If you could put a protective force field around your child that would protect them from bullets, knives, etc. BUT it would make it that you couldn't hold them or touch them, would you do it?

no,

that theory would only be plausable IF

i had positive foresight that they would be killed...

huggin and kissin my babies isn't just somethin

i do for me, it gives them a sense of belongin.

IF one would opt for the 'pf' just for out of the CHANCE

that somethin may happen, they are/may be prolongin life

but the consequences of not knowin parental love (touchin)

will mess up their ability to build healthy relationships

without havin to have theraputic mental overhaul...

no WAY!!! i feel the same as KingBAD

the kind of person he'd turn out to be without having experienced physical affection would not let him have a life worth living.

However....the person who TRIED to hurt my boy should be praying for such a "protective field"...

[Edited 10/18/13 16:35pm]

i live in australia... no need

No... and not just because of lost physical affection. To be fully human, she also needs to be present in a world where humans experience pain. I certainly wish no harm on my daughter, physical or otherwise, but the most soulless people I know are the ones who've grown up utterly sheltered from everything.

Lammastide said:

Generally no. However, in war times, yes. Besides, I may not be able to touch them, but their Mom could or friends could.

Nope.

Humans being humans, they would probably grow to HATE you for denying them physical touch (especially since it's such an essential part of human development & behavior).

Somewhat related: I read an article a year or so ago, where they studied the current trend of "childproofing" playgrounds. Everything is made "safe" - we try and spare kids from falling down and getting hurt. They get a scrape on a knee and it's an E.R. visit.

The result is that children lose the ability to develop a sense of danger.

I'm probably oversimplifying the article, but that's the gist of it.

Humans need to experience life.

MoBetterBliss said:

i live in australia... no need

[img:$uid]http://www.best-horror-movies.com/image-files/the-snowtown-murders-2012-movie-poster.jpg[/img:$uid]

McJagger said:

If you could put a protective force field around your child that would protect them from bullets, knives, etc. BUT it would make it that you couldn't hold them or touch them, would you do it?

Would it keep their farts in? Then I might.

morningsong said:

Human beings need to be touched. A high school teacher told us a story about some orphaned babies who were barely touched beyond feeding and changing, that was some decades ago, I don't even know if it's true but it has stuck in my head up to now and it would be in my head as I held my children as they grew.

I'm supposing the OP is regarding older children but I don't understand why something that so essential to one as an infant isn't essential in a growing child. So I felt a little motivated to Google again, and again the first wordings yielded nothing, and then poof I find the magic word combination and found something. Looks like my 10th grade History teacher wasn't overexaggerating.

Here's why. As we discuss in our book, Born for Love: Why Empathy Is Essential -- and Endangered, about 1/3 of babies placed in the barest orphanages can actually die as a result (one very early study found this death rate)...

...

In fact, "failure to thrive" in human infants has been shown to result from lack of individualized, nurturing, physically affectionate parental care, whether in an orphanage or due to extreme parental neglect. Babies' brains expect that they will experience nearly constant physical touch, rocking and cuddling: without it, they just don't grow. And without receiving kind empathetic care, they are less likely to behave that way towards others as they get older.

http://www.huffingtonpost...49608.html

Touch/hugs are important for the health of young and old.

http://marketingmama.com/on-hugs-and-physical-contact

Challenging if you are living on your own, however...

So in essence you are doing severe damage trying to be over-protective.

Is this an option?

SquirrelMeat said:

McJagger said:

If you could put a protective force field around your child that would protect them from bullets, knives, etc. BUT it would make it that you couldn't hold them or touch them, would you do it?

Would it keep their farts in? Then I might.

FormerlyKnownAs said:

Is this an option?