Infant and Child Sexuality: A Sociological Perspective - Ipce

(Korner, 1973). The male infant has greater muscular strength at birth,
but the female is in no way less active or expressive. On the other
hand, the female infant from birth shows more oral sensitivity, engages
in more frequent mouth dominated approaches, and is a more frequent
and more persistent thumb sucker. Newborn females also exhibit
greater cutaneous sensitivity than do males.
Parents also treat male and female infants differently right from
the start, hence there is constant parental reinforcement not only of
innate differences but also of differences in what society regards as
gender-appropriate behavior. In other words, the infant’s unique male
or female characteristics, as well as cultural expectations, may affect
the nature of parent-infant interaction from the day of birth and
onward. Moss (Segal, 1971) found, for instance, that mothers had significantly
more contact with infant boys than girls on such variables
as “attends” and “stimulates-arouses.”
Infants can also be divided into two categories based on the extent
to which they seek close personal contacts--non-cuddlers and cuddlers.
(Schaffer and Emerson, 1964b). Non-cuddlers reach this
developmental stage somewhat later than do cuddlers.
Non-cuddlers show displeasure at being restricted and contained
from the early weeks--initially through restlessness. At nine or ten
months, when they can crawl or walk away, resistance to handling becomes
still more pronounced. This does not mean the non-cuddlers show a
lack of orientation toward the mother; she is still treated as a “haven
of safety” and when frightened, the non-cuddler seeks her proximity.
Their means of establishing proximity is, however, different from
that of cuddlers. Instead of the close physical contact which other infants
seek, the non-cuddler either makes visual contact with his
mother, establishes a physical contact such as holding onto her skirt,
or hides his face against her knee. Apparently it is not contact per se
that is avoided by non-cuddlers but the restriction of movement that is
involved in cuddling and holding encounters. In motor development the
non-cuddlers are ahead of the cuddlers, reaching such milestones as the
ability to sit unsupported, to stand holding on, and to crawl considerably
sooner than the cuddlers.
Resistance to close physical contact does not appear to be primarily
a social phenomenon but an expression of an innate, more general
aspect of the infant’s personality. Nor is the non-cuddling pattern a
bad sign prognostically; it is not a determent to development as persons.
It appears, therefore, that for some infants intimate contact is
not acceptable. Certain forms of it may be appreciated, such as rough
play and being carried. But the closer more intimate kind of physical
contact which appears to be so satisfying to some infants is resisted
and actively avoided. As a result, the total amount of handling received
by non-cuddlers is likely to be considerably less than that received
by cuddly infants. The nature of the non-cuddler’s interaction
with others assumes a less direct and tactile form.
In sum, infants approach encounters in an active-selective rather
than a random-passive manner. They form attachments for others on the
basis of the kinds of stimulation they want and get. Non-cuddlers compel
their parents to find a kind of interaction with them that is
10