Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

would you put your two year old in the naughty corner if they refused to eat any dinner?

60 replies

Sparklemagic · 23/02/2006 09:00

Posting question for a mate whose friend does this and they've clashed over it as my mate feels it's inappropriate and harsh. I agree with her but then I've always been very laid back with how much DS eats, never wanted to force the issue. What do you think?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

maretta · 23/02/2006 09:03

I personally would never do that but my two year old won't eat either.

Ponka · 23/02/2006 09:06

DS is getting on for 2. I'm not an expert at all and am just starting out but I feel it's too early to have a "naughty corner" at all at this stage. I think the best way to produce a good eater is not to put the pressure on. The 'punishment', if you could call it that is just natural consquences. They feel hungry. I never force DS to eat anything he doesn't want to but he has to stay in his high chair until we have finished eating and I don't pander to him by offering him lots of different alternatives.

Blandmum · 23/02/2006 09:06

I wouldn't, but then, I wouldn't give them anything in between meals if they later said that they were hungry.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

lazycow · 23/02/2006 09:06

Would never do this but then I grew up with all sorts of estiong problems as areult of being constantly told to 'eat some more'

So no would not do it at all. I would definitely save the naughty step for more serious transgressions and I really don't think 'not eating' is one of those. I know it can be really worrying/annoying for parents but I think ignoring the behaviour is really the best option for this in most cases.

Original poster

Sparklemagic · 23/02/2006 09:12

thanks guys, I do agree with you. Eating just seems such a dodgy area to be authoritarian with. Do you think it's about control? It seems to mum is imposing control over her child?

OP posts:

batters · 23/02/2006 09:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

eemie · 23/02/2006 09:13

No, I'd favour the laid-back approach like you. I avoid putting any pressure on her to eat when she's not hungry - it's asking for trouble later on imo.

Mascaraohara · 23/02/2006 09:13

I wouldn't do it! I'm a firm believer that the more laid back a mealtime can be the more your children are likely to eat. Again wouldn't let her snack if she didn't eat (certainly no pudding).

I think introducing that sort of discipline around mealtimes will only cause more stress.

I have to say that they show a good technique on House of tiny Tearaways which I use to get my dd to eat new things... they give a sticker for licking it another for a little bite etc It's worked very well for me and although dd has always been fairly good I have managed to increase her variety ten fold by removing the fear of trying new things. To cut a long story short perhaps your friend could try suggesting alternative techniques.

puddle · 23/02/2006 09:15

I do the same as Batters. Don't make food a battle - try and be as laid back as possible, especially for littlies.

mumfor1standfinaltime · 23/02/2006 09:15

No I dont think so. When ds doesnt want to eat, I just remove him from the table.
It is not 'naughty' to not eat IMO!

mummygow · 23/02/2006 09:16

no, I just wouldn't give snacks like martianbishop, and also I read somewhere that a lots of weight problems are caused by not stopping when your tummy is full and in the past our parentstold us to finish everything on our plate because their parents told them that, due to rationing during the war and so it's a learned behavior - iyswim

julen · 23/02/2006 09:19

No, I don't either. But they stay at the table until we have all finished, and I have started telling my 3 1/2 yr old that she has to finish her food in order to get desert. She doesn't have to eat what's on her plate if she doesn't want to, but then there's no desert either. There's no big arguments, she just gets the choice. Seems to work OK, so far (seeing her little brother (who will eat anything at the mo) having his desert usually is enough to convince her...).

Eeek · 23/02/2006 09:19

surely you also want the child to understand what "full" means and to develop a judgement of what is enough. We all have days when we're starving and when we're just not hungry. And who's to say the portion size is right.

Also - if you make food a battle ground the child will ALWAYS win.

FairyMum · 23/02/2006 09:20

No never. You are not naughty if you don't eat and you are not good if you do either. I even let mine snack in between, but they have to get it themselves and preferably fruit.

NannyL · 23/02/2006 09:23

I wouldnt.... they can be hungry and wait until next meal instead

Bozza · 23/02/2006 09:24

I don't think two is too early for a naughty corner tbh. I send my DD to the naughty step sometimes at mealtimes when she is having a tantrum but not for not eating. I want her to learn that she has to sit at the table with the rest of us at mealtimes, then it's up to her what she eats. Sitting her on the step sometimes really calms her down and then she'll come back to the table and either eat nicely or just sit and chat and pull faces at DS. I think that time out to calm down is as much the idea of the naughty step as punishment.

Bozza · 23/02/2006 09:25

Julen I do that too. They always get fruit - whether they've eaten their main or not - but have to eat that to get anything else.

harpsichordcarrier · 23/02/2006 09:26

no, inappropriate, harsh and massively counterproductive. In fact just plain stupid. Way to turn eating into a massive battleground. My aim would be to teach children to eat when they are hungry. once you turn food into a discipline issue, you're screwed.
Imho.

Angeliz · 23/02/2006 09:44

Absolutely not infact i think it's ridiculous parenting and just setting the little girl up for an eating disorder in the future.
Mealtimes are supposed to be happy family times, not stressful times of punishment and humiliation. (and yes i DO have a fussy eater but when she's hungry she will eat)

Hallgerda · 23/02/2006 09:54

I agree with martianbishop and NannyL. I would ensure that my children sat down at the table for a little while though, so as not to make it too tempting to go off and play instead of eating.

However, I would not tell my friends in RL how they ought to bring up their children unless any harsh treatment was a good deal worse than that described here.

cod · 23/02/2006 09:55

Message withdrawn

Enif · 23/02/2006 09:55

no never

cod · 23/02/2006 09:56

Message withdrawn

cod · 23/02/2006 09:57

Message withdrawn

Em32 · 23/02/2006 09:59

No - food is the one thing they can control and I wouldn't be surprised if her ds ends up with 'food issues'. Not that I'm an expert but I wouldn't do this personally.

Flip

1 2 3