Torej ena debata za vikend. Kako ste z izkazovanjem naklonjenosti/ljubezni do partnerja v publiki? Držanje za roke, objemi, poljubi, vam je to pomembno?
Ste odprti do tega ali bolj zadržani?
Kako vidite druge, ki to prakticirajo?
There tends to be a widespread belief that neglect requires the absence of food, shelter, or physical care. This misunderstanding is sometimes shared even by people who experienced emotional neglect themselves. They compare their childhoods to more obvious forms of abuse or deprivation and conclude that their own experiences were not serious enough to count as neglect. Yet a child's emotional needs can go unmet even when every physical need is consistently provided for. Because this form of neglect leaves no tangible evidence, many people do not recognize its impact until adulthood, when they begin to wonder why certain emotional struggles persist despite having what appeared to be a stable childhood.
Because young children depend on their caregivers not only for survival but also for understanding, they rarely conclude that something essential is missing from the care they receive. Instead, they are often more likely to assume that something is wrong with themselves. The child cannot easily step outside the relationship and evaluate whether their emotional needs are being met. Their caregivers are the people from whom they expect to learn what their feelings mean, whether their needs are acceptable, and how relationships are supposed to work.
It is often not until adulthood that people begin to sense that something is not quite right. They may struggle with emotional regulation, relationships, self-worth, or a persistent feeling that something is missing. They may notice recurring patterns in the way they think, feel, and relate to others without understanding why those patterns keep repeating. Without recognizing the role emotional neglect may have played, the source of these difficulties can remain hidden.
Emotional neglect is not defined by the absence of physical care. It is defined by a persistent lack of emotional responsiveness. Unlike physical abuse, which is often defined by what physically happened to the child, emotional neglect is largely defined by what was consistently left out. It can consist of countless moments in which a child's emotions were not noticed, understood, or responded to. Because there is rarely a single defining event that clearly demonstrates what happened, the cumulative impact can be difficult to recognize.
A child requires much more than food, shelter, and protection to develop in a healthy way. They also need caregivers who are emotionally available, interested in their inner experiences, and willing to help them understand and regulate emotions they are born with but do not yet have the capacity to understand on their own. Providing for a child is therefore about more than keeping them safe and physically cared for. It also means being emotionally present enough for the child to borrow their caregiver's emotional maturity as they learn to make sense of their own complex inner experiences. Through this process, the child gradually learns that their emotions are understandable, manageable, and safe to bring into a relationship, while also experiencing that they are wanted, valued, and worth their caregiver's attention. A child does not simply need someone to maintain their physical existence; they need a relationship with the people caring for them. When that emotional relationship is consistently neglected, important aspects of emotional development may be affected even while every physical need is being met.
Emotional responsiveness does not require caregivers to be perfect or to always know the right thing to say. Every parent misunderstands their child at times, becomes stressed, loses patience, or responds imperfectly. A single missed opportunity for connection is not emotional neglect. What matters is the pattern over time: whether the child's emotional world is generally noticed, taken seriously, and responded to with sufficient care and curiosity. When emotional needs are repeatedly overlooked, a child may gradually come to feel unseen, unwanted, or like a burden in their parents' lives.
Often, what children need in these moments is surprisingly simple. A child who comes home upset after school does not necessarily need the problem to be solved. They may simply need a caregiver to notice their distress and ask what happened, or even just sit beside them in silence, allowing the child to feel that they are not alone with what they are experiencing. A child who is excited about something often benefits when a caregiver shares in that excitement for a moment. And when a child's excitement is not met with enthusiasm, it is important that it does not become something they feel guilty for expressing. A disappointed child does not necessarily need reassurance that everything will be okay. Sometimes they simply need to hear, "I understand why that feels disappointing."
These ordinary interactions help children experience both themselves and the overwhelming emotions inside them as seen and understood rather than as something their caregiver needs to escape, suppress, or fix. Just as importantly, the caregiver's ability to remain present in the face of the child's emotions communicates something deeper: I am not overwhelmed by your emotions. Your emotions are safe in my presence.
Over time, experiences like these help children learn that difficult emotions can be tolerated without becoming dangerous, shameful, or destructive. They learn that they can bring their inner experiences into a relationship without losing connection. Eventually, the caregiver's capacity to remain calm and present becomes something the child can begin to internalize and use for themselves. In this way, emotional responsiveness does not merely make a child feel understood in the moment. It helps teach them how to be with their own emotions.
This helps explain why emotional neglect is so often overlooked. Because the child can clearly see that their basic needs were provided for, they may struggle to recognize that they experienced neglect at all. They compare their upbringing to situations involving obvious abuse, violence, or severe deprivation and conclude that they have no right to describe their own experiences as neglect. They may think, "Other people had it much worse," or "I had food, clothes, and a home," or "My parents were under a lot of stress, and I understand why they didn't have much time for me."
These explanations may be completely understandable and even true. A parent can have legitimate reasons for being emotionally unavailable without intending to neglect their child. They may have been overwhelmed, emotionally limited themselves, or simply lacked the knowledge and capacity to provide the kind of responsiveness their child needed. Understanding why something happened, however, does not change what the child experienced. A caregiver's intentions and circumstances matter, but they do not erase the developmental effects of a persistent lack of emotional responsiveness.
As a result, many people begin invalidating their own experiences long before anyone else has the opportunity to do so. Rather than asking whether their emotional needs were consistently met, they judge their childhood according to visible standards: food, shelter, clothing, education, and physical safety. If those standards were met, they may assume that their emotional difficulties must be caused by something else, or that they are simply overreacting or being too sensitive.
Many adults who experienced emotional neglect therefore spend years questioning whether they have the right to describe their childhood in those terms. They may feel guilty even considering the possibility because they know their caregivers worked hard, loved them in the ways they knew how, provided for them physically, and genuinely did the best they could with what they had been given. But acknowledging those realities does not require the child to dismiss what was missing. A parent can have done their best and still have been unable to meet important emotional needs. The child is not responsible for filling in the gaps left by that limitation.
This is why a more useful question is not, "Was my childhood bad enough?" It is, "Were my emotional needs consistently recognized, understood, and responded to?" That question shifts attention away from comparison and toward development.
Recognizing what was missing can then lead to more constructive questions: What did I miss out on? What does healthy emotional development actually look like? What did I need to learn from my caregivers that I may not have learned back then? And how can I begin modeling some of those experiences for myself now as an adult?
Recognizing emotional neglect does not diminish the suffering of people who experienced more visible forms of abuse or deprivation. Different forms of neglect and abuse can exist simultaneously, and one person's experience does not invalidate another's. Emotional neglect is not measured by how well a child's physical needs were met, nor by how severe their childhood was compared with someone else's. It is about whether important emotional needs were consistently left unmet.
Recognizing emotional neglect is also not about assigning blame on anyone or deciding whose childhood was worse. It is about understanding an individual's developmental experience and identifying what may have been missing. Naming that absence can provide a framework for experiences that previously felt confusing or difficult to explain. It cannot change the past, but it can change how a person understands themselves and what they need now.
A person does not have to prove that their suffering was the greatest in order to acknowledge that something important was missing.
Kako danes gledate na to, da moški pristopi do dekleta, ki ga ne pozna, ker mu je simpatično? Recimo nekje v mestu, trgovini, kavarni, klubu, na kakšnem dogodku itd. Ne mislim nekega vsiljivega osvajanja ali teženja, ampak normalen pristop par besed in če vidiš da ni interesa greš dalje.
Par mesecev sem bral precej tujih Reddit postov na to temo in se mi je zdelo zanimivo, kako zelo različni so bili odzivi. Ene so pisale, da jim je čisto ok oziroma celo všeč, če normalno pristopi. Druge pa, da jih že sam pristop neznanca spravi v neprijeten položaj oziroma da tega sploh ne želijo in da naj tega niti ne poskušajo.
Seveda razumem, da je precej odvisno tudi od situacije. Če ima nekdo slušalke, očitno hiti, dela oz. je sam nekje ponoči itd., verjetno ni ravno primeren trenutek. Prav tako se mi zdi samoumevno da če dekle pokaže da ni zainteresirano to sprejmeš in ne vztrajaš.
Ampak ravno zato me zanima, kje je danes neka meja. Se vam zdi normalen, spoštljiv pristop v živo še vedno čisto ok ali bi raje, da sploh ne pristopi, če se prej ne poznata oziroma ni že nekega jasnega signala z njene strani?
Dekleta: kako se ve počutite, ko do vas pristopi neznan moški? Je pomembno predvsem, kako pristopi, ali vas že sam pristop moti?
Moški pa: ali danes sploh še pristopate do deklet v živo ali imate občutek, da jih je bolje pustiti pri miru?
Zanimiv clanek.
Nekaj stvari mi je padlo v oci - misel da zaradi bolj tehnoloskega/virtualenga zivljenskega stila ljudje ne znajo vec tako dobro brat body language in na sploh komunicirat v realnem svetu.
In pa da je nek poljub za zenske bolj povezan z
mislimi riskantnosti in odgovornosti (ce je pravi partner, prejsnje travme, skrb ali je partner emocionalno zrel itd, torej nek pogled naprej), pri moskih pa bolj “validation” oz nekaj kar se steje kot nek dosezek, istocasno pa zelo malo oz nic nekega pogleda v prihodnost, misli na to ali je partner kompatibilen, emocionalno zreh, itd.
Ta missmatch se mi zdi da je tudi kontributor za situacijo kakersna je.
Thoughts?
Predstavljaj si, da se na Tinderju pogovarjaš s potencialno punco, pa ti ona napiše, da lahko pride na zmenek, ampak samo če lahko s sabo pripelje še eno kolegico. Kaj bi naredili v takem primeru?
Se je komu od vas že kdaj zgodilo kaj podobnega?
Se še komu zdi, da je ghostanje v zadnjih letih postalo nenormalno pogosto, tudi med prijatelji?
Ste že doživeli, da vas je nekdo, ki vam je bil zelo blizu, preprosto nehal kontaktirati brez kakršnegakoli zaključka? Kako ste se s tem soočili?
Zanima me tudi druga stran: če ste kdaj vi koga ghostali – zakaj? Je šlo za izogibanje konfliktu, jezo, prizadetost, nelagodje ali kaj drugega?
Meni osebno je veliko težje sprejeti tišino brez epiloga kot pa iskren »tega odnosa ne želim več«. Zakaj mislite, da je ghostanje postalo tako normalizirano?