# Baby training



## camomof5 (Oct 13, 2006)

I am not sure of the real name for this but I plan on trying it. It basically is where you do not put things up out of their reach and such you simply just "train" them to behave instead of punishing them after they have done it, anyone know what this is called?


----------



## dani76 (Mar 24, 2004)

I don't know about "training", but you could look around the Gentle Discipline forum. You can gently remove an item, distract them, and re-direct them. Hope that helps!


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

I can tell you the name of it in my house -- unrealistic!









Seriously, why not just put things you don't want a baby to touch out of their reach? They're way too young to be asked not to explore what they can reach - in fact, developmentally, it's their job. Impulse control and delayed gratification are their developmental jobs much, much later.

You listed "train them to behave" as an alternative to "punishing them after they have done it," but there is a third, better option esp. for babies - just don't let the situation develop. It's not fair to the baby. And it will save you a ton of work and heartbreak - who wants to "punish" a baby, and tantalizing them with things you have no intention of giving them will just make you feel terrible, because it's really akin to taunting the baby. (Not that that is your intention!)


----------



## camomof5 (Oct 13, 2006)

I would never punsh a baby, I mean having to punish them as older children. I will come up with an article for it. Basically they learn not to touch anything, My other kids never touched anything that was not theirs I did not know that there was a system to this or a name, I just basically redirected them, but had no clue I was doing it. I am not making any sense I am too tired.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

I've seen a thread about this before (training a baby to stay on a towel or small rug or a blanket), and absolutely no consensus was reached.

To a person with a kid like mine, the only way I could imagine it working would be if you physically punished him each and every time. And that would be awful.

To a person whose kid is easily swayed (like my friend's DD), it seems easy as pie.

And n'er the twain shall meet.









But I don't know what it's called.


----------



## the_queen (Nov 3, 2005)

You're not thinking of that horrible book (is it the Pearl's or the Ezzo's?) where you leave the item on the floor, then "tap" or "thump" (or some other disgusting euphemism) them when they touch it? If so, please do not do these things. Please look at the Gentle Discipline threads. Please read some child development books, to give you an idea of how to have realistic behavioural expectations.


----------



## Clarinet (Nov 3, 2005)

That form of "training" includes beating your child with lengths of plumbing pipe. If you REALLY want to know about "baby training," the GD forums has lots of opinions about it, but seeing as how it leads to the abuse of children, you won't get a lot of "go ahead!"


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

"Training" is for dogs...and just as I wouldn't punish a baby, so also I wouldn't punish a child. Please do some reading in the GD forum.


----------



## dawncayden (Jan 24, 2006)

I was talking about this with dh yesterday. I was saying we should move our water cooler into the closet because ds is going to start pouring water all over himself...and with his water obsession, I can't expect to teach him not to...at least not yet. My idea was to bring it out of the closet when ds is old enough to understand that if water is pured all over the floor, mommy and him have to clean it up. And at 10 months he's not quite old enough to help me clean it up or understand that its a waste of water.
At this age he does understand that some things aren't for him. I say 'that's mommy's ' or 'that's grama's ' and he will usually hand it to me...but this only happens about 10 times a day with stuff that accidentally got into his grasp, I can't imagine if I left everything out for him...I'd go nuts! But hey that's me







If you have the patience, I guess go for it.
I should also say, that we don't really use the word 'no'...I say 'oh what have you found? that's mommy's...can mommy have it? thank you ds...'
I've said 'no' when he gets ahold of the toilet plunger though







: ick!

Dawn


----------



## 425lisamarie (Mar 4, 2005)

Children do not need training, they need loving people to guide them through life gently with out shame, humiliation, and physical force. Every time i hear the word "training" I get some chunky bits of puke in the back of my throat and have to sit down


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Personally I don't like it at all. I understand you will use gentler methods, like redirecting and not "punish" your child, but it just doesn't seem appropriate at all. Think of the process, you purposely leave something that would be attractive to your baby where they can get to it, but then you purposely frustrate them by not allowing them to have it? Babies are smart but still this is an awful lot of cognitive reasoning for you to expect your baby to figure it out the way you want them to. I'm sure your intention is that they learn there are some things they cannot have and they learn to be okay with that. But the result will be a baby who doesn't touch because they have a broken spirit.

Babies are meant to explore, and figure things out, by smell, by touch, by taste all of it. To take away the drive to do that is to take away a part of being a baby.


----------



## fireshifter (Sep 2, 2005)

I could be wrong, but is OP talking about teaching kids to handle things like dishes with out breaking them by talking about how they break and how to take care of them instead of just taking them out of reach? If so, I think that's a valid way of "training" your child.

Speaking of the word "TRAINING", I really think it depends on your background on how it's used. For me, as a horse person, "TRAINING" is a much better term for what used to and is often still called "BREAKING" a horse. So I take no offense at the word, 'TRAINING'.

Jenny


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
Think of the process, you purposely leave something that would be attractive to your baby where they can get to it, but then you purposely frustrate them by not allowing them to have it?

I agree. It also seems blatantly manipulative. Manipulativeness is not a highly desired trait to me, nor the sort of relationship I'd want to have with my child. I came from that sort of background, and at some point, the child figures out how to play that game too...and then it all gets hella ugly.

I do think you could compare this to an adult situation - how would we like it if we were on a diet, and our SO put out a piece of double-chocolate peanut butter FUDGE cake and said, "Hmm, I put it out to test you, you may not have any. Don't even _think_ of looking or tasting."

We'd probably say, "Hey, look! Naked Paris Hilton!" ...steal the cake, and run away. And curse our SO while eating the whole dang thing and laughing gleefully our trick on him.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fireshifter* 
I could be wrong, but is OP talking about teaching kids to handle things like dishes with out breaking them by talking about how they break and how to take care of them instead of just taking them out of reach? If so, I think that's a valid way of "training" your child.

Uhhh...why would a baby have a breakable dish? This is Life with a Babe.

I don't think "breaking" or "training" is suitable for, you know, humans.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

I don't understand why you just wouldn't put things out of reach until the child is old enough to understand or not break things?


----------



## oliversmum2000 (Oct 10, 2003)

Remember the 7 Baby B's

Birth Bonding
Breastfeeding
Babywearing
Bed Sharing
Belief in Babies Cries
Balance and Boundaries
*Beware of Baby Trainers*


----------



## PGNPORTLAND (Jul 9, 2005)

I understand why many would react to the word "training" but find it hard to believe the OP is planning on hitting her child with "lengths of plumbing pipe".

For what it's worth, we have not taken everything out of our 10 months old reach. Small, dangerous, breakables yes but things liket he tv, cd player ect have stayed put. When she goes to touch them I say "uh oh sophia" in a calm (not scary) but "warning voice" . As I say "uh oh", I pick her up and move her to something she is allowed to play with. Sometimes she gets upset but it is short lived. At this point she doesn't go near the "uh oh" things very often. If she does and I say "uh oh" she will release it. I try to avoid saying the word "NO" as I want to save that for really dangerous things like knives and running in streets. It seems to be working out pretty well.

pauline


----------



## fireshifter (Sep 2, 2005)

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=564188

This is the post (EnvrioRebecca's reply) I'm thinking of over in GD where they were talking about breakable dishes with a baby and teaching them how to handle them instead of just taking them out of reach. Personally, it ain't for me, DS likes to throw things and I really don't have the patience, but it has seemed to work for one person over on GD so I don't think it's totally invalid....

Anyway, the word "training" to me just doesn't seem offensive so I'll continue to use it along with the word, "discipline". I'm sorry if it's not your first choice of words. It doesn't mean I'm hitting DS or slapping his hands or doing any sort of physically degrading actions. It's just my choice of words.

Jen


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

To the OP, the idea stems from Michael Pearl's Book "To Train Up a Child".

If you visit the website, you will see that they do advocate hitting them with plumbing pipe, the thin flexible kind.


----------



## dani76 (Mar 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bamamom* 
If you visit the website, you will see that they do advocate hitting them with plumbing pipe, the thin flexible kind.

Oh, as long as it's the *flexible* kind.


----------



## dani76 (Mar 24, 2004)

I didn't mean that as snarky, but I think it's disgusting to hit a child with anything.


----------



## Clarinet (Nov 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PGNPORTLAND* 
I understand why many would react to the word "training" but find it hard to believe the OP is planning on hitting her child with "lengths of plumbing pipe".


Please read Bamamama's post up above - she clarified my words. There is a book. It is about baby training. It "teaches" the exact technique the OP is inquiring about and the punishment for the lesson is whipping with a length of rubber plumbing pipe. It's bad.

Flyingspaghettimama, your analogy is hilarious. I'd be inclined to swipe the cake and whack my SO with the plumbing hose for even thinking about keeping me away from it.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Have you read The Continuum Concept? One of the premises introduced is the idea that children innately handle objects with care and respect, until shown an alternative (fear, carelessness, you name it, we do it.)
We didn't childproof at home, and my mother never EVER childproofed her home: everything that was less than 3 ft from the floor was entirely fair game with the exception of electric sockets and the TV on switch. In 8 years, my kids have broken 3 things between them- the grownups in our house average a breakage a month. I do feel that it is possible to teach children care for objects from a very early age.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Have you read The Continuum Concept? One of the premises introduced is the idea that children innately handle objects with care and respect, until shown an alternative (fear, carelessness, you name it, we do it.)
We didn't childproof at home, and my mother never EVER childproofed her home: everything that was less than 3 ft from the floor was entirely fair game with the exception of electric sockets and the TV on switch. In 8 years, my kids have broken 3 things between them- the grownups in our house average a breakage a month. I do feel that it is possible to teach children care for objects from a very early age.


----------



## wanderinggypsy (Jul 26, 2005)

I think this whole concept also depends a bit on what kind of a house you keep. I keep a simple, tidy house. I'm not into knick knacks, and even before baby proofing, there wouldn't have been much for a child to break. I hate coffee tables, think they're clutter traps, so I don't have one for things to be set all over...

I think if I were into breakable glass knick knacks, I'd put them up. Not so much for love of the object, but because broken glass can result in a nasty cut!

As for other hazardous things, like cleaning products, I've never allowed them to be accessible to a baby. Even though I believe in redirection, it only takes a minute unsupervised for a child to do serious damage to themselves where chemicals are concerned. I think I'd worry about a house where those kind of products were not put UP and AWAY. (Of course, I don't use much by way of cleaning products, mostly vinegar, but the odd thing of bleach or whatever, you know...).

I guess in my own life I've learned that I can't gaurantee that I'll be there watching like a hawk every microsecond of every day. So I allow for SAFE RISKS, and prevent catastrophe by eliminating what I consider to be deadly/dangerous hazards.


----------



## spughy (Jun 28, 2005)

The only object we've had difficulty with in our house is the dog's water bowl. It is like a big, splashy, messy magnet for DD. We can redirect all we want, but occasionally for no reason whatsoever she'll remember it's there, run into the kitchen and splash away.

We alternate between telling her it's off-limits and removing her from the water bowl, and by just putting the water bowl up on the counter. Neither is a good solution; the former lasts a little while, the latter causes the dog to go thirsty.

This has been going on for 4 months now. If she were trainable, she'd be trained by now. Probably depends on the kid.


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dani76* 
Oh, as long as it's the *flexible* kind.









yep. I have actually seen the pipe they advocate...you have blinds on your windows?? The little stick you turn the blinds with??? That is the size stick that it is.

Take it down and whack your leg with it....It hurts. Its huge!

They do bend a little...if they're really long, they hang at the end if you hold it out straight . I was in a church service once, and a little girl was sitting on the front row, and she was digging in her purse. Her mama was sitting behind her, and I was sitting behind the mama, with a clear view of both. The mama reached down under her chair, and pulled out a "rod" like I just described.....

She leaned over, and aimed...and SMACK brought that stick down between kids with amazing aim, and smacked that little girl on the arm/hand with the stick. the little girl froze, and caught her breath, but she knew better than to cry. She eased the purse to the floor, and sat still as a statue the rest of the service.

I asked the mama about it later, and I thought it was a blind stick . She explained that its plumping supply line, and that it works great! It stung like the dickens!

So there you have it...a full description of the "rod" that the Pearl's advocate.


----------



## Blue Lotus (Jun 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bamamom* 
yep. I have actually seen the pipe they advocate...you have blinds on your windows?? The little stick you turn the blinds with??? That is the size stick that it is.

I asked the mama about it later, and I thought it was a blind stick . She explained that its plumping supply line, and that it works great! It stung like the dickens!

So there you have it...a full description of the "rod" that the Pearl's advocate.

























Holy crap! That's crazy!! My hubby has been hit with one of those blind sticks, and he says they hurt like crazy, and he would take a belt any day.

In my opinion, that's child abuse.







: I can't imagine whacking my poor sweet babe with one.









That has to seriously kill a babies curiosity and spirit.


----------



## oliversmum2000 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bamamom* 
yep. I have actually seen the pipe they advocate...you have blinds on your windows?? The little stick you turn the blinds with??? That is the size stick that it is.

Take it down and whack your leg with it....It hurts. Its huge!

They do bend a little...if they're really long, they hang at the end if you hold it out straight . I was in a church service once, and a little girl was sitting on the front row, and she was digging in her purse. Her mama was sitting behind her, and I was sitting behind the mama, with a clear view of both. The mama reached down under her chair, and pulled out a "rod" like I just described.....

She leaned over, and aimed...and SMACK brought that stick down between kids with amazing aim, and smacked that little girl on the arm/hand with the stick. the little girl froze, and caught her breath, but she knew better than to cry. She eased the purse to the floor, and sat still as a statue the rest of the service.

I asked the mama about it later, and I thought it was a blind stick . She explained that its plumping supply line, and that it works great! It stung like the dickens!

So there you have it...a full description of the "rod" that the Pearl's advocate.

and seriously - nobody said anything??

i would like to believe that somebody would call the police if they saw that happening i men that is just not normal.


----------



## bamamom (Dec 9, 2004)

Where I come from, that is totally normal. EVERYone spanked. EVERYone.

I dont know how to explain it, but this was several years ago, and it absolutely didnt bother me, to tell the truth. (Please no flames..I grew up in an extremely heavy spanking environment, it was totally normal to me)

The girl was probably between age 5-7 yrs. If that gives you a better mental image.


----------



## oliversmum2000 (Oct 10, 2003)

maybe it is a culture difference but i am sure that if anyone was seen hitting a child with an implement that people would be totally blown away.


----------



## dawncayden (Jan 24, 2006)

I always wonder if a man was hitting his wife with a stick, would anyone call the police to report abuse...probably...but with a child who is so much more vulnerable than an adult, its called 'parenting'.








: I hate our society sometimes









Dawn


----------



## lotsofkids (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *camomof5* 
I am not sure of the real name for this but I plan on trying it. It basically is where you do not put things up out of their reach and such you simply just "train" them to behave instead of punishing them after they have done it, anyone know what this is called?

I would call it unrealistic and unfair to the child. Why not just put the stuff away until it becomes age-appropriate? That's so much easier and less frustrating for everyone.


----------



## camomof5 (Oct 13, 2006)

Quote:

I understand why many would react to the word "training" but find it hard to believe the OP is planning on hitting her child with "lengths of plumbing pipe".
No we dont spank.

Quote:

For what it's worth, we have not taken everything out of our 10 months old reach. Small, dangerous, breakables yes but things liket he tv, cd player ect have stayed put. When she goes to touch them I say "uh oh sophia" in a calm (not scary) but "warning voice" . As I say "uh oh", I pick her up and move her to something she is allowed to play with. Sometimes she gets upset but it is short lived. At this point she doesn't go near the "uh oh" things very often. If she does and I say "uh oh" she will release it. I try to avoid saying the word "NO" as I want to save that for really dangerous things like knives and running in streets. It seems to be working out pretty well.
This is what I had in mind, no hitting not things that can hurt the baby.

Quote:

To the OP, the idea stems from Michael Pearl's Book "To Train Up a Child".

If you visit the website, you will see that they do advocate hitting them with plumbing pipe, the thin flexible kind.
That is horrible and I have never heard of this book or guy.

Quote:

I would call it unrealistic and unfair to the child. Why not just put the stuff away until it becomes age-appropriate? That's so much easier and less frustrating for everyone.
I dont have anything that really is breakable, Nor anything that I would really care if it got broke, I am talking about remotes and such, nothing breakable or harmful.

Thank you everyone for your input, I will do some reading in the GD forums


----------



## oliversmum2000 (Oct 10, 2003)

i let my dd play with remote controls (though due to some confusion when ds1 was small we call them fat controllers - as in thomas the tank emgine!)

she touches dh's speakers as we cannot move them, and we dont havt a tv / vcr / dvd player

if it wont hurt we are pretty relaxed, but move trinkets out of the way.

i really believe that it is 'forbidden' items that they all want to play with so much, and we dont have anything forbidden that she is able to get to.

i dont find that she fusses much at all with dh's speakers, except maybe to give the center speaker a shove now and again when she is leaning on it.

i think that using the word 'train' hit a really sensitive spot for many, but to try to guide gently, with items that are safe and replaceable is what i think a lot of mothers do.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Oliversmum, I think this is where we're coming across a huge cultural difference.
To those on the western side of the atlantic, Vanessa and I live in a country where twice an hour, we (OK, I) see TV adverts saying "stamp out child cruelty. Full stop" and where, in parts of the country, smacking is already illegal. You can talk all you like about the Pearls but it still seems incredulous that such a thing happens in our "civilised" age. I just have a hard time making sense of it.


----------



## oliversmum2000 (Oct 10, 2003)

i agree completely.

in some ways the united states seems very smiliar to us, but it many it is an entirely different world.

i cannot imagine a book shop being allowed to stock some of the books that are popular there. it does blow my mind.


----------



## Dido (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oliversmum2000* 
in some ways the united states seems very smiliar to us, but it many it is an entirely different world.

i cannot imagine a book shop being allowed to stock some of the books that are popular there. it does blow my mind.

Are you saying that there are certain books your stores aren't allowed to sell? I'd be surprised to hear that, although I agree that it's a different world - I lived in the UK for a year and can attest to that.

One difference I know of is that unlike the UK, the US does have a constitution with a Bill of Rights, which means, among other things, that bookstores here can stock whatever books they like. I'm very happy about our freedom of speech (although our president probably isn't), whether or not I'm happy about every book out there. I don't think the UK restricts the sale of many, if any, books either. Rather, different cultural climates mean that there is more of an audience and a market for certain books in the US than there is in the UK. Nonetheless, there are plenty of harsh childcare techniques being peddled in the UK. We have our Ezzos as well as our Searses and y'all have your Gina Fords as well as your Penelope Leaches.


----------



## MiamiMami (Feb 1, 2005)

cammomof5, thats what we did. We did regular babyproofing, but we didn't put away remotes or phones. We didn't have anything breakable anyway. Luckily dd wasn't to big on getting into things anyway. If she did, we distracted and handed her something safer.

I think you phrased your question wrong. I read this thread expecting the worst.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
Are you saying that there are certain books your stores aren't allowed to sell? I'd be surprised to hear that, although I agree that it's a different world - I lived in the UK for a year and can attest to that.

One difference I know of is that unlike the UK, the US does have a constitution with a Bill of Rights, which means, among other things, that bookstores here can stock whatever books they like. I'm very happy about our freedom of speech (although our president probably isn't), whether or not I'm happy about every book out there. I don't think the UK restricts the sale of many, if any, books either. Rather, different cultural climates mean that there is more of an audience and a market for certain books in the US than there is in the UK. Nonetheless, there are plenty of harsh childcare techniques being peddled in the UK. We have our Ezzos as well as our Searses and y'all have your Gina Fords as well as your Penelope Leaches.

Well, the Pearls are self-published, and I don't know of any normal American bookstore that carries their books. No regular American publisher would touch them with a ten-foot flexible pipe.I imagine people purchase them either online or through specialist Christian bookstores. I think the mindset that the Pearls appeal to (with the spanking and blanket training) is um, uniquely American, which may be flapjack's point, and yours as well. Does even Gina Ford suggest spanking or hitting a baby? CIO, on the other hand, is just fairly mainstream in every Western culture, unfortunately.

ITA about remotes and such - just give him one that doesn't work, or get a cheap one at goodwill to be "his" remote.


----------



## rambunctiouscurls (Oct 4, 2006)

I just don't understand why some one would stress out a baby like this. I think it's completely different to redirect a babe when he/she comes upon something dangerous than to purposefully set something right in front of him/her in an attempt to train him/her not to touch.

Babies are really curious and love exploration. With blanket training, You end up with a baby who doesn't explore at all and as a result, doesn't learn and that is sad.

OP, please reconsider this blanket training or baby training you have heard of and just babyproof your home. Reading the GD forums is a very good idea as well.


----------



## oliversmum2000 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BrklynMama* 
Are you saying that there are certain books your stores aren't allowed to sell? I'd be surprised to hear that, although I agree that it's a different world - I lived in the UK for a year and can attest to that.

One difference I know of is that unlike the UK, the US does have a constitution with a Bill of Rights, which means, among other things, that bookstores here can stock whatever books they like. I'm very happy about our freedom of speech (although our president probably isn't), whether or not I'm happy about every book out there. I don't think the UK restricts the sale of many, if any, books either. Rather, different cultural climates mean that there is more of an audience and a market for certain books in the US than there is in the UK. Nonetheless, there are plenty of harsh childcare techniques being peddled in the UK. We have our Ezzos as well as our Searses and y'all have your Gina Fords as well as your Penelope Leaches.

true - i guess when you put it like that i guess shops can stock what they like. but i have never heard of anyone advocating coporal punishnment of infants.

sorry if i sound critical of the us that is not my intention.


----------



## fireshifter (Sep 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommy2Amira* 
I just don't understand why some one would stress out a baby like this. I think it's completely different to redirect a babe when he/she comes upon something dangerous than to purposefully set something right in front of him/her in an attempt to train him/her not to touch.

OP, please reconsider this blanket training or baby training you have heard of and just babyproof your home. Reading the GD forums is a very good idea as well.

Have you read the OPs replies and seen that she's not talking about beating her child or setting things out to tempt it? She's merely talking about not baby-proofing within an inch of her life and letting the babe explore things that can't hurt it, but aren't necc. baby toys. It's not stressing the baby out or hitting it trying blanket training. You just assumed that from reading the opening post.

Why can't a person come on these boards and use a word like "train" without everyone assuming they're beating their child. If you'd read her post on the second page, you would see that her intentions are NOT to use Pearl or Ezzo stuff, she was just asking if some people don't babyproof as much as others and teach their kids how to handle things instead of assuming they don't have the ability to do so.








:


----------



## rambunctiouscurls (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fireshifter* 
Have you read the OPs replies and seen that she's not talking about beating her child or setting things out to tempt it? She's merely talking about not baby-proofing within an inch of her life and letting the babe explore things that can't hurt it, but aren't necc. baby toys. It's not stressing the baby out or hitting it trying blanket training. You just assumed that from reading the opening post.

Why can't a person come on these boards and use a word like "train" without everyone assuming they're beating their child. If you'd read her post on the second page, you would see that her intentions are NOT to use Pearl or Ezzo stuff, she was just asking if some people don't babyproof as much as others and teach their kids how to handle things instead of assuming they don't have the ability to do so.








:

If you would read my response, You would also see that I said there was a difference in redirecting a baby rather than setting out to put things right in front of the baby.

So next time , Please read. I didn't insinuate she was hitting her child. She described blanket training to T. (she just modified it by saying she wouldn't punish the babe)

It also sounds like you need to calm down a little before you post.


----------



## camomof5 (Oct 13, 2006)

Quote:

I think it's completely different to redirect a babe when he/she comes upon something dangerous than to purposefully set something right in front of him/her in an attempt to train him/her not to touch.
I agree! I have never hear dof blanket training, nor anything about pearl


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I'm going to close this for moderator review. I am out of town and likely will not get to it til tomorrow morning. Please do NOT start another thread and feel free to PM me if you have any questions or concerns.

Peace, mamas!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Okie dokie. I am moving this over to Gentle Discipline.


----------



## dharmama (Dec 29, 2002)

I wonder if the question you are asking is similar to one I posted a while back (when my DD was about 14 mos old). I was asking about boundary setting vs. baby proofing and got some great responses!

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=330684


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

But doesn't The Continuum Concept espouse the same kind of non-babyproofing ideas?


----------



## guestmama9972 (Jun 5, 2003)

I think the OP's use of the word "training" raised some hackles, here. I don't think she had the Pearl's in mind at all, rather not removing every item in her home out of baby's reach.

We didn't totally babyproof our house. Obvious dangers were removed or covered, cleaners were locked, cords removed from blinds, etc. But things like the cat's water dish, the litter box, CDs and movies were all left out in addition to everything that my babies could touch.

I did this on purpose to help my girls learn boundaries, and thus, self-control. As they went for the cat's water, I'd say, "Uh-oh! The water is for the cat, not for Anna/Nina!" and either remove the kid or redirect them to an appropriate toy. They never got in the litter (the odor when you stick your head in an enclosed litter box did the trick!), and when they tried to remove every cd from the shelf we did the redirecting and removal, as well. There was never any negative or punative response at all. It was all very low-key and matter of fact.

Obviously this is labor intensive for the parent and the payoff does not come for years, but I can see that it has taught both my daughters self control, appropriate to their ages and development, of course. Coupled with being raised in a loving, peaceful, non-violent household, I can't see how it did any harm--certainly it is nothing akin to what I have read about the Pearls or the Ezzos.

I never gave our method much thought and certainly never considered it *training*. If I had to classify it as anything, I'd say it was teaching or directing, maybe.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I think there's a huge difference between not going crazy with the baby-proofing and redirecting Baby when she touches something (although I would agree with Dr. Sears that a baby can basically only handle one "no" per room) and setting a baby on a blanket, putting a cookie in front of her, saying "Don't touch that cookie" and then disciplining her, even if "only" with disapproving words and voice, when she does.

That form of baby "training" (along with blanket training or other artificial boundaries) raises red flags with me for two reasons:

One, it is developmentally inappropriate. Infants are concrete creatures. They need real, physical boundaries and limits. They just don't get abstract or symbolic boundaries. They aren't wired that way. They _are_ wired to explore and touch and feel. To constantly thwart this need for no other reason than you're the grown-up and you can is not going to "teach" them anything other than learned helplessness.









Two, it does not promote attachment. I can see saying no or wait or stop when there is a reason. For example, a baby biting when nursing. That's a life lesson--you chomp down on the milker and the mama can't continue to nurse. It hurts. But to create artificial situations where you assert your authority simply to prove that you can does not help a baby learn one of the most important lessons of infancy-attachment and love. How would you as an adult feel if someone purposely set you up in artificial situations where if you didn't do what they said (mostly because you didn't understand) you would be disciplined, even if just with words or a stern look, and made to continue the scenario until you gave in and obeyed? Probably not very nice. Personally, I would even rather see a baby placed in a pack-and-play where they can at least see and feel their boundaries than "trained" to stay on a blanket, pinned there by their mama's disapproval.

I'm not opposed to discipline. I forget who said "discipline begins at the breast" but I agree that teaching begins at birth. Life has enough real lessons without artificially creating them, IMO.


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

For What its worth we did basic safety childproofing ans big ticket items like we have a shelf that hold family crystal call me crazy but thats behind a lock







but we didn't like super proof. We took the rest as it came, we redirrected but if something became an issue it made more sense to block it than get all mad and for the few thing s we couldn't block or remove we could devote more attention to. Gently of corse.


----------



## hipumpkins (Jul 25, 2003)

I haven't read all the replies but thought I'd let you know tihs fun tidbit:
My Dd was taught "gentle touch" and "one finger touch" anytime she was near a breakable item we would remind her.."gentle touch" and she would. People would reagail us with compliments on what great parents we must be to have such a gentle child and who could go inot anyones home and not be a threat to their blelongings...
May I now introduce you to my son







:
Gentle touch??? No way! If he has it he throws it. It is easier to remove the things from the room (he can reach anything) than to try and remove it from his hand. So if you get a gentle easy baby like DD..go ahead and teach gentle one finger touch ...if you don't than let your expectatiosn go and move your stuff.


----------

