or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Do you prefer a family Hierarchy or Consensuality? Updated!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you prefer a family Hierarchy or Consensuality? Updated! - Page 51

Poll Results: Family Dynamics: Hierarchy or Consensuality?

  • 2% (17)
    Definite hierarchy with rules, strict structure; decisions made on behalf of children.
  • 29% (176)
    Hierarchy with guidelines, routine, soft structure; most decisions made for children.
  • 9% (56)
    Consensual family; decisions round table, children are self determining; few or no rules.
  • 10% (61)
    Mostly Consensual; guidelines, choice where possible, highly structured
  • 45% (277)
    Combo; children know their place in hierarchy but have as much freedom as poss within that structure
  • 2% (18)
    I don't know what you are talking about.
605 Total Votes  
post #1001 of 1044
What I see here is peopel grasping at straws to prove a point that CL is not possible
I can't speak for others, but I don't have an agenda to prove any particular point, and I am certainly not "grasping at straws." I'd enjoy the discussion much more if we could stop framing it in terms of attack/defense. I've been reading a lot of valid and interesting points and to have those characterized as desperate straw-grasping is kind of unhelpful.
post #1002 of 1044
I think everyone here needs a hug!

Pick up here if you want it!:

post #1003 of 1044
I think, for me, anyways - when you become a parent, its not that you forget about your needs (Im talking absolute needs, not just wants), its that you become genuinely and honestly okay with pushing your needs aside to meet the needs of your child. Im not talking abot feeling resentful about not getting a night out, Im talking about...hmm..let me come back to this thought...

Every parent, whether attached or not, becomes consensual with their children - or, as some would see it, all giving. We feed them and change them when the cry - usually right away. AP parents generally feed on demand - etc etc etc...we model the consensuality in hopes that our children will model it back when they are able. We are free to not meet their needs - but we *choose* to.

Back to my original thought...I have a really hard time explaining this to people....often times we get caught up in the now, and in what we want - and it has to be that. We have to have what we want, and it cant be any other way or its wrong or not right etc. What CL (at least for me) is teaching me is that just because I dont get what I initially want doesnt mean what I am getting/doing isn't just as right or fun or good - and even if it isnt just as good as my initial want - does that really matter? I can chose to be happy and enjoy whatever it is I am doing or getting. So long as I am open and willing to experience the change in a positive way - then it is still consensual - because I was open to it.

I look it at the same way with my kids - though they may not be old enough to grasp the concept yet. If the zooming away from the street makes them just as happy and they are open to experiencing it - then its consensual (or mutually agreeable - as I too use those terms interchangably). I dont think children are fully capable of completely understanding that not getting what they want can be just as good or whatever, and even if its not as good - it can still be fine. Thats why I model the behaviour, explain the situations and go with the flow.

It is easier, and more mutually agreeable because I am at the stage where I grasp the concept, for me to bend my needs to meet the needs of my child. When they are older, I fully expect them to do the same. And its not about giving in - its about recognizing the bigger idea - that getting what we want isnt the be all end all, and life is just as fine/happy/peachy if we chose to live it that way.
post #1004 of 1044
OoF! I see the issue of abuse has been picked up. I'll try to explain what i meant when i put that in there.

When i was 5 my abuser introduced me to a game i hadn't played before. There was a lot of "talking up" of this game which made it seem exciting and desireable. There was a lot of "Well, you're too little to play this game anyway, and you probably wouldn't do it properly" which of course made me DESPERATE to prove myself as a good game player. I was expecting something like ludo. The game involved me performing sex acts on him. Now, i did not know about sex. I did not know about abuse. At the time i didn't even know the proper words for male or female genitals. After we played "the game" felt terribly guilty for reasons i didn't understand (i believe, having talked to others in a similar posiion, that it is a mechanism of biology trying to prevent incest and protect sexually immature individuals) and as i got older and had the secrecy and danger of exposing the game to others highlighted again and again i began to realise it wasn't "right" to do it, but by then i was convinced that *I* had made *HIM* play it to begin with. "This is your show" he would say "you make the choices" and all the while he was manipulating every thought and action of mine until i was tied in knots. As much as my sense of morality pulled me away from him, my sesne of fairness and "good girl" ness pushed me back towards him - after all i had participated willingly, i couldn't take it back now, right? On the occasions when i participated willingly in abuse i COULD NOT consent truly to what i was doing, because as a 5, 6, 7 year old, i didn't know WHAT i was consenting to. I didn't know WHY he wanted to play that game, i didn't know WHAT it meant, i didn't know HOW to prevent it. He manipulated me completely and thoroughly. Perhaps HE believed i wnted to be abused, i certainly felt i must have for much of my life. He never commanded me to play, he would say "You want to play don't you, i can tell by the way you're moving/looking at me/standing" - basically i was his little mirror and he loved to gaze and see whatever he wanted to see there.

The actual balance of power between him and i was relatively minor - he is my brother and only 4 years older than me. But it was enough. It was enough that by using every trick HIS abuser (our school headmaster) had used to entrap him and have him "consent" to the game he could very very easily do the same to me. Did he even know, at 10, that he was manipulating me and doing "wrong"? I don't know. But at 16 he did, and yet he continued. He grew into his role as i grew into mine.

There is a reason we call sexual acts between adults and children "abuse" and that it is criminal in law - children are not ABLE to give consent. They will agree to all kinds of horrific, deadly or perverse thing to make the person who is manipulating them happy. I loved my brother. I wanted to play catch with him. But he would only play if i played the game first. So i played. That is so so so very VERY different from doing kinky things in the bedroom with my partner. My DP doesn't use manipulation to get me to agree to sexual acts, nor does he invite me for a coffee then say "coffee" is another word for "sex" (another trick of my abuser). I know all about sex, i know about my partners needs and my own, we have a sexual dynamic that both of us came to with full consent because we were both adults who knew exactly what we were getting ourselves into. And in our kinkier moments there is a safe word. There was no safe word with my abuser. In an abusive situation the abused has no power because they don't have full knowledge, or experience, or communicative abilities to REALLY choose. If you present 2 choices any child, even a baby, will choose one. But DD was 3 before she began asking for a choice that wasn't offered, and even now she only asks for the options she knows about. If i say "water or milk" she might say "juice!" but she would never say "gin!" because she doesn't know about gin.

Now, obviously abuse is the most extreme example of this, because usually the situation where power taken from or presented to a toddler or child is loving, or at least benign. My point is only that for me children are incapable of consent because they are not as informed as the adults, and if a child cannot consent you therefore cannot live consensually with them. I see that children grow into their consent. At 3 DD IS capable of knowing what she wants to drink from the narrow options she knows about. She is not capable of choosing what is the best thing (she would drink juice night and day and have no teeth if i didn't limit her options) and i don't attempt to gain her consent to withhold juice if i feel it's not the best choice, because she is only concerned with having juice, not slaking thirst or protecting her teeth. When she is 10 i will certainly NOT be limiting her options WRT juice because 10 is old enough to think about one's teeth and body. Equally i won't be throwing "gin" in as an option until she is a good bit older than 10.

I am confident, because i have discussed it with him, that my abuser felt those moments of willingness, of "consent" from me, excused what he was doing, even though he also admits he knew it was wrong, especially latterly. But, he says, he couldn't stop doing it, so he rationalised it however he had to. He told himself i wanted to do it too, and absolved himself, albeit temporarily, ofhis burden of guilt.

So i question "consent" from small children. To me even the CHILD can think they are consenting and fully in agreement and fine with what is happening, and it ca still be the most awful situation in the world. When i consented to abuse, and in action and word i definitely sometimes did, i had no idea what i was really consenting to. I question that any small child is capable of informed consent over a given issue. FOR ME is in't true, children cannot give consent because their information and experience is too limited for them to have that ability, thus one (or at least *I*) cannot live consensually with children.

While i am here:

Every parent, whether attached or not, becomes consensual with their children - or, as some would see it, all giving. We feed them and change them when the cry - usually right away. AP parents generally feed on demand - etc etc etc...we model the consensuality in hopes that our children will model it back when they are able. We are free to not meet their needs - but we *choose* to
Do we really choose to? When someone's kid is crying it is irritating to me, i want to move away from the noise. When MY baby cries my nerves jangle, my heart races, i get a weird flipflop in my stomach and every fibre of me YELLS "get the baby!" until i do. I have lots of mainstream friends who use CIO and every single one of them felt the same initially, they just persevered long enough that the feelings became numbed. Many of them sat outside the nursery crying as their baby cried inside, convinced that however wrong it felt, they were doing the Right thing. For them it was a trial to overcome the impulse to answer their child's cries. I didn't even try to overcome that impulse. Nature bonded me to my baby. When she cried milk spurted from my breasts, where is the "choice" in that? Biology made me love her. Biology set me up to answer her cries. Attending to her is not a choice for me, it is a need, as much as any of my personal needs (eat, pee, sleep) are. I consented in the sense that i got pregnant and planned as natural a birth as possible to hopefully enhance bonding, but i don't choose in the moment, there is no consent in a let-down brought on by a child's cries or a racing pulse at the sight of them falling off the climbing frame.
post #1005 of 1044
I find with consensuality my children are MORE aware their bodies are theirs and no one can touch their bodies if they dont want to. As where my sister who was molested by my grandfather - we dd not grow up consensually - we grew up being treated like we are possessions that adults own. While she knew it was wrong (he promised to make my mom buy her a pet hamster) and she "consented" she gave off a no vibe and he was not being consensual with her and her vibe was not consensual - but additionally, she didnt know HOW to truly be consensual because she hadn't learned that yet. My children have NO problem letting you know when to stop holding them, touching them, or whether or not you can touch them in the first place - even if you are just holding their hand. AND it's respected. So when they say dont touch me we wont touch them. They know their body is theirs. For us being consensual does not open the door for sexual abuse or otherwise. In fact, for us, it has closed the door on situations like what my mom sister and aunt experienced.
post #1006 of 1044
I'm definitely not saying that being consensual can open the door for abuse, not at all, i am saying, using sexual abuse as an example, that i do not feel a child is CAPABLE of informed consent. I do not think i am CL with my DD but she has known the proper words for genitalia and that she needn't let anyone touch her if she doesn't want since before she was 2. But equally i was always able to persuade her to have her poopy nappy changed, even when she initially refused. I would respect the refusal in the moment, but i would still convince her to have the nappy changed a little while later because her skin skips the red rash and goes from pink-and-perfect to bleeding-sores in one step. Even though i always had her spoken or agreed consent when i changed those poopy nappies (once she was about 17 months and talking well) i *know* i coerced that consent. I did it for her gain and through love and caring, but it was not true consent, it was consent gained by persuasion which is a manipulative tool.

Even bargaining is a manipulative tool. I suppose for me true CL would look like this:

Child makes assertion. Assertion is accepted.

ANY further discussion of the situation, unless the child has the same knowledge, experience and communicative skills as the adult (which they simply do not) is manipulative in some way, because the adult has a clear advantage of being able to see, understand and say more about the situation. (i do think "manipulative" is a bit of a dirty word, and tone is so hard to read, but i just mean it in the purely factual sense - presentation of the situation in such a way that the desires or aggreement of the other person can be affected and/or changed - NOT necessarily for the negative - it is manipulation to persuade a child not to run under a bus, but i am not suggesting running under a bus is a favourable outcome!). And of course MY concept (above) of CL is completely unworkable because what a child wants might NOT be best for them, or the rest of the family, or even possible in some cases (DD wants to fly to the train station later in a 3-inch long helicopter!).

In the example of guarding against potential abuse there are 2 main willpowers and one minor one. My will (which is what led me to TEACH my daughter the names for genitalia and that she needn't play games anyone wants to play involving genitals) is against the potential abuser (who will attempt to persuade her otherwise). Without my initial manipulation of her viewpoint on what is "allowed" with regard to her body and potential abuse she might very well have willingly engaged in abusive scenarios without realising what they were. I did after all. It was not because i thought HE owned me, it was because i hadn't considered that *I* owned me. When (hopefully she'll never have to!) my DD rebuffs a potential abuser she will do so with the knowledge *I* gave her. Not inherant knowledge other parents suppress. Children are, especially in the early years, who we show and tell them they are. You accept your children have the ability to decline to consent to abusive behaviour, would you accept their desire for sexual contact with an adult if they asserted it? Or would you feel the adult must have manipulated them and their desires in some way? Does this make sense? My tone, in case it isn't clear, is very open and gentle - i really feel i am explorig something here. Thank you.
post #1007 of 1044
I understand you feel that way. It is not true to me though. What you described is not someting I consider an inability to use informed consent correctly. My child can assert thmselves even when we are discussing solutions. Nothing about the defintion of the word consensual says anything about "person makes decision other person agrees" while this may sometimes be the case, when something is going to have a uge impact on the lives around us, we need to find a solution that is MUTUALLY agreeable. Meaning my children and myself are happy with this. It's not bargaining or compromise. It's searching .Searching for the solution that makes us all happy. Which may somes times be somewhere in the middle or something entirely different or someone just going along with the other person - but this is not reached via unwanted sacrafice. In other words, we only sacrafice when it does not let us feel like we are losing something to do so. Like, I might "sacrafice" taking a shower at 7 and take one at 6:30 instead - but all I cared about was taking a shower and the time was unimportant to me so when I was asked to take a shower a half or earlier it wasn't really a sacrafice just because it was something different then what I originally planned. Some call that a compromise, but I'm not compromising anything. I am just doing something different, and am just as happy for whatever reason regardless of that factor not being exact to my previous idea. A compromise would be if it was important to me to take a shower at 7 and I agreed to 6:30 anyway even though I really felt I needed the shower at 7 and now I feel like "at least I get to take shower". It's when the part I "sacrifice" isn't a compromise just another way of having my meed or desire met.

(part of a long edit just got deleted and im too upset to even repost it all at this point)
I feel that your understanding of the word consensual is very different from my dictionary based definition of the word. You are concerned about a childs ability to be consensual and give false consent, but I don't think being manipulated is the same thing. Your brother manipulated you. My mom manipulated me many times growing up to but she never even pretended to be consensual. If you were TRUELY consentin he wouldnt have needed to manipulate you. It wasn't your inability to consent - you message was clear if he had to manipulate you to get another response - but it was his ability to manipulate you into thinking you were consenting. But you weren't honestly consenting.

My child accepts something because its acceptable to them - not because I manipulated them into saying yes when its obvious they want to say no. (this is the whole purpose of being consensual! to not make them do things against their will!!)
My children know they can self determine their bodies. Not because I said so (though I have) but also because we live that way. I knew adults had veto power over me growing up and so did my sister. We were so used to saying Yes to adults because we had to, that even when we knew no was an option we didnt feel comfortable saying no to protect our bodies. It wasn't true consent, and my grandfather knew this which is why there was a need for manipulation (promise of a pet hamster) Just because someone tricked her into thinking she was consenting she was not consenting. She was only manipulated into THINKING she was. Was she capable of making an informed consent? Yes, however she was manipulated out of doing so. And it was easier to manipulate her out of doing so BECAUSE she grew up her whole life thinking adults had veto power and was used to saying yes to adults. She was on auto pilot. Too nervous and confused and manipulated to remember the skills she was taught she could use in that situation but never actually got a chance to experience before then (being allowed to say no). We all fall of the bike the first few times we ride it whether we are an adult or a child. I rather my child "fall of the bike" using the word no over frivilous things - such as saying yes to pancakes for breakfast and then being like "wait I meant no!" and knowing that is acceptable. Then when they are older they have practice with no and know its okay to say no and know their bodies are theirs to determine - there is no conflicting message that has been sent to them. There is no power other then the power they have over their own lives and bodies.

Again, it wasnt her inability to be informed in her consent it was inability to feel she was able to use her informed consent. If she was truly unable to be informed in her consent then there would be no need for manipulation. I understand you feel that she wouldn't be able to be manipulated if she was capable of informed consent but people of all ages and intelligence are manipulated all the time. (she was 9 when it happened - my mom still manipulates EVERYONE she knows even though some of us are older then her!) Or feel they don't have the option to make the informed choice. What you describe isnt inability of being informed in consent, but more so that a child is easier to manipulate. Which is why in our family it helps being consensual. We send the message that its okay to say no to manipulation which frees them to give consent they truly feel comfortable and happy with.

And yet, my kids are impossible to manipulate - people try the whole "oh its really awesome you will love it" thing with them in an innocent way and they DO NOT buy it. They try the "you don't know what you are missing. MMMMM this is soooo yummy" etc ... my friends think my kids are "impossible" but they really just know they are capable. Capable of deciding for themselves if something is awesome, or if they even want to try it out to determine if its awesome or not... I know and they know that they are capable of figuring out if it sounds good or is awesome on their own - they don't convincing, and are in fact more hesitant when people are trying to be convincing wondering why the other person would NEED to convince them if it was really so wonderful. I wasn't able to do this as a child, but as I started living consensually with my children I've become capable of this as well. No one can convince me that there is a better way for *me* to live then consensually. They can't manipulate me (intentionally or *unintentionally*) with ideas of abuse, kids getting hit by cars, etc because I trust myself, I trust my mind, I trust what my eyes have shown me, and I trust my family. I am capable. I don't mind being challenged by someone who is more open minded then me because they already accept where I am at and only show me more things I can choose to embrace. If I feel someone is trying to constrict or control my thinking though it's another story altogether. My children are the same. They are free. Free to add or subtract what they want on THEIR terms - through being shown more possibilities they can accept or weeding out things they have already accepted because its not working *for them* and not because someone else is telling them that its *not possible* when they can see clearly it is or that its *not healthy* when they can see clearly it is or that its *not safe* when they can see clearly it is. This frees them from being manipulated. To say no to manipulation and therefor able to used true consent, not be manipulated into thinking they are being consensual when they are not. My sister and I were not brought up this way. Not saying that is the reason she was manipulated into thinking she was consenting even though my grandfather knew she wasnt. However I do feel if she felt like she could say no to manipulation then she wouldn't have ended up in a situation where someone was TAKING FALSE consent from her. She wasn't GIVING consent though, no. False consent was manipulated out of her. A person manipulated to use false consent is not using true consent. So, we allow the ability to say no to things, including manipulation, so that they are free to use true consent. Manipulation takes place when people put confines on the way you are thinking forcing you to think one way. That is not giving consent, that is having someone force your hand as the saying goes. It;s the difference between someone who holds a gun to their head and pulls the trigger and the person who has someone FORCE them to hold the gun to their head (hand over their hand) and forces them to pull the trigger, and then says "they pulled the trigger" yeah they did - but they weren't REALLY consenting to it, they were forced to do it. Thats not consent. Who knows though - do you think you would have consented to that if he didnt manipulate you by making it sound like the most fun game ever and tricking you into thinking you were making all the decisions but then limiting your mind through manipulation so you were forced to really just be doing what he wanted? Or if he said "will you do this?" and you felt you could say "no" and he would accept "no" would you have said no? can you really even KNOW if you would have said yes or no in that situation, without reliving it? without reliving your whole life and being in a place at that time where you felt you could say no? Or being at a place where if he tried to manipulate you could say no to the manipulation? Children are capable of this if they allowed to remain capable. If there are no limits on what they can say no to when it comes to their own lives and bodies. then it is clear for them when someone is forcing them and when they are truly choosing. and they wont stand by idly when somene tries to force them. That an acceptable answer to pancakes or waffles is "no" instead of "you have to choose those are your only choices" Where you can say "here's your pancakes" and they can say "no" without someone saying "well thats what is for breakfast take it or leave it!" where as their speech improves someone will say "what do you want for breakfast?" and they can say "i want ____" or "im not hungry today". Or where they can be free to make their own breakfast or ask if someone else will make breakfast for them.

I meet a LOT of people who were sexually abused (so far every women in my family has been too). One of my friends was raised consensually, and neither her nor her 2 sisters were sexually abused. They all attended college - because THEY wanted to. They are all in healthy relationships - and they all waited until THEY were ready to become intimate which for 1 was at 16 (she is now married to him its the only guy she has ever been with intimately and they have a wonderful marriage from what we hear) the other two were in college before they made that decision. Of course even people who aren't raised consensually can have lives like that, but that was my first glance firsthand into a truly consensual family, and their family is unlike any other family I have ever met - with most women I know (personally) having had sex in middle school and preschool, being abused sexually - and all mostly through manipulation (I am a victim of a form of date rape, but I wasn't on a date... long story, but I wouldn't have been in that situation if I had been raised consensually - not saying I never would have been raped - but definitely not in that exact situation) None of us REALLY knew ho to say no. All we knew was saying "yes" gained us acceptance. We also didnt know how to say no to manipulation. I can't know for sure what my life would have been life if I felt I could say no - but I can see what my friends life was like and I can see that my children have no problem saying no and canot be manipulated. And many children that age can't be - but their parents EXPECT them to be and as they grow they become susceptible to it. If instead of forcing them (my children) to comply within certain boundaries. They are free to say no. They don't ONLY feel they can say no, but they are ALLOWED to say no. All toddlers feel they can say no - but from what I've witnessed no all toddlers are allowed to ALWAYS say no when they want to, and eventually stop feeling like they can say no. Thats really the whole point of most discipline formed as behavioral modification. Sometimes we don't like what that behavioral modifcations lead to, but most people don't seem able to make the connection.

Honestly I have very strong feelings about the subject of abuse and how that card is being played here. I understand you are trying to explore but I have to bow out of this if its going to continue again (we discussed it a few pages back). *I* feel its really inappropriate and offensive, it makes *me* really uncomfortable and I understand all the people trying to disprove CL will say "I didnt take it that way" blah blah blah (of course they don't because they think its proving their point ) but to someone who DOES practice CL to have some one say it is because they are defining consensual in a way that NO dictionary does, I feel its irrelevant and an attempt to just bring abuse into a conversation that is unwarrented. Take care.
post #1008 of 1044
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
My children don't need to test what their "limits" are. They know their goals can be meet. They don't need to "test" me or "prove" they CAN do something. I know they can, they know we can, so they don't need to test.
mine does... and i feel that i give him miles and miles and have very few no's and he takes/needs always more... i feel that i give and give and he feels that it's not enough. it seems to be in his personality to push... like he asks for the few no's that there are (don't hit me). or ask for 5 classes at once, and we end up losing $$ because he doesn't get that he just CAN"T do them all at once... but he WANTS to... i still think he would be happier in the african savannah than modern life, but i am not willing to do that.
alright, I guess this already got covered... but in your game example, the 'i say i am tired, he agrees to wait for me to rest first', wouldn't happen, he just wouldn't agree, and i wouldn't get my rest. about all i can do is suggest something that i prefer, and if that doesn't work, i find myself preferring the game to the fuss that he is generating (how much do i want to fight about not playing wiht my kid and all).

i get tapped out all the time... my kid can talk ALL day, and it always is interactive. why this, what would happen if that, watch me do this, tell me that... sometimes, just sometimes, at the VERY end of the day he has had enough, but it's SO exhausting! he has more energy than 5000 hamsters on wheels! that is why it's 'giving', because i can't DO what he needs ALL the time.
post #1009 of 1044
I understand all the people trying to disprove CL
I'm just going to say this every time: I don't think anyone is trying to do that.
post #1010 of 1044
yes but we can't compare me and my kids to you and your kids because you have raised thm with "giving miles" and we are living with "having miles" So therefor you can't know what your child would say after getting to the point they could trust that there wasn't some kind of "allowance" of miles or that they need to find where the road ends. Maybe they would just keep going and going and going and going until they came full circle, maybe you are right and they would just go so far they would be lost wandering around because you didnt want to follow them and they kept going, but we don't know, because thats not what you do. and thats okay. You are happy with your life, your children are happy, it works for your family, and it is right for you.

I am also happy. And my experience with having miles instead of giving them is that my children find their OWN limits. (oh, this is too far from mommy! time to head back) Intead of being so preoccupied with finding the limits, which is where we were at when I was giving miles instead of leaving free have their miles.
post #1011 of 1044
Originally Posted by waiflywaif View Post
I'm just going to say this every time: I don't think anyone is trying to do that.
so when someone makes a comment against CL and then says "so I think that proves ..." thats not trying to disprove CL?

If I said "see I asked what 2 colors make th color pink and no one could tell me so that proves that there is no way to make the color pink from 2 other colors" that is not someone trying to disprove something via saying "see you didn't prove me wrong so that means you are wrong" isn't trying to disprove? Just because I don't prove someone wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong. I have no desire to prove of disprove, but yes, there is a select few who use the words "proving my point" (which is a point against CL) and so yes that is what I consider trying to disprove it... WHICH IS FINE. I understand why they do it. I just don't feel the need to do the same thats all
post #1012 of 1044
ok, i popped over to the CL tribe and there was no one there, so maybe i can ask this here, even tho it's in the middle of another conversation... i'm just looking for 'what's the CL approach to this type of thing', because it happens all the time, and while in the middle of it, i have no ideas.

this past wknd, we were out camping 90 mins from home. well, 90 mins if your car doesn't break, so 7 hours for us. kid is happy through 99% of things, gets tired on the last leg in the car but otherwise OK.

next morning, wants to break camp and go to the nearby wildlife park RIGHT NOW. won't stop yelling- there's a quiet rule, so we spend all our time trying to get him quieter, get packed up, while he's yelling ZOO! NOW! (btw, he's 4). there's a playground in this campsite, he would be happier there, but will not agree to go.

we happened to get free passes to this animal park... it's the kind of thing i would do anyway with him (always asking him first) if the price were less. he finds out that there is a 'bus tram' to the various habitats- only it's hourly, we have a 40 minute wait. all he wants to do it go and wait for it- we really need to use that time for the rest of the park, or else we miss them or be very late home. we keep saying that the animals are on the way to the bus tram (in a way they are), but yells the whole way that he wants nothing but the bus tram (and he is the ONLY loud one there). i give snacks, he got the same amount of sleep as normal, he WONT walk. he's dragging himself all over the ground, climbing and hurting us, just WONT walk.

we say maybe we need to leave, but no one wants that. i don't mention money, but often i would- we paid, we stay. i do say 'we made this choice, we live with it'- but he wants to change his mind. after all that, he got tired of the bus halfway through, then wanted to go hom. he's not the world's best traveler, but was just a horribly unhappy non-consenual thing... other than never go anywhere (which would also drive all of us bonkers, he NEEDS to get out), what to do... leaving is sometimes but not an option. cheering up does sometimes work, but not then. we asked 'what would make you happier here'- no ideas.

i'm not sure that even conveys things accurately... we did enjoy it, but we always have this kid climbing and attacking us, being dramatic and wacky in a very 'in your face' way... let me know what y'all think. maybe i can plan ahead better next time.
post #1013 of 1044
so when someone makes a comment against CL and then says "so I think that proves ..." thats not trying to disprove CL?
I've gone back and searched the last 5 pages and don't see that anywhere. Are you quoting or just stating a general feeling? Because my general feeling is different.

I also don't see anyone being "against CL." It would be MUCH more helpful if the discussion would not be framed this way. I see people questioning how the philosophy works in real life. For goodness' sake, it's not a "gotcha! you're wrong!" type of thing.
post #1014 of 1044
I'll go find a quote for you, if I dont have time right now I'll do it tonight when the kids are in bed.

Relax and dont take it personally! go back a few pages and pick up a hug if you need one
post #1015 of 1044
Seems like I'm the only one NOT taking it personally!
post #1016 of 1044
sorry for misunderstanding you then. I don't take it personally either (unless someone is addressing what I do, obviously if they address what you do its about what you do). funny how we both felt that way, but both think the other person in! Very insightful, thanks!
post #1017 of 1044
Originally Posted by Calm View Post
I demonstrated, with hypotheticals and real life situations, how it is a false statement. No one could deny it, yet they still stood by the statement (like denying the white crow, even while looking right at one).
This was said in reference to CL statement. Calm is claiming she demonstrated how the statement is false" There were other posts but feel free to find them yourslf. I know this one doesn't use the word "prove", but its saying that she demonstrated that what is true to us is false.

In another post she was taking about how : no one could give her CL solutions to these problems after so many pages which basically just proves her point in itself. And perhaps it did prove a point to someone or to herself - but it didn't prove a point to me and thats okay if she wants to prove a point - again nothing wrong with that - and I know she says she is consensual now (And the beginning she said she was CC but sometimes looked for consensual solutions, then she changed it to CL after saying she was CC like 20 times... so I got a little lost around that point, but maybe she changed her mind, which of course is okay too I'm just saying I don't mind discussing it but *I* don't see it as a need to prove or disprove anything. I don't need to disprove a philosophy or pick a philosophy apart to shreds if I don't agree with it. I don't need to say "well if you can't answer my question then that *must* mean there is no answer." There is no need for me to say "that is wrong" for this to be right. We can experience different truths. One an feel they "demonstrated" or "proved" something, while I can feel nothing has been demonstrated or proven to me. I don't say "you proved my point because you couldn't disprove it". I'm not saying another person can't think that way, I'm just saying *I* dont need to think that way. I'm not saying another person can't be confident and still need that, but *I* don't need it because of my confidence and trust in myself and my family.
post #1018 of 1044
SPOTTIEW: The hard thing with specific examples (like that) is that no one is your family, and no one knows all the specific details....so with that in mind.

I noticed a lot of Have-to's or musts in that scenario - rather than working on consensual solutions. Some of those: having to pack of the camp first, not being willing to be later getting home, and not being willing to leave (because of the money). It doesn't seem like the whole Zoo situation was consensual - not saying it *has* to be, but you did ask in a consensual forum.

Could you go to the zoo earlier and come back and pack up camp later (a lot of campsights dont really care unless they are full?

Could you have taken him to the Zoo while DH packed up

Could you have waited for the train thing, and gotten off half way through? Or stayed on and just gotten home later?

If he wasn't enjoying the experience, and you werent (because of his behaviour) then why couldnt you leave?

In my mind - anyways - there wasnt a lot of consenuality for anyone in the situation. You and your DH had to suck up a Zoo trip with a child who didnt want to be there, after listening to him be upset at the campsight - and he had to experience the Zoo in a way he didnt want to, and as such didnt enjoy it.
post #1019 of 1044
"Honestly I have very strong feelings about the subject of abuse and how that card is being played here. I understand you are trying to explore but I have to bow out of this if its going to continue again (we discussed it a few pages back). *I* feel its really inappropriate and offensive, it makes *me* really uncomfortable and I understand all the people trying to disprove CL will say "I didnt take it that way" blah blah blah (of course they don't because they think its proving their point ) but to someone who DOES practice CL to have some one say it is because they are defining consensual in a way that NO dictionary does, I feel its irrelevant and an attempt to just bring abuse into a conversation that is unwarrented. Take care."

I just wanted to address this because I think I was the person who first brought up the abuse example.
I want to repeat that the example is not in anyway implying, stating or otherwise suggesting that CL leads to abuse.

"I'm definitely not saying that being consensual can open the door for abuse, not at all, i am saying, using sexual abuse as an example, that i do not feel a child is CAPABLE of informed consent."

Thank you for your post GoBecGo. It amazes me you can write about something like that with such understanding and clarity.
I agree with you about a young child not being capable of informed consent. To me consenting means that you know of and understand your options.
My oldest daughter is an easy going child. She is also generally eager to please me and pretty happy go lucky. But to me this does not translate into her consenting to everything.

Here is an example having nothing to do with abuse. We use cloth diapers in our house. My daughter was happy with that. That does not mean to me that she consented to use cloth diapers. Had she know and understood EC or disposibles she may have chosen those over cloth diapers.

So I am not trying to disprove CL I am just uncomfortable with the language and like Calm I think when you put absolutes around something it begs to be questioned.

I think you can encourage a child to listen to their bodies, know their wants and express them but a 3 year old does not have a grasp on all the options out there or the consequences of their actions. To teach them that they are making all of the decisions themselves would feel dishonest to me knowing that they may have chosen different options had they know them. Maybe if parents were completely objective I could see it a little more but we are not.
post #1020 of 1044
so do you feel it is absolute that absolutes begged to be questioned? I might have to question that

what if someone says there is "absolutely nothing else I could have done"? Does that absolute beg to be questioned?

for me it's not that absolutes beg to be challenged, just that we all have our own absolutes that are true, even if someone else's absolute is different then our own that can be true to them and our (different) absolutes true to use at the same time.

Just as I sit with a child on each side and to me I am absolutely in the middle and to my son I am absolutely to his right and to my daughter I am absolutely to her left. My absolute does not bed to be challenged simply because my absolute is different then his or hers. Perhaps a person may beg to challenge an absolute, but I don't think the absolute begs to be challenged.

It is possible that absolutes beg to be challenged but its also possible absolutes don't beg to be challenged. If absolutes "absolutely" beg to be challenged that would be contradictory, so as I see it, it's just as hard to say its true that absolutes don't beg to be challenged as it is that they do beg to be challenged.... I find more truth in that some people feel the need to challenge absolutes, not that absolutes need to be challenged.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Do you prefer a family Hierarchy or Consensuality? Updated!