You know what? Kids don't actually wither and die if someone says "no" to them...

[Fillyjonk]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

long story, but really, fgs.

Sometimes it is good to just say to kids "ok, you know what? It really IS someone else's turn/time tp gp home/time to stop whacking that toddler".

Oh and "NO you can't have another ice cream, you've had 3 already and its only 11 o clock"

aaaaaaaaaaaargh

ok feel better

Glad you feel better.

Here here! Well said!

Can I add-

It is not necessary to have a signed document, involving sweets and new toys, agreed by both adult and child before said child will to go to bed.

I LOVE saying no!

My DS is an only and I am concious of him not being a spoilt brat so i am quite strict. I am a softie in most ways but can do my strict shouty voice at the drop of a hat.

Saying no is good for them.

i have o/d on hardcore A/P parenting sites (the sites that thing Dr Sears is akin to a bootcamp and that the baby bjorn is EVIL)

kids just aren't THAT fragile.

and i am very into negotiation and finding ways that work for everyone, and all the rest

but at the end of the day

1. i AM the adult and I have 3 kids and I WILL make a final decision where needed

1. My happiness is also important. I sometimes wonder what message some parents are sending their kids-parenting is a hell of extreme sacrifice and misery (or worse-women should spend their lives sacrificing their desrires for their kids)

unconditional parenting doesn't mean not saying no if that is what you are referring to

Seem to be coming across the not-saying-no parents mainly on MN: in RL parents seem a lot more sturdy. In fact, it would be nice to hear some of them say Yes sometimes.

You really have OD'd haven't you

Surely it's not about rigidly sticking to a set of "rules" (how can that be right) but find a way through that works for the whole family?

Or am I being too serious; here have a glass of wine and ignore your offspring

"unconditional parenting doesn't mean not saying no"

Totally agree, Stayinbed.

I'd like to know how old they have to be before they realise that getting stroppy and arguing with me when I've said 'No' is NOT going to change my mind. It hasn't worked before, it's just made me more determined - but each and every time they forge ahead in the blind belief that this time will be different!!

PS - my dh, who's in his mid-40's, has just informed me that this particular penny has not yet dropped for him - so I've no chance!!

Haha. I've heard my dcs saying "No means no" to each other...

lol

I have spent the last sodding 5 YEARS reading AP and UP sites

and bloody hell are they po faced

But I still don't know what the difference is between AP and UC...

I overheard ds and his two 4 year old friends from the street having some kind of competition about who was not allowed to do the most kind of things. They revelled in not being allowed out of the street, to play out after a certain time, to not take a certain type of toy out!!

My experience is that most people build their parenting styles from a basis of saying no . ie, 'I'll say no first and then think about it'. The other type tend to be rarer IME.

What does AP stand for? Assume UP - Unconditional Parenting. My own philosophy can be summed up this. Unconditional love - yes. Ds effectively ordering me around - no.

Does it get more complicated than this?

I never hear anything but No when I'm out tbh.

Most parents aren't afraid of saying no at all ime.

Am so looking forward to using my dad's line 'life's not fair' on ds. when we used to whine/wail 'its not fair!' (usually on not getting our own way) this was his reply. Extremely annoying, but hard to argue with

I think DCs are much happier with boundries. No meaning no is nice and simple and then they can get on with something else. I think it makes for a much happier DC than one that is constantly being negotiated with.
Children have rights, but you don't get rights without responsibilities.

I don't think negotiation equals no boundaries.

Just as an aside, I hate that argument that you don't get rights without responsibilities. You do. That's what rights means. It means you have a right to be treated in a certain way, no matter what. So if I decide to blow up the world trade centre, I still have the right to a fair trial with a jury of my peers and the right not to be tortured. If I am a baby, I have the right to be fed and cared for, I have no responsibilities at all. Rights are not dependent on responsibilities, if they were, they would not be rights, they'd be something else.

Anyway, I digress, sorry.

I think it's usually 'freedom' that is teamed up with 'responsibility' - not 'rights' which, as pp points out, would be absurd.