The dangers of "crying it out" (SAHM, autism, spanking)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The 'cry it out' approach seems to have arisen as a solution to the dissolution of extended family life in the 20th century. The vast wisdom of grandmothers was lost in the distance between households with children and those with the experience and expertise about how to raise them well. The wisdom of keeping babies happy was lost between generations."
As a new father 17 years ago, I had read that "crying it out" was the way to go. I thought we should take the advice. Well, with a wife from a large traditional Vietnamese family, that just wasn't going to happen, no way, no how. Today I see that the old wisdom makes for much happier babies ... and parents too.
Food for thought.
Let me get this straight. You, the advocate for setting up toddlers to fail a disobedience test that results in a slap on the hand - are now advocating for "keeping babies happy"?
You can't see the dichotomy here? You think a 6 month old self soothing after 5 minutes of crying is cruel, yet you have no problem setting a bowl of candy in front of a 2 year old and slapping them when they reach for it?
They are both forms of discipline, so please spare me the pat "but you need to discipline your child to keep everybody happy" speech.
Ugh, another ad nauseum, circular argument. I have no issue with people sleep training their infants that are of age. I don't care about scientific studies, because there are studies for and against (as with anything). For me, I go by my own children. My oldest was "sleep trained" at 5.5 months. It wasn't letting her cry until she vomited in a dark room. It was gradual intervention. It took all of a day and one half and then that was it. My second fell asleep on her own from day one. Neither of them have any of these issues that you've described, and I will bet the bank on that. They are happy, well adjusted children.
Just to clarify here, most people who have employed CIO aren't these heartless bastards that the "cons" portray. Most of them are people who often are very in tune with their individual infants and know how to differentiate the cries. They can tell which cry is due to hunger, wet diaper, etc. They often time have an established bedtime routine in place too. They don't simply throw their child into the crib, and then go downstairs and watch American Idol while the child is wailing away. Children are biologically capable of falling asleep on their own at five - to - six months, but as with anything, they will happily allow the parent to be a sleep crutch for however long.
I have no problem with people who choose not to sleep train. Just don't shove your beliefs down my throat and attempt to guilt trip me.
My experience was similar, just a couple nights at around 6-9 months (okay-ed by pediatrician)
I do rely on long-term studies as a indicator at possible success/failure of such an item, and impact on kid. Yet the research, at least the research focused on this subject and not - child abuse for instance - seems to suggest no impact.
I haven't seen a Cry-it-out study go the other way. . .the studies mentioned so far are more about long-term abuse by parents, and not a measured cry-it-out technique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riaelise
Ugh, another ad nauseum, circular argument. I have no issue with people sleep training their infants that are of age. I don't care about scientific studies, because there are studies for and against (as with anything). For me, I go by my own children. My oldest was "sleep trained" at 5.5 months. It wasn't letting her cry until she vomited in a dark room. It was gradual intervention. It took all of a day and one half and then that was it. My second fell asleep on her own from day one. Neither of them have any of these issues that you've described, and I will bet the bank on that. They are happy, well adjusted children.
Just to clarify here, most people who have employed CIO aren't these heartless bastards that the "cons" portray. Most of them are people who often are very in tune with their individual infants and know how to differentiate the cries. They can tell which cry is due to hunger, wet diaper, etc. They often time have an established bedtime routine in place too. They don't simply throw their child into the crib, and then go downstairs and watch American Idol while the child is wailing away. Children are biologically capable of falling asleep on their own at five - to - six months, but as with anything, they will happily allow the parent to be a sleep crutch for however long.
I have no problem with people who choose not to sleep train. Just don't shove your beliefs down my throat and attempt to guilt trip me.
I wonder if letting babies lay there alone crying is why we have so much depression, drug use, and mental health issues in this country.
It seems that happy babies would grow up to be happy adults, but letting a baby cry until the baby passes out just teaches the baby that no one cares.
I wonder if stupid parents who make decisions based on their gut, and think all science is an evil conspiracy to hurt your kdis, is why we have so much depression, drug use, and mental health issues in this country
It's not even close. Momentary physical pain almost immediately forgotten, for the sake of health and hygiene, doesn't compare to a parenting style that results in daily prolonged misery with long term emotional consequences.
P.S. to the others: I'm not an absolutist here and agree that in certain contexts, for older babies, CIO isn't necessarily harmful.
The pain continues for days. And the foreskin doesn't magically grow back to restore the full function.
The majority of people don't do CIO every day, it's usually a few days every few months (colds, growth spurts, developmental leaps will cause the baby to revert to seeking comfort). Yes, there are people who do it daily, and people who do it from birth, and people who do it at four or five months, and people who try nothing else before resorting to it. But the majority of babies learn within a few days not to bother crying any more.
Again, I'm not in favour of it, and it's often grossly misused. But, the reason it's popular is that most babies do learn not to bother relatively quickly.
Let me get this straight. You, the advocate for setting up toddlers to fail a disobedience test that results in a slap on the hand - are now advocating for "keeping babies happy"?
How many topics are we trying to discuss here? CIO? Circumcision? Discipline strategies? Abortion? If we throw in breastfeeding and leashes, I think we may have a winner for most contentious topics on one thread.
Glad you bought up that thread. I hope people will read it, the threat to women's right to privacy regarding their personal medical decisions is indeed an important topic.
I still don't understand why training via slapping and entrapping your child is okay, yet you have the heebeejeebies about parents training their children to soothe themselves to sleep.
You're also the only person I've seen here advocate smacking a toddler if they won't stay in bed.
How many topics are we trying to discuss here? CIO? Circumcision? Discipline strategies? Abortion? If we throw in breastfeeding and leashes, I think we may have a winner for most contentious topics on one thread.
LOL! Don't forget vaccines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
