Saying NO to babies?!

[ilovehenryboy]

sorry not too sure which forum to post.. is it just me that thinks that telling babies 'no' again and again and again in an attempt to stop them doing something, is not going to work?

i hear of so many parents who think that this will stop said child from doing something they 'shouldn't' - instead of removing child from situation or ensuring they are not able to do annoying thing (e.g. banging on tv screen with a toy.. or pulling hair..)..

or have i missed something?? i also think it's a pretty negative form of parenting but that's another issue. what do people think? interested in opinions..post away..

How old is the "baby" in this scenario? I think a combination of both saying no and removing the child from situation would work.

i've heard parents of babies anything from 6 months..

NO should be reserved for v dangerous stuff (and is really tone of voice IMO) - and combined with physical reinforcement (ie take them away).

Day to day discipline should be telling babies/children what they should do, eg 'bang on the floor' not 'don't bang on the telly' (while showing and removing from telly) for example.

I've always said No to my babies from a very early age at the same time as removing them from the situation. That way they get to learn the connection between the word and the action.

I wonder how babies/children are supposed to learn what no means the instant they reach a certain age if they're not taught it right from the beginning?

DD (9months) thinks no is the worlds funniest word. we use uh uh when we can't get to her to remove her and also gently when we do remove her it is so much more effective than no.

Well no doesn't work with my 17 month old. Despite serious face, stern tone and removal from top of cupboard or wherever she is, she thinks it's all hilarious and goes straight back for more

Of course you should say no to babies. Why do you think it's always one of the first words they learn
I say no to my ds and remove him from whatever it is he's getting into mischief with. He is 12 months and I think he is beginning to understand what it means. Babies don't understand anything you tell them at first. Does that stop you talking away to them? I bloody hope not

EyeballshasManBoobs glad its not just my dd. Uh Uh works better.

littlelamb no of course it doesn't.. not sure i could talk much more to him allthough half of it at least is pure nonsense! i'm talking of just sying no over and over again and expecting them to stop doing whatever they're doing.. without doing anything else.

I was the same as littlelamb, removed and said no. After 12 years of this, I now find that sometimes a mere 'no' will do it

I assume what the OP had in mind is those ineffectual parents who keep telling their offspring to stop but don't do anything about it. That sort of parents ime doesn't get any better as the child gets older, you'll still find them shouting ineffectively at their 8yo from the other end of the bus. Doesn't occur to them to get off their backsides, let alone making sure they are seated next to the child from the start.

I say No, then remove and say No [thing I don't want], let's [alternative thing]. I try to use Stop for dangerous things, or potentially dangerous things.

Will watch this thread with interest!

Started saying no a few days ago to DS 8 mths and not sure if it's not too early. So far I say no, remove from situation and offer something more suitable to do/ play with.

I only say "no" for dangerous things. Anything else I try and remove and distract. I don't want to get into a negative cycle of saying "no, no, no" all day, and I want her to really take note when I do say it. So far it seems to be working but it's very early days!

I did a lighthearted sounding "no no no" with dd1 for things I didn't want her to touch - and reserve a stern "NO" for dangerous things. It has worked pretty well with her and she's almost 2. I think it can very much depend on the child.

"No" worked pretty well for DS from fairly early (9 months maybe? - can't remember for sure). One of the first times was when he kept trying to put my trainers in his mouth. I said "No" firmly while looking him in the eye, he knew what it meant but would typically put the trainer down for a moment, then get a cheeky grin and try to put it in his mouth again. After two "No's", if he did it again I would take the trainers away and put them out of reach. Eventually he learned not to do it, and to (usually) not do things when I said No.

Only thing is you can't rely on it 100%, if he really can't resist something then removing is still the only option! Also it does have to be VERY clear exactly what you are saying No to - saying something like "No eating" or "No hitting" is often better; and they do need to know you will take action if they ignore it. I think that's partly why some people end up just going "no no no" without much result.

We started to use "no" when my LO started to crawl at 9-10 months. We used the "No" in firm voice and then removal and then distraction. But she started to get wise to this so I simply use "No", removal, distraction and then ignore her when she starts to go for the disallowed object/action again (obviously while keeping close and vigilant out of the corner of my eye). Because I refuse to give her attention she can't be bothered to do the "wrong" thing anymore as she gets no more reaction from me other than "no". She's 12 months old now so this will change I am sure :-)

Forgot to add... I give her no attention after saying "No" but give her loads of praise when she moves herself away - so much so now that her first word was "No", her second word was "Gunga" (ie "Good Girl")... incidentally her third word was "Tanku" :-)