Is some GD philosophy *too* gentle??? - Page 14

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by Nora'sMama

That's interesting! Every kid is different! I hope I didn't come across as judging how you are handling the situation. Just offering my (completely theoretical) thoughts.

Nope. I meant to say something about just recounting our particular experience, too. Just that in our experience, the bribing was taken by ds as a type of punishment (because no matter how much he wanted "x" it wasn't enough to choose teethbrushing. So then he didn't get "x". I hated that) and he responded as I'd guess kids do to all types of punishment. I guess if it had "worked" and ds HAD decided that "x" was indeed worth teethbrushing (so no punishment by way of not getting "x"), then I'd be all for it. kwim?
I guess I do feel a bit defensive about the whole thing. lol. But that's my issue, not yours .

[Nora'sMama]

Becky, that totally makes sense. I hadn't thought about that particular consequence of "bribing", that the child might not be able to be bribed into doing something and then would additionally feel the loss of the treat they would have received.

[captain crunchy]

Originally Posted by sledg

I wanted to respond to this example. I would actually, in my better moments, not think of the wanting to be swung in the hamper or the banging sister on the head with a spoon or the staying outside to play as the needs. I would see those things more as the strategies to meet the needs. I guess I'd see being swung in the hamper as meeting a need for play or physical stimulation. I'd see the banging of sister on the head as a strategy for meeting another need-for learning, or any number of other "things" depending on circumstances. I'd see requesting to stay outside/refusing to come in as a strategy for meeting some more basic need-for physical activity that can't continue inside, for autonomy (to choose for oneself whether/when to go inside), for physical stimulation for example.

I once read this really interesting article (can't remember the author) that was (I think) about living consensually with kids. The author gave this example of a child wanting to play in the toilet bowl and the parent wanting to stop the child for health reasons (this was awhile ago, so I don't remember exactly what was written). Simply saying "no you can't play in the toilet" and moving the child physically doesn't meet that need or even acknowledge it. So a parent can instead observe to understand what is appealing to the child about playing in the toilet bowl, in order to understand which need(s) of the child is(are) met by this activity. The author said that this child's need might be to learn about the water or playing in the toilet bowl may in some way meet the sensory-stimulation needs of the child. A parent can work to meet the child's need(s), along with the parent's own need to protect the child's health/safety, by providing another opportunity to play with water. I wish I could remember better, because I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job explaining it. It sounds like simple redirection, but there's this added quality of becoming aware of what everyone's needs are vs. the strategies used to meet those needs.

When I think of my child's need as "she needs to play in the toilet" then we end up struggling more often. When I see my child wanting to play in the toilet, I can pause to consider what other need that action might be meeting and work to meet that need-so when I look at it as "my child wants to play in the toilet, she's satisfying her need for sensory stimulation" (or whatever) then other solutions become apparent. When my child hits a sibling, the need isn't to hit-hitting is the strategy. When I can understand, or work toward understanding, the difference between the needs and the strategies the possibilities for resolving a situation become numerous and apparent. Is it sometimes impossible to meet a particular need temporarily? Sure. Sometimes it's truly impossible (maybe), and sometimes I'm just not willing to try the other solutions of which I'm aware, and sometimes I'm having difficulty coming up with other solutions (probably because of my own fixed ideas, assumptions, perceptions, needs, feelings).

I think all this (seeing needs vs. strategies and working toward meeting the needs) is a small piece of the consensual living philosophy. I definitely would not label myself as a consensual liver, but I find this philosophy very interesting. As I understand it at this point, consensual living doesn't mean allowing the parents' needs to continue to go unmet in order to meet their children's needs and follow their child's every whim-the consensual living mothers here aren't martyrs. However they do recognize the greater ability of the parent to be flexible and to defer (for a time) the meeting of their own needs when necessary and possible. And likewise, meeting their child's needs and working toward mutually agreeable solutions is in no way in conflict with their child's best interests. I think part of the consensual living philosophy is that it is in children's best interest to be respected, to have autonomy, to have their needs met.

I think part of the problem with discussions like this is that we come to them with our own perceptions (which is all we have) and those perceptions color how we understand what others are saying. One mother is comfortable waiting a few more minutes at the park even though she has to pee, because it simply isn't all that uncomfortable for her and she'd prefer to wait while her kids play a few more minutes rather than enter into a struggle (and she knows they need that activity, and she knows that staying that few more minutes satisfies both their need for activity and their need for autonomy while it doesn't negatively affect her needs at all). Another mother is very physically uncomfortable when she has to wait that extra few minutes to pee, and her needs are such that ignoring them and waiting is not in any way agreeable so she finds a way to round up the kids and leave. Maybe the first mother has just noticed her full bladder and knows she can wait because she hasn't yet reached the point of urgency, or maybe she knows her body well enough to know she won't ever become very uncomfortable. Mabye the second mother noticed her full bladder awhile ago and waited and is now too uncomfortable to wait longer, or maybe her body is such that her need is always urgent. Who knows? Yet when we come here and read these things, we come here with our own knowledge of our own bladders and our own past experiences. And then those of us with small, impatient bladders see the mothers who are willing to wait as martyrs who deny themselves in order to follow all their children's whims. Those of us who think exploring outlets is extremely dangerous are shocked by those of us who think exploring outlets can be done safely with supervision-and rather than reconsider our ideas about what is safe we tend to leap to the conclusion that the mother who lets her child explore an outlet doesn't actually provides no guidance whatsoever. I think it's hard to understand the consensual living philosophy because it differs so much from what most of us have learned/absorbed from the culture around us.

I'm guessing it's a mistake to think that consensual living means a long process of negotiating every little minute thing in daily life, even at the expense of the child's safety/health. I'm sure if any of the consensual living mothers believed their child was in imminent danger of serious harm, they'd jump in and intervene immediately and talk later (scooping up the proverbial toddler running out into traffic). I'm guessing it's also a mistake to assume that because a parent is willing to be flexible, and willing at times to defer the meeting of their own needs, that they are doing so at the expense of their own needs. I'm thinking that perhaps it's more accurate to understand this way of life as striving always to meet the needs of everyone involved to the best of everyone's ability-and that this is a joyful process, and a process that helps kids learn a lot about thinking and problem-solving and relationships/social skills. I'm guessing it does take a lot of effort and involvement from parents-which is a good thing, no?

I want to add that I, too, believe that children do want to do the "right" thing. Children, and even babies, want to connect with others. Children, and babies, want to belong-even if they can't articulate it or conceive of it the way we do. We are social animals, and as such we strive to belong and connect. Thus, children do want to do what pleases those around them and to do what they observe those around them doing. Children also have their own needs and drives that must be met as well, and this is why (along with lack of skill) children (all people, really) sometimes do things others don't like. I think when people, all people regardless of age, do things that are not approved of by those around them they have a valid reason for doing so (not an excuse or justification, a reason). Children and babies are fully human, fully feeling human beings. They're just smaller and differ in their developmental abilities. They haven't yet learned all the skills they need to get their needs met and negotiate conflict and relationships (many of us adults are still learning these skills too).

sledg, I really love your posts! They are so articulate and well thought out and I agree with your sentiments above. Well said



On the dental issue (again), of course I am concerned about cavities, gum disease, all that -- it doesn't keep me up at night by any means, but of course as a loving mama, I want my daughter to have the personal/social/monetary/pain free benefit of healthy teeth and I will certainly encourage it through modeling, providing information, attempting to make it an enjoyable experience and so on and so forth.

At the end of the day though, our relationship is more important that a trip to the dentist. I am not saying it is ruining the child/parent relationship to force your kids to brush your teeth, but the thought makes me personally, feel icky.

*warning personal opinion ahead* I think it is a violation of someone's body to hold them down, while verbally and physically protesting, sometimes crying and begging (according to some posts in the past), and forcing a foreign object in their mouth. I refuse to do it. I refuse to threaten punishment or bribe or manipulate. I just don't see how forcing someone physically to accept a foreign object in their mouth while they spit and cry and fight and beg you to stop is in any way shape or form gentle.

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by sledg

I wanted to respond to this example. I would actually, in my better moments, not think of the wanting to be swung in the hamper or the banging sister on the head with a spoon or the staying outside to play as the needs. I would see those things more as the strategies to meet the needs. I guess I'd see being swung in the hamper as meeting a need for play or physical stimulation. I'd see the banging of sister on the head as a strategy for meeting another need-for learning, or any number of other "things" depending on circumstances. I'd see requesting to stay outside/refusing to come in as a strategy for meeting some more basic need-for physical activity that can't continue inside, for autonomy (to choose for oneself whether/when to go inside), for physical stimulation for example.

I once read this really interesting article (can't remember the author) that was (I think) about living consensually with kids. The author gave this example of a child wanting to play in the toilet bowl and the parent wanting to stop the child for health reasons (this was awhile ago, so I don't remember exactly what was written). Simply saying "no you can't play in the toilet" and moving the child physically doesn't meet that need or even acknowledge it. So a parent can instead observe to understand what is appealing to the child about playing in the toilet bowl, in order to understand which need(s) of the child is(are) met by this activity. The author said that this child's need might be to learn about the water or playing in the toilet bowl may in some way meet the sensory-stimulation needs of the child. A parent can work to meet the child's need(s), along with the parent's own need to protect the child's health/safety, by providing another opportunity to play with water. I wish I could remember better, because I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job explaining it. It sounds like simple redirection, but there's this added quality of becoming aware of what everyone's needs are vs. the strategies used to meet those needs.

When I think of my child's need as "she needs to play in the toilet" then we end up struggling more often. When I see my child wanting to play in the toilet, I can pause to consider what other need that action might be meeting and work to meet that need-so when I look at it as "my child wants to play in the toilet, she's satisfying her need for sensory stimulation" (or whatever) then other solutions become apparent. When my child hits a sibling, the need isn't to hit-hitting is the strategy. When I can understand, or work toward understanding, the difference between the needs and the strategies the possibilities for resolving a situation become numerous and apparent. Is it sometimes impossible to meet a particular need temporarily? Sure. Sometimes it's truly impossible (maybe), and sometimes I'm just not willing to try the other solutions of which I'm aware, and sometimes I'm having difficulty coming up with other solutions (probably because of my own fixed ideas, assumptions, perceptions, needs, feelings).

Sledg, thanks for this. Your posts often clarify things for me, and this one did again.

I think I was understanding the POV of CLers to be that it was a violation to redirect your child to the sink from the toilet. And I'm still not sure that technically, with my child, it wouldn't be. Because I know he would protest and cry and go all noodly on me until I got him set up at the sink. This happens quite frequently, unfortunately, because my dd always leaves the bathroom door open. I'm usually quick enough that he hasn't put his hand in the toilet, but I am not willing to let him play in the toilet until I talked him into playing at the sink.

I guess that's what I was trying to say in my original post. I do feel that I know what is best for him. I know what lurks in toilets, and I know that he will shortly be satisfied at the sink, and while I explain that to him, I'm not going to let him splash toilet water up on his face. Voila, the difference, I suppose.

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

*warning personal opinion ahead* I think it is a violation of someone's body to hold them down, while verbally and physically protesting, sometimes crying and begging (according to some posts in the past), and forcing a foreign object in their mouth. I refuse to do it. I refuse to threaten punishment or bribe or manipulate. I just don't see how forcing someone physically to accept a foreign object in their mouth while they spit and cry and fight and beg you to stop is in any way shape or form gentle.

ITA with this personal opinion. I think that would be very frightening. Furthermore, I think it would be very difficult. My ds had a terrible ear infection this winter, and it was the most traumatic thing I've ever done making him take the yucky antibiotics. I can't imagine if I was trying to brush his teeth, too. I don't think it would be possible.

That said, I am all for insisting that my dd brush her teeth and waiting with her until she does. Works pretty much every time with us. But she is 3, too.

[Magella]

Originally Posted by natensarah

I think I was understanding the POV of CLers to be that it was a violation to redirect your child to the sink from the toilet. And I'm still not sure that technically, with my child, it wouldn't be. Because I know he would protest and cry and go all noodly on me until I got him set up at the sink. This happens quite frequently, unfortunately, because my dd always leaves the bathroom door open. I'm usually quick enough that he hasn't put his hand in the toilet, but I am not willing to let him play in the toilet until I talked him into playing at the sink.

ahem...never actually having had this particular problem myself, I'm going to comment. Which may be unwise, but here goes. I'm thinking of the fact that there have been so many things which I have deemed to dangerous or unhealthy, and swooped in to save my child from only to find myself becoming way more relaxed about those same things now that my third child is 2.5 years old. So I'm thinking that for a CLer, there may be a huge piece of this process that involves really thinking about our assumptions as parents-is this really all that unsafe? Is dipping a hand in the toilet really so bad? (I'm thinking right now, probably for me it's not. With my firstborn I had a toilet lock.) And if it is something I can't tolerate because it really does not meet my very real need to protect my child/contribute to his well-being/keep him safe, what are the options for addressing it other than scooping up and carrying a screaming child against his will to the sink? I think you're right that while redirection may not go against CL, picking up a crying child and carrying him somewhere else (in a situation where serious harm is not imminent) probably does.

Originally Posted by natensarah

I guess that's what I was trying to say in my original post. I do feel that I know what is best for him. I know what lurks in toilets, and I know that he will shortly be satisfied at the sink, and while I explain that to him, I'm not going to let him splash toilet water up on his face. Voila, the difference, I suppose.

I think you've hit upon the difference, in a nutshell-or at least a big part of it. I'm still quite fuzzy about CL in many ways myself. I certainly have more experience than my kids, and I think I know more about what's best for them. OTOH, my kids have on many occasions questioned me until I realized that I could be or am wrong. And I like that, it's good to think and question. I want to help my kids learn to do that. But for them to learn that, I have to get out of their way a little, trust them a lot, remain calm myself and be open.

gotta run.

[Yooper]

I find myself questioning my ideas of what is "unacceptable". Before having a child, I would think the toilet was definately not something I would ever allow a child to play with. Luckily, it has never come up. But had it, I would have to question what my ideas were about that specific issue. Could dd stick her hand in if enclosed in a bread bag? A glove? What about right after I cleaned it? Maybe she would be happy to help me clean it with a brush? Then I read that most toilet bowls when swabbed have less concentrations of e coli than your average kitchen sink!!!!!! Maybe it is better to let her play in there then the kitchen sink which is where she spent a great deal of time playing while I cooked. Not that I am advocating toilet snorkeling...but you get my drift. Kids are washable. I would much rather spend 5 minutes cleaning up yuckies on my child then spend 30 minutes dealing with a frustrated tantrum.

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by Yooper

I find myself questioning my ideas of what is "unacceptable". Before having a child, I would think the toilet was definately not something I would ever allow a child to play with. Luckily, it has never come up. But had it, I would have to question what my ideas were about that specific issue. Could dd stick her hand in if enclosed in a bread bag? A glove? What about right after I cleaned it? Maybe she would be happy to help me clean it with a brush? Then I read that most toilet bowls when swabbed have less concentrations of e coli than your average kitchen sink!!!!!! Maybe it is better to let her play in there then the kitchen sink which is where she spent a great deal of time playing while I cooked. Not that I am advocating toilet snorkeling...but you get my drift. Kids are washable. I would much rather spend 5 minutes cleaning up yuckies on my child then spend 30 minutes dealing with a frustrated tantrum.

These are good ideas, but again, let me reiterate that this is how I deal with this with a 14 month old. He's going to be no more happy if I ask him to wait to get a glove, bag, clean the toilet, etc., as if I just tell him, "Do you want to splash? Let's splash in the sink! Come on, let me pull the stool out!" Probably happier, actually, since it's about one foot to the sink, and he figures out what I'm doing in about 5 seconds, and he's just not really old enough for a prolonged frustrated tantrum. He's still at that angelic age where all his troubles melt away at the site of car keys or a sippy cup.

And, I do question a lot of what I thought was a requirement, in fact, I sometimes think, "Wow, I really let my kids run wild!" Not in a bad way, but just that they get to do all kinds of things that my more cautious friends won't allow, for example. But when the toilet hasn't been scrubbed in two days and I know how much poop has been flushed down there since it was, and he's splashing water on his face and putting his hands in his mouth, I just can't let that happen. I think there's a real chance of getting sick.

[aira]

I'll try to say what I wanted to before about the toothbrushing thing. I'm living this problem right now, and I have some other thoughts about it. I don't know if I'll have the time or focus, but here goes...

1. As a counter example to the horror stories, my GF didn't have a toothbrush until he was 23 years old. He never had a cavity or gum disease in his long life. His teeth - every one he was borh with in his head - were pearly-white (even with years of pipe smoking and chewing tobacco) when he died.

2. I'm very concerned about my son's teeth and gums. (I'll get to the whys later.) But as a point of attention, I'm more focused on the sugar and refined junk that DS gets from the GMs and what those non-foods do to his mouth. Toothbrushing (or it's lack) is a close second, but I believe that the diet is more important to dental health even than brushing.

3. Ahh, the question of what works... Well, so far, it's been an interesting journey. Pleading, explaining, and other colors of the like backfire. Forcing sets us back months. Telling about what will happen with dirty teeth results in confrontation. Why?

Well, in the numerous discussion we and DS have had about this, it seems clear that his inordinately strong aversion to toothbrushing stems from some serious pain he experienced for the first several months of his life. (I kid you not, my son forgets nothing.) He had an injured jaw from a car accident in utero, when his head was already engaged in my pelvis. He took a big hit to the jaw when I was injured in the hip. We strugged with BFing forever.

He hurt. He's scared. Would I serve his needs better to blast through that fear and pain and force a brushing, "for his good"? Or try to convince him that it's not really the big deal to him that it is? Will he really think that stickers are so important to have that he'll intentionally go through fear of pain to get them? I don't know. But personally, I'd be pi$$ed at the offer.

So what I'm left with is trying to help him cope with his fear. It's daunting. It takes a very long time, and lots of patience and commitment. I really lose it sometimes (inside) because I know it would be so much easier (for me, anyway) if DS would just brush his damn teeth. I mean, it's not gonna kill him, right? And I'm tired of worrying about his dental health.

Well, he doesn't feel that way. He remembers the pain he used to feel and is very afraid of it coming back. So it really is a big deal. Pushing him is the opposite of helping. It sets him back in discovering for himself that he really can handle having a brush clean his teeth everyday, and that the old pain won't just come back.

Now, I have an appointment to get his first dental cleaning. God(dess) help us. I don't know what will happen. Either DS will decide it's really cool to see all those mechanical things, or he'll freak and we'll find ourselves at square one, and it will take another couple of years to calm him down. But I just have to try. I will not allow a dentist to force anything on him, though. But I will try every respectful thing I can think of to help DS agree to a cleaning. And to feel safe about it.

OK, I'm falling over from a headache, so I can't imagine this turned out understandable. But I hope it offers a little more perspective...

[Mizelenius]

Toothbrushing aside (thankfully, it's been a non-issue here so far; both girls enjoy brushing their teeth) is it the belief, generally, that EVERY situation can be followed in terms of CL . . .that there are no absolutes, no time where a parent says "I draw the line at . . ." Are there ever instances where there isn't room for compromise? If there are times, what are those times for you (if you practice CL)?

[SneakyPie]

I know this might be a frustrating or annoying answer, Miz, but I really don't mean it to be, and this gets to the heart of CL:

CL is not, for me, about wondering if I will ever compromise my beliefs with my behavior. The whole point of living by mutual consent is to believe that EVERY situation holds within it the *possibility* of a mutually acceptable outcome.

So to say to myself (or to anyone), "Well, there I know there are times when I will abandon mutual consent" would keep me focused on potential breakdowns, rather than potential solutions. To say "There are three situations where I will DRAW THE LINE" keeps me from thinking creatively about those very situations, you know?

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

*warning personal opinion ahead* I think it is a violation of someone's body to hold them down, while verbally and physically protesting, sometimes crying and begging (according to some posts in the past), and forcing a foreign object in their mouth. I refuse to do it. I refuse to threaten punishment or bribe or manipulate. I just don't see how forcing someone physically to accept a foreign object in their mouth while they spit and cry and fight and beg you to stop is in any way shape or form gentle.

I respect your opinion and your views. I'll admit, that even I feel judgemental of people who hold down their dc's to brush their teeth- I think "but did they try x first?" "have they really thought it through" whatever. (not fair, but true). I though about it long and hard.
I guess I kinda agree that it is a violation. I do take issue with the rest of your description. Ds did cry the first couple times, but there was no spitting, begging, or even super-upset-type crying. And he wasn't scared, he just didn't like it. Trust me, I know the difference. And since then, he doesn't cry. He puts his feet up in my face for me to kiss them. He asks me to sing to him, and I do.
What it came down to for us was this- His teeth had to be brushed. I'm sorry if there are people who don't feel that way, but he had big cavities already (found out since that they are really not cavities but places where the enamel came off, probably due to trauma. But his first dentist said they were full blown cavities.) So, they had to be brushed. The options were this- convince him to let us brush his teeth (we tried everything I could think of, everything listed on mdc, and anything else I could fin online). Which led to him being upset, us being upset, and him having to deal with the choice of either letting us brush, or we are unhappy (not punitive, but frustrated). I was very uncomfortable with having that be a choice at all- it wasn't fair to him. That lasted an hour every time, and it resulted in getting his teeth kinda sorta lightly brushed. Twice a day.
When I started holding him down, the unhappiness lasted a minute (if that). Twice a day. Then we moved on to something fun. He held no resentment at all, even 5 seconds later.
Even dp, who refused to hold down ds, has said that he's amazed at how much it doesn't upset ds.
Anyways, I'm not going to say any more about it. Because I'm not an advocate of it. You can say its not gentle if that's how you feel, but there was no gentle option that involved getting his teeth brushed. At all. Not even once a day, or once every other day. (Though I do believe that if I had held off for a while, it may have helped. but that could have been weeks or months!)
Now that he is open to getting his teeth brushed, we will skip it if he doesn't want to do it right then. I'm ok with only once a day, if that's what it takes to get his teeth brushed willingly. If he wants us to stop after we get 2 teeth brushed, we do. If he wants to do it on his own, that's fine.
But there were no options like that when he was younger. If it was up to him, it would have been no toothbrushing, no way, no how. period. And I was really not ok with that. Especially after his cavities started feeling sensitive to him (he indicated a lot that they felt wierd. he knew right where his cavities were). But he was too young to put it together or care enough to let us brush.
Anyways, like I said, its obvious that I feel defensive. Because its not totally in line with my parenting beliefs. But I did what felt like the best thing at the time, and still I'm ok with the whole thing.

[captain crunchy]

Originally Posted by SneakyPie

I know this might be a frustrating or annoying answer, Miz, but I really don't mean it to be, and this gets to the heart of CL:

CL is not, for me, about wondering if I will ever compromise my beliefs with my behavior. The whole point of living by mutual consent is to believe that EVERY situation holds within it the *possibility* of a mutually acceptable outcome.

So to say to myself (or to anyone), "Well, there I know there are times when I will abandon mutual consent" would keep me focused on potential breakdowns, rather than potential solutions. To say "There are three situations where I will DRAW THE LINE" keeps me from thinking creatively about those very situations, you know?

I completely agree. There is no issue where I "draw the line". That statement in itself sets up an adversarial exchange with my child where one of our needs or wants (hers) is off the table.

Of course, there are special considerations of immediate and dire safety when you have an infant or young toddler. For instance, I remember freaking and getting a penny out of my daughter's mouth in a non-consensual way -- but to me those situations are not about her wanting to specifically chew on the penny itself, but to explore, or chew something, or whatever -- and I'm not going to risk her choking in that instance.

Basically, anything that has a high chance of killing her right then and there or putting her in the hospital near death is something I would step in on. I mean that literally. I don't mean it in a "well unhealthy food can cause problems later on so I force her to eat healthy" ... or "plaque on your teeth can affect your heart when you are 50 so I force toothbrushing" ... I mean LITERALLY life and death.. right then and there... is something I would act first and ask questions later on...and I think ANY loving parent, regardless of parenting philosophy, would do the same.

I am completely at peace with that and I don't feel it makes me in any way, shape or form any less consensual with my daughter.

I parent in the spirit of 99.9% of situations which will happen in the course of the life of a sahm in a developed country. I am not going to just say *fuggit* and throw in the consensual living towel because of a few incidents throughout her childhood where I *may* have to step in (like with the penny incident, which she wasn't really upset about but sensed my fear I think)

[WuWei]

Two comments and then off to bed. Plenty of children (and adults) have their teeth brushed religiously and still have cavities. Plenty of children (and adults) do not brush their teeth religiously and do NOT have cavities. Tooth brushing does not provide any guaranteed benefit. A pattern of forcing someone to do something against their will pretty much guarantees that force is being modelled as a tool of resolving conflicts.

I completely believe and trust that in the event of a life threatening incident, children (and adults) *want* to be saved from certain death. Consent is implied, unless someone is suicidal. And I don't believe that children are suicidal. IMO, the use of force, in an immenently life threatening situation, is when there is no forethought of 'well, does he want me to do this?'. It is an act of reacting without doubt before, during or afterwards. Otherwise, force is optional. I do not opt for force to resolve conflicts. I firmly believe that we are able to negotiate conflicts based upon consent. My goal is to create a solution which meets the needs of everyone involved.

Pat

[Mizelenius]

Originally Posted by SneakyPie

I know this might be a frustrating or annoying answer, Miz, but I really don't mean it to be, and this gets to the heart of CL:

CL is not, for me, about wondering if I will ever compromise my beliefs with my behavior. The whole point of living by mutual consent is to believe that EVERY situation holds within it the *possibility* of a mutually acceptable outcome.

No, this is not frustrating . . .it is not how I choose to parent (or live my life) but I can understand it for others. It is not a matter of disagreeing with it philosophically that keeps me from doing it, it is the fact that it would be the end of me as a person. I've learned this from the past!

You cleared things up for me, and I appreciate that!

[AntoninBeGonin]

Originally Posted by FreeRangeMama

We allow our kids to use the sockets. I'd rather teach them to do it safely than to just assume they aren't able and have them explore while I'm not around

Same here. I keep a close eye on our 23 m/o Ds when he's near the socket and remind him that if he wants to plug in anything he needs me to help. Then I'll help guide his hand so he can plug it in. I stay close by, like literally inches away, when he's near the socket and if I see him pick something up I remind him in a gentle and non-threatening way that only cords can go in the socket, just in case he's thinking of sticking something else in there.

~Nay

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by aira

He hurt. He's scared. Would I serve his needs better to blast through that fear and pain and force a brushing, "for his good"? Or try to convince him that it's not really the big deal to him that it is? Will he really think that stickers are so important to have that he'll intentionally go through fear of pain to get them? I don't know. But personally, I'd be pi$$ed at the offer.

Aira, your son is lucky that you're so understanding of this. And I'm not surprised he remembers that. Trauma and muscle memory is so linked, and I bet even more so when their little synapses are firing like crazy, like in the beginning of our lives.

I also liked your comment about bribery. I've often felt this ickiness about "sticker charts", which lots of my friends use, but never really been able to understand why, and I think you clarified it. Sorry to be totally OT, but it seems like bribery and rewards, while not only being a form of punishment when you take them away or don't give them, are a dishonest way to tell your child what you want. Confusing for the child, I would imagine, as well as demeaning.

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by Deva33mommy

Now that he is open to getting his teeth brushed, we will skip it if he doesn't want to do it right then. I'm ok with only once a day, if that's what it takes to get his teeth brushed willingly. If he wants us to stop after we get 2 teeth brushed, we do. If he wants to do it on his own, that's fine.

I know you didn't want to say anymore about this, but I wanted to say that I think it's probably not that bad for him if he allows you to do it. I "coerce" my dd on a regular basis, so you might think that I could brush her hair, but she absolutely refuses to let me. I, by myself, would not be able to hold her down AND brush her hair. So anywho, I wouldn't feel too guilty, though it doesn't sound like you do.

[aira]

Thanks for the kind words, Sarah.

I guess my point for bringing up my DS's situation is that I think there is always a reason under the protests that we can address. Hopefully most are not as severe as that one, but it serves as a clear example. Mainstream parenting would have us completely ignore something as serious as pain and muscle memory in getting kids to comply.

And just to add, when DS was born, he couldn't latch. Never did, in fact - though I worked with him on it for a year. I didn't know about the pain he was having until 12 weeks, when my LC noticed a pattern in him that she suspected to indicate an injury. Even after his jaw was successfully treated, he was outraged at any attempt to encourage drinking from the tap. Lots of that time was training for me in non-coersion. I knew instictively from the start that we were having not only the unknown (at that time) main issue, but that it had been made worse by the nurses when he was born who forced his head to my breast while he screamed. They didn't respect my requests to stop, and I was too weak to push them away. I could just feel that it was harming DS. I can't explain it.

Later, when we first got home, the nursing was torture for us both, and I finally, in a moment of desparation, looked at DS and told him how sorry I was that he had been forced. I told him how I understood how disrespectful and awful that had been for whatever his problems were and that I'd never force him again - that he was in control of his own body and eating. After that he let out the biggest wail yet and then tried to nusre and cried for 2 hours straight. I had a strange sense that he knew.

I knew nothing of either his jaw issue or of an organized philosophy of CL. I just came into it instictively.

The next day (day 5) we sought help from a specialist who got me pumping and bottle-feeding him. I took some criticism for agreeing to that, but DS was actually starving, and he was so clearly relieved when he got the first bottle of EBM, getting to eat without pain I assume. I really wanted to work it out with him to get back to nursing. I hated pumping - thus the year I spent gently encouraging BF. But he would never agree to try again. That situation was not exactly mutually agreeable. But it was more agreeable to me than FF. So we do out best with the situations we have. How would I go about drawing a line there, even though I hated every moment of pumping? OK, get it from the tap, or not at all?

In that case, I put off my needs to benefit DS. It caused me real problems, but I still feel that the benefit DS will have for the rest of his life is greater than the detriment to me. So it was agreeable in that sense - and was always a consious choice by me.

Well, sorry for the ramble. This was the backstory to the toothbrushing thing... and why I don't force it. I just feel very lucky that I know about his problem. I think most kids with such an issue wouldn't be understood, and would be thought obstinate or contrary. They'd never be able to explain to their parents what's going on. I'm lucky my LC was so sharp.

[aira]

Originally Posted by SneakyPie

I know this might be a frustrating or annoying answer, Miz, but I really don't mean it to be, and this gets to the heart of CL:

CL is not, for me, about wondering if I will ever compromise my beliefs with my behavior. The whole point of living by mutual consent is to believe that EVERY situation holds within it the *possibility* of a mutually acceptable outcome.

So to say to myself (or to anyone), "Well, there I know there are times when I will abandon mutual consent" would keep me focused on potential breakdowns, rather than potential solutions. To say "There are three situations where I will DRAW THE LINE" keeps me from thinking creatively about those very situations, you know?

I wanted to comment on how much I agree with this. Really well said!!