# love and logic



## mniko (Sep 15, 2007)

I was wondering if anyone has read the "love and logic" approach and what you think about it.
Thank you
Maria


----------



## SpottedFoxx (Feb 8, 2010)

I have and, just like all parenting books I've read, there are many good points (like giving choices) but there are others that made me want toss the book into the trash (giving away family pets and withholding food).

I think, as with any parenting book, you take from it what you feel would benefit you child. My son does great when given choices. He likes to feel in control. He doesn't like when he gets negative consequences but they are usually as a result of him making a bad choice. He seems to be learning from each experience and that's all I can ask.


----------



## msmiranda (Apr 22, 2009)

I have not read the book in its entirety, but a close friend of mine gets their email newsletter and keeps forwarding me stuff so I have enough familiarity with it to know that I don't like it. It seems harsh and punitive to me. And I'm not the most GD purist in the world, but there just seems to be a really cold-hearted attitude behind Love & Logic that turns me right off. I'm interested to hear what others who have read the book(s) have to say.


----------



## SpottedFoxx (Feb 8, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msmiranda*
> 
> I have not read the book in its entirety, but a close friend of mine gets their email newsletter and keeps forwarding me stuff so I have enough familiarity with it to know that I don't like it. It seems harsh and punitive to me. And I'm not the most GD purist in the world, but there just seems to be a really cold-hearted attitude behind Love & Logic that turns me right off. I'm interested to hear what others who have read the book(s) have to say.


It can have that edge to it. I especially didn't like the parts in the book about giving away a child's pet if they don't feed it, locking them in their room and withholding food. However, I will say that the technique of giving a child a choice and letting them suffer the consequences (both good and bad) of that choice speaks volumes to me. My son has responded very well to it and, as my mother loves to say, it's all in the delivery.


----------



## Owen'nZoe (Sep 7, 2005)

I'm not often in this forum, so maybe I shouldn't comment, but I saw Love and Logic, and had to.







I love it and it works wonders. I agree that there are some suggestions in the book that would give one pause, but if you look at the general tenants of the approach, I think they are fine:

1) Children will only learn right and wrong by running up against natural consequences. Neither lecturing nor punishing work.

2) Children should be given lots and lots of opportunities to make age-appropriate choices. When they are young, this means giving them a limited set of choices, both of which are potentially appealing to the child *and* which are acceptable to you. (in other words "Would you like to go to the store with me now, or do you need a few minutes to wrap that up first?" is an acceptable choice to offer the child, "Would you like to go to the store with me now, or have a time out?" is not). As they get older, the number of choices they get increases until they are really making choices from unlimited options just like adults.

3) When a child makes a poor choice, it is essential that you approach the child with empathy, and never anger or sarcasm. Be there to support them, but not to 'save' them the consequences.

4) Your child is only going to learn to be a responsible adult by making lots and lots of bad choices while they are young and the stakes are low. So, while you are supporting them with empathy, in the back of your head you can be rejoicing that they are learning and growing from the experience.

That's it - that's the system in a nutshell. I'm sure it depends on the application, but all in all, I find it a very respectful way of parenting.

I know some pp's have mentioned withholding food or getting rid of a pet. On withholding food, I think maybe that is a bit of an overstatement of what L&L recommends. For example, L&L is really big on giving kids age-appropriate chores to teach the children responsibility and build self-esteem. You are never to nag a child to complete a chore, or even ask them more than once, as the underlying/unspoken message when you ask multiple times is that you think they are too stupid/lazy/incompetent to do the job on their own without you hassling them (This was a real revalation for me - I would never, ever say any of those hurtful demeaning words to my child - but I did nag them to do things - so was esentially giving them the same message. Oops!). Instead, the way that you achieve the goal of getting them to complete chores in a reasonable amount of time is to schedule things that motivate the child at the end of the time they have to complete the chores.

So, for example, in our house the boys are responsible for setting the table before dinner. Every night I let them know that it is time to set the table about 15 minutes before dinner is done. I ask once. If they set it in the next 15 minutes, great! If they don't, I don't put dinner out. If they tell me they are hungry and it hasn't been set, I'll say, "Yeah, it is getting late - I'll bet you're hungry! I'll be happy to put dinner out on the table just as soon as it is set." Am I withholding food? Yes, sort of. But in practice, the table gets set, my children understand that getting dinner on the table is a group effort and we all do our part, and no one starves. I think the withholding food thing just really gets overstated when people criticize L&L (or maybe misused by people who apply L&L poorly).

As for giving away the dog if it isn't taken care of, it sounds harsh in isolation. I'll admit that this one was one that bothered me at first, but I came around to it after we discussed it in an L&L class. This isn't something you'd do in most cases, you know? First off, it would really only be appropriate with an older child who was capable of the level responsibility that comes along with a pet. Second, you'd be working with the child to problem solve on how to care for the dog better, and using tactics like the one above "Honey, come join us for dinner as soon as you've fed the dog, OK?" to encourage them to make the right choices. Only if all else fails, you have to step in and choose the dog's well being (because really, that dog deserves to be fed and well-cared for, too) over the child's desire to have a dog. When you think about it in terms of modeling respect for all living creatures to your child, it does make sense and doesn't seem so punative.

So, that's my defense of two points that a lot of people might consider defenseless. But I do have some criticisms of the system. For one, if you watch the videos, one of the guys just does not come off as very respectful when he deals with kids. Maybe it is just because he is role playing and he's a bad actor, but he comes off as condescending and not very empathetic. Blah. Second, I was uncomfortable that (at least in the class I took) a lot of the natural consequences were money-based. I think they overuse allowance as a motivator for good behavior in cases where a natural consequence is hard to see. ETA - one more criticism - as atheists, the scripture passages in the books were also sometimes offputting. I was able to gloss over them, but DH had a harder time seeing past the religious references in the book and evaluating whether the system could fit our family. The class we took was through the local public school, so the religious part was stripped out, which was much appreciated.


----------



## Owen'nZoe (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msmiranda*
> 
> I have not read the book in its entirety, but a close friend of mine gets their email newsletter and keeps forwarding me stuff so I have enough familiarity with it to know that I don't like it. It seems harsh and punitive to me. And I'm not the most GD purist in the world, but there just seems to be a really cold-hearted attitude behind Love & Logic that turns me right off. I'm interested to hear what others who have read the book(s) have to say.


I can totally see how you'd feel that way from the emails they send out. I get the emails, too, and can see how they could be read that way. I really don't think that that cold-heartedness is there, though, if you read the whole system or listen to either of the Dr. Fays speak. They actually say that being empathetic towards your child, especially when they've made a poor choice, is one of the most important things you can do as a parent.


----------



## mamakah (Nov 5, 2008)

I'm actually taking love and logic classes right now and to be honest, I'm not thrilled. Pretty much for all the reasons previous posters listed, sometimes harsh, lots of "allowance" consequences, focuses mostly on older kids, and I was also annoyed by the religious references (another atheist here). One class was focused on drugs, and talking to your kids about them. They taught that you should talk to your kids about drugs and their consequences, then tell them if they choose to do drugs that you will not spend a dollar of your hard earned money on keeping them from "dying in a gutter." Then he moved on to "it's hard to give your kids freedom over their choices, just like it was hard for God to give us, his children, free will..." I glazed over. That approach does not work with me personally.

I'm in no way trying to offend anyone here, it's just I wasn't expecting it to be religious or religious based so I was disappointed and annoyed.


----------



## SpottedFoxx (Feb 8, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakah*
> 
> I'm actually taking love and logic classes right now and to be honest, I'm not thrilled. Pretty much for all the reasons previous posters listed, sometimes harsh, lots of "allowance" consequences, focuses mostly on older kids, and I was also annoyed by the religious references (another atheist here). One class was focused on drugs, and talking to your kids about them. They taught that you should talk to your kids about drugs and their consequences, then tell them if they choose to do drugs that you will not spend a dollar of your hard earned money on keeping them from "dying in a gutter." Then he moved on to "it's hard to give your kids freedom over their choices, just like it was hard for God to give us, his children, free will..." I glazed over. That approach does not work with me personally.
> 
> I'm in no way trying to offend anyone here, it's just I wasn't expecting it to be religious or religious based so I was disappointed and annoyed.


I am a secular Jew but that kinda stuff makes my eyes glaze over too. There is a time and place for everything and, unless I am at a religiously sponsored event, I don't like it shoved down my throat in other areas.


----------



## Owen'nZoe (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamakah*
> 
> I'm actually taking love and logic classes right now and to be honest, I'm not thrilled. Pretty much for all the reasons previous posters listed, sometimes harsh, lots of "allowance" consequences, focuses mostly on older kids, and I was also annoyed by the religious references (another atheist here). One class was focused on drugs, and talking to your kids about them. They taught that you should talk to your kids about drugs and their consequences, then tell them if they choose to do drugs that you will not spend a dollar of your hard earned money on keeping them from "dying in a gutter." Then he moved on to "it's hard to give your kids freedom over their choices, just like it was hard for God to give us, his children, free will..." I glazed over. That approach does not work with me personally.
> 
> I'm in no way trying to offend anyone here, it's just I wasn't expecting it to be religious or religious based so I was disappointed and annoyed.


Yes! That is the guy and one of the exact video clips that made my skin crawl! I didn't mind the videos with the two Dr. Fays because they seemed to genuinely care about the kids, but that guy... Blech.

I think maybe the reason I like L&L so much is that the two people I know who use it (a mom I know and one of the teachers from the class we took) are some of the kindest, most empathetic, fair-minded parents I know. The way they apply the basic principles is quite different than Dr. Dying-in-a-Gutter.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I dunno... DH and I just finished a 6-week Love and Logic course and really liked it. Mostly because our facilitators were two amusing guys, who have small children and similar issues as we do. We also had a nice group of parents in our class, I thought.

That all said, there are absolutely pieces of the Love and Logic theory that I took with a grain of salt, and realized I wasn't comfortable with them or they wouldn't work with our kids. To be honest, I feel the same about GD. Some things make a lot of sense to me, and others feel like they allow my kids to walk all over me. Love and Logic may seem strict and not honoring the child in every situation to some people, but GD may give the opposite impression.

A lot of what we learned and implemented has make our family better - but I can say we adapted them slightly to our preference. I loved that all the statements were positive, instead of threatening/punishing. That is similar to GD, right? Saying, "you are welcome to play outside after you clean up the cheerios you threw all over the living room" instead of, "you have to pick up your mess or else you can't go out and play."

Basically, we took what we liked from the training and left the rest. Many parents attend these classes to find alternative to the grounding, spanking, yelling, time-outs, etc., discipline approach they have relied on heavily. Love and Logic is most certainly a more positive way to provide guidance over all that, IMO.

ETA: There was absolutely no reference to God or religion in our classes - so I didn't get that vibe about L&L at all. I would have been turned off by that, for sure (atheist here). However, one of our instructors was a pastor at a local church -- but, he didn't mention religion at all, and he was really funny and down to earth - never seeming judgmental or pushing his views. Also, we mostly focused on toddlers, preschoolers, and elem. aged kids. Only during the last class did we touch on teens and how to respond to them. Pretty much it was conveyed that if you do a great job parenting while they are young, you will have teens who can find their way respectfully. That and that if you feel like you have to control your 16 yr old, you are going to have to realize that in 2 years they will be adults.


----------



## mom2coy (Jan 31, 2011)

I use Love and Logic's principals, and they work fabulously-when i use them!. I attended a seminar and read the book. I too saw the g-d references and was initially put off by them. However, I did not feel that they were "shoved" down my throat at all. I am an atheist (born Jewish, married to a Catholic) and I am not bothered by it one bit. There were only a handful of g-d references. Also, it is not cruel! It might seem cruel to us, especially those of you in gen X, because it is all about teaching your kids responsiblity the right way. No rescuing. one point that REALLY resonates is letting your kids make decisions when the consequences are little instead of when they are older and the consequences are life and death.


----------



## doriodin (Aug 2, 2011)

Returning old member here. I had to check out the L & L thread and it seems that this is not a popular model of discipline these days. The private school that my older DS attends uses it to help the students resolve their own problems with others. I have been using L & L with both DSs and it works very well. It is simply about helping them to see that the unfavorable situation they're creating (or already in) is not helping them to be empathetic or kind towards others. My younger DS is highly spirited and just keeps getting himself into a situation, for example, today he repeatedly let the air out of a balloon (that he had blow a little air into) in our dog's face. The (big) dog clearly let him know that he was afraid and didn't like it. I tried a couple of lines like, "(the dog's name) doesn't like that, would you please stop?" "DS, he's letting you know that he's scared of the air in his face; can you play with the balloon somewhere else?" The thing that worked was when I asked him which drawer (1 of 3) would he like to put the balloon into. He liked that & put the balloon in right away. I told him that it had to stay in there and now he can play with something else. One of the techniques that L & L employs is temporary distraction to allow the parent a way to offer choices and get the child thinking, while at the same letting the emotions simmer down. My husband is better than I am at making situations fun & funny in order to guide DSs into better behavior. I'd love to hear any updates from others as to how they've handled situations w/ DCs. I'm also a playground supervisor and L & L works very well there.


----------



## pammigliore (Mar 7, 2014)

We are considering attending a L&L class but are also atheists, and they're holding the session at a large local church. My husband is highly skeptical and I'm a bit concerned myself as I'm not super familiar with L&L. Are the methods, examples & reasonings centered around faith or are the secular enough that we won't be completely turned off and will be able to benefit? Or should we just skip the session, and get a video? With the 2 littles, its hard to find time to read the books so a seminar was enticing from a time-management perspective but I'm concerned about the content. What do you think?


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

They are secular but on the strict side depending on how fully you use the strategy. I use some of the language and find some of it useful, especially as my dd has gotten older, but I blend other gentler styles and don't do any of the consequences /punishment. I especially like it during testing phases and there is a what do I do when type book that is great for navigating some preteen issues gently and reasonably.


----------



## KellyGlenn (Sep 29, 2009)

I'm not really a fan of L & L. I don't think the teachings take into account the developmental stages that typical children go through. The philosophy is too basic and doesn't use other variables such as the developmental piece I mentioned or relationship components or just general humanity. There's too much indirect blame and shame going on in the way that L & L approaches consequences.


----------



## mary934 (Mar 9, 2011)

The problem with [email protected] is that it may feel [email protected] to the parent , the kid may not buy into - that the earn to get - economic relationship is logical and the way to love kids. I prefer to be an unconditional parent who does not use love or leverage to try and get a kid to jump through my hoops. Instead solve problems in a collaborative way , foster relationship and trust and your child's socio-moral devlopment - to do things because they are the right things to do , it is the type of person you want to be and you can count on my help if you screw up and help you make amends


----------

