The Voice of Time wrote:
reasonemotion wrote:but I believe a closeness with an adult is needed for the child to feel safe and loved.
As a philosopher I find this logically absurd. Closeness, both literally and metaphorically are conditions for much more than safeness and lovedness, and you are only lucky if you end up with those two. I think it got more to do with the attitude of the adult, the way all the little things end up being done, than some closeness in general. Lack of closeness does here of course to me not condition a person to lack of emotional growth.
A strong and hearty mother who does not come close
to her child but in all ways manages to make the person able to and successfully accomplish bonding with others, say the mother ends being the prime source of emotional exchange at age 3 and kindergarden becomes a successful successor, this should not impair a persons emotional growth.
Of course this is not an approach I like but nevertheless I object to the indication that an adult is essential or necessary to any greater degree. It may or may not be beneficial but not essential past the first two-three years.
I disagree, there can never be a bonding like parent and child outside the nuclear family. Surrogates just don't cut it! OK, It's like the substitute teacher that doesn't know exactly what page you're on, or just gives you a reading assignment without lecture, etc, sure you can get past it, but there's something missing, that familiar personality. It's like music, I never like a remake anything close to the original, like band members, someone leaves and it's never quite the same band, it's hardly ever better. I had both blood children and a step and even though I really tried to be just as loving to my step son, there was something missing, don't get me wrong, he was never treated as a "red headed step child," but their was an underlying, invisible connection that didn't exist between us, and because of it our relationship was slightly different. I'd say it, not quite as warm. This is in retrospect, mind you, and deals with subtleties. I would have never consciously treated him any different.
Of course this all depends upon the parent. There is a significant difference between a parent that wants and plans a child's arrival as compared to one that accidentally has one as a consequence of a one night stand. Some mothers and fathers want their child more than others, and I'd say that the truly wanted child always fairs better in life, especially with respect to interpersonal relationships. I for instance had I mother that I believed loved me, while I had a father that couldn't give a rats ass. I was a burden that caused him to not have the variety of women that he so desired, as his own mother had the shotgun in her hands at his wedding, either be responsible, marry her, or I'll cut you off, he was 19, my mother was 15, technically I was a bastard. Of course in the end a little piece of paper never really stopped him from getting his variety of women, but he despised me as the reason for his need to sneak around. He was the type to actually compete with his own child. He damaged me both physically and mentally. No, I assure you there is a difference between close relationships, and those kept at arms distance, and it can seriously effect the child.
As to sex and abstinence, I've told young adults, that it's extremely serious business, forget the fact that you can catch an STD that can kill you, that's nothing, that you die, so what, big deal! But the really serious thing, is that you can have a child, now that is SERIOUS!!!!! One has to ensure that they are psychologically and financially prepared for it, because the child's life depends upon it, we're talking about a GREAT responsibility here.
You can say that my little speech is harsh, but I believe it's intended results are the difference between bearing positive loving, thinking, caring humans and cold lifeless, often evil, "take a gun to school and blow everybody away," automatons.
The love and closeness between parent and child is priceless!