The In-Between

A discussion in class brought up an argument about which is better: being shelter or being out in the harshness of reality.I believe the truth holds that an even amount of both is needed. Without the other I think that a person will be in trouble.
Being too sheltered will leave a growing child in the dark about the harshness of society. The child will have no clue how to act with confrontation, personal obstacles or personal preservation. And when I say personal preservation I am not saying that everyone in society has to fend for their lives. I mean being sheltered does not allow someone to handle difficult situations in work, school, or even their social lives. Being too sheltered gives this 'perfect example' of how to fix problems, the sad truth is that nothing can have a perfect example. Every situation is different, meaning that every solution will be different. On the other hand facing reality everyday, all day is not a good thing either. Facing something as rough as reality daily can cause a person to become immune(in a sense) to the good and bad. Those kids tend to want to just survive, to live through the day is enough for them, no matter what they have done or seen. It also leaves those kids emotionally scarred.

Being from an overly sheltered family and being around other kids that were overly sheltered, it is extremely rough not being able to live. I know tons of kids that have come from sheltered families that tend to have just as many problems as those who come from reality. I know that being too sheltered, I wanted to get out and experience the world. So much that I left one extreme and went to the next. In that I say that it is better to have an even amount of both. This is becasue one without the other leads to some type of pain or failure. So in the end I believe that the best thing is an even amount of both.