A: 'x'
B: 'I feel so sorry for you and your family if you think x, A'
A: 'But why? Have you never thought that z, which entails x?'
C, D ... 'What a crazy dark place A lives. She's bonkers, isn't she?'
B: 'Yes. fancy thinking x!'
A: 'But ...'
... And so on.

OK, I learned.

This (the whole thread) has gone on long enough. Just to answer Redhead11, though (this childhood musical thing has independent interest, at least for me). I suspect your '99.99%' is an exaggeration, though you may well be right in more general terms. Many children (and some adults!) can't carry a tune at all. This DGC certainly can, though. And she can recognise a tune I whistle at random from the several dozen in our joint repertoire. ( She's chuffed to be able to do that, it's always clear.) Maybe I give unconscious cues, but I can't see how. She did, excitedly, tell her DM when we got back from the local Cenotaph that day that the band had played 'Pack Up Your Troubles', and proceeded to sing it, along with 'Tipperary'. I don't think this is a particularly exceptional talent - I suspect it comes from being sung to consistently - and repetitively, you're so right about that - from a very young age. Ime, children love music of all sorts, and can't get enough.

Thinking of which, I offer you all what seems to me a nice thought to end my last post on this thread. Not the least delight of being a GP comes when you hear your DC sing to their DC the songs you and DP sang to them when they were small. Being a GP is just delightful in so many ways like this. Thinking of that cheers me up and stops me being brought low by the vituperation and sheer nastiness I've come across here on MN AIBU.

Best wishes to you all!

I wouldn't reach out and touch a baby or toddler. It can be tempting but I do think it is disrespectful of the child. I think it is nice to greet them but not touch until they "ask", reach arms out etc.

That is not true redhead. Many children I work with sing beautifully, especially those who also sing and home and at church.

Does the last set of ramblings mean she's finally gone?

Let's hope so Chenjin. OP, if you're still reading, I suggest you google "delusions of grandeur".
In her defence, she doesn't sound quite as bonkers as the OP who went on a boating holiday and was apoplectic that total strangers had the audacity to try to talk to her DCs (who were teenagers as I recall). She was seriously considering taking a picture of anyone she spotted talking to her Dcs and genuinely saw nothing wrong with this as they wouldn't mind if they had nothing to hide

Hmmm. I think she's gone. But nonetheless, AIBU can be a place for discussion, but mostly people draw on their own experiences or preferences...hence the responses you will expect to get here. Saying "I don't believe that X is appropriate, AIBU?" Surely invites a lot of "well i think it's totally normal and welcome that kind of affection" is surely reason enough? Not sure how much justification OP is looking for but not everyone dissects their beliefs in the same manner.

I think the discussion didn't happen mostly because you posted and then bugger off.

I also think what you're saying - with lots more words thrown in - is that abuse is in the mind of the person reaching out to touch a child and how's a child to know someone else mind.
Or indeed how are we to know anyone else's mind?

We don't know, is the answer.

But we don't generally see ruffled hair as touching up.

And again, most abuse happens in domestic setting and is carried out by family and friends.

And no, I'm never going near a child again for fear of being shouted at or worse.
Let the parents watch them.

Hmm, well that would all be fair enough if it actually were a fair representation of the thread. It isn't though. There have been rude comments but actually substantial proportions of the thread are perfectly reasonable explanations of why people feel social contact is important and why they see your stance as wrong and damaging.
But you chose to see those all as abuse and aggression.

It's all a bit odd. You see physical warmth as hostile and equate it to 'touching up' with all the sexual connotations that that entails.
You see disagreement as abuse. You see anyone who disagrees with you as less than you and incapable of argument.

It might have been useful to shine a light on why you feel anything outside your personal wishes is aggressive and damaging. But you are just determined to be right and put upon.
< big old meanie>

A child is taught the difference between the two by its parents, OP. I would have thought that was obvious.
Kind gesture from passerby = fine but inappropriate touching from uncle X is not. You do know that most abuse happens within families not from strangers, don't you?
And most of the nastiness and vituperation comes from your posts. If you were seeking some sort of affirmation that you acted in a reasonable manner, I hope you can understand that most posters find you not only unreasonable but intractable and many also feel pity for your GC due to the inhibitions you are helping to impose upon her.

Personally, I wouldn't touch a small child that I walked past in the street unless they were running towards the pavement as 2 year olds are quite liable to do.
However, I think your reaction was much more over the top and strange than the woman's affectionate ruffling of your grand child's hair. I understand why you are trying to protect them but actually you are teaching them all sorts of negative things too.

Goodness. As a mother of a couple of dried up old children (8 and 12), this really makes me sad. I strongly feel the urge to pinch the cheeks/ruffle the hair of every single toddler I see.

I guess I should probably carrying on suppressing this unholy urge.

I know TheLovelyBoots, the window of hair ruffling/cheek pinching is so short. it breaks my heart when I see adults cross the road when my 14 year old DS and his friends are walking towards them because they're convinced they're going to get mugged.

It's so sad that this poor child is being taught to be afraid, while granny doesn't even bother to hold her hand, thinking that being within grabbing range is sufficient. Because children never ever bolt unexpectedly, do they?

Mixed up priorities here. Concentrating on non-existant threat from friendly passer-by while failing to ensure basic safety by holding tot's wee hand. That's just weird.

I've heard it all now, 'touching up' to describe ruffling a child's hair, that is the OP's definition of a 'reasoned argument?

Crikey, and I though I could waffle.

Do you often find this happens when you attempt to elicit a discussion?
That you find yourself surrounded by people of much lesser intelligence who mistake how discussion and argument work?

I can imagine it must be a rather tiresome occupational hazard.