NationStates Jolt Archive

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

Mom knows whats best :) *nods* Thus Dad is irrelevant

Mom knows whats best :) *nods* Thus Dad is irrelevant

That's one argument...

Well, which sort of pink are we talking? Like a reddish pink or more of a hot pink?

Why does she want to dye her hair pink?

Mom knows whats best :) *nods* Thus Dad is irrelevant

tried it

also tried "because she does", and "give us a logical reason not to"

he isn't buying it.

I have no logical reason.....I dyed my hair pink before, but I didn't have to have permission, I just did it.

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?
Hmm. The dye is most likely temporary, in which case let her try it out and see how it looks. I was dyeing my own hair pink at 9 and 10 years old (but for Halloween...). I don't see why she shouldn't at least try it out if it can be washed out.

It will make her more luminous in the dark, hence, drivers on roads at night are much more likely to see her, which greatly reduces the chance of his daughter being run down.

He doesn't want that to happen now does he?

tried it

also tried "because she does", and "give us a logical reason not to"

he isn't buying it.

I have no logical reason.....I dyed my hair pink before, but I didn't have to have permission, I just did it.

Kick him in the nuts, its persuasive...

She will most likely be made fun of, thats the only reason I can think of.

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

because some day, very soon, she's going to be old enough to do that, and anything else she wants without his permission.

And when that day comes, she will come to one of two conclusions. Either she will remember her father as:

1) the type of man to only forbid her from engaging in activities he knew would put her in real jeopardy and be truly harmful, and when she she is on her own, knowing her father did the very best to keep her out of harms way, will avoid those things that her father told her not to do, for he would have only kept her from those things that can harm her

or

2) the type of man who would lay down arbitrary and capricious rules, forbidding her even simple activities such as dyeing her hair, without offering a singular good reason why not, and will wonder that if he would forbid this type of activity, one that did no real harm, perhaps many of the other things he forbade her to engage in, say, drugs, are not really as harmful as he made them out to be. Maybe if he would keep her from doing something as harmless as dyeing her hair just because he didn't want her to, what else is there that he kept her from doing just because he wanted her to, and that there really isn't any reason not to?

Fundamentally it is this. A child, while she is a child, is in the situation of more or less having to obey. But one day that child is not going to be a child anymore, and you can't give them orders anymore. The best you can give is advice.

The question then he has to ask himself is: does he want to nurture the kind of relationship with his daughter so that when the day comes where he has no authority anymore and can only give advice, will she believe him to be a fair, compassionate, honest man who always looked out for her and never abused his parental authority, whose advice is worth listening to, or not?

Pink hair would allow her to coordinate her clothes with her hair (if she has pink clothes).

Why does she want to dye her hair pink?

"because it's pretty and I don't have to go to school so there isn't any real reason to not let me do it unless this isn't my hair and last time I checked it was"

those were her exact words.....

she doesn't want to dye all of it pink, just some highlights of a pastel pink, not bright pink like my hair was.

I personally think that she is a kid and being a kid she should be free to explore modifying her hair because it's her hair, and when she is a grown up it won't be socially acceptable for her to explore it. Also, the dye only lasts 8 shampoos so basically if she doesn't like it, she isn't going to be stuck with it for long.

Personally, I think Dad is being silly. It's her hair, she should be able to do what she wants with it.

because some day, very soon, she's going to be old enough to do that, and anything else she wants without his permission.

And when that day comes, she will come to one of two conclusions. Either she will remember her father as:

1) the type of man to only forbid her from engaging in activities he knew would put her in real jeopardy and be truly harmful, and when she she is on her own, knowing her father did the very best to keep her out of harms way, will avoid those things that her father told her not to do, for he would have only kept her from those things that can harm her

or

2) the type of man who would lay down arbitrary and capricious rules, forbidding her even simple activities such as dyeing her hair, without offering a singular good reason why not, and will wonder that if he would forbid this type of activity, one that did no real harm, perhaps many of the other things he forbade her to engage in, say, drugs, are not really as harmful as he made them out to be. Maybe if he would keep her from doing something as harmless as dyeing her hair just because he didn't want her to, what else is there that he kept her from doing just because he wanted her to, and that there really isn't any reason not to?

Fundamentally it is this. A child, while she is a child, is in the situation of more or less having to obey. But one day that child is not going to be a child anymore, and you can't give them orders anymore. The best you can give is advice.

The question then he has to ask himself is: does he want to nurture the kind of relationship with his daughter so that when the day comes where he has no authority anymore and can only give advice, will she believe him to be a fair, compassionate, honest man who always looked out for her and never abused his parental authority, whose advice is worth listening to, or not?

that is one step short of brilliant. I might use this.

*Applauds Neo Art*

I think we have a winner.

"because it's pretty and I don't have to go to school so there isn't any real reason to not let me do it unless this isn't my hair and last time I checked it was"

those were her exact words.....

she doesn't want to dye all of it pink, just some highlights of a pastel pink, not bright pink like my hair was.

I personally think that she is a kid and being a kid she should be free to explore modifying her hair because it's her hair, and when she is a grown up it won't be socially acceptable for her to explore it. Also, the dye only lasts 8 shampoos so basically if she doesn't like it, she isn't going to be stuck with it for long.
I still say let her do it. It is temporary so if she isn't pleased, she can wash it out. It is her hair, after all, and if she wants to experiment with it, then there is no point in stopping her. she will likely do it as a teenager without Mr. Smunkee's permission. Or yours.

Mr Smunkee and Mrs Smunkee, with little Ms Smunkee and Smunkee Jr. I'm not ashamed to say that sounds like the cutest family ever.

that is one step short of brilliant. I might use this.

Glad I could help, I am in the situation of being in a career in which arguing is a major part, and having an asshole for a father.

So I speak a tad from experience. Really i think just about every parental decision can be summed up in one question "when he is an adult how do I want him to remember this moment?" Not to care about whether she thinks it fair now, but how will she think of the decisions he made for her 20 years from now.

Ones relationship with his/her child lasts long after, hopefully, childhood. Most children will think of you as unfair at the time, what matters is will they look back and be able to realize that what you did was for their best interest, or will they, as adults, immune from your authority, still think you treated them unfairly.

I am strongly convinced that the best parents are those that parent least. Keep your kids from harm. Keep them from crime. Make them work well. But never forbid them from doing something ONLY because you just don't like it. Your children are not you, they don't share your outlook on all things. "Because I said so" should never be a good enough reason

The point of parenthood is not to dictate and control, but rather, to guide.

At some point, daddy's little girl will, in fact, be a woman who is in complete control over herself. Allowing her to do it does not necessarily say "I approve of this"...he can tell her that he doesn't like the idea all he wants (granted, not telling her in a way that is against her), but he must recognize that she is an individual. If she understands the consequences of her actions, there is no reason for her not to dye her hair, as it doesn't harm anyone.
Allowing her freedom now means that later in life, she will be better prepared to make decisions for herself. When she goes off to college, she won't be one of those kids who are new to the idea of "freedom" and lack the self-control that goes along with it. This will be a way to teach her that her actions have consequences, but she is still free to choose what she wants.

Glad I could help, I am in the situation of being in a career in which arguing is a major part, and having an asshole for a father.

So I speak a tad from experience. Really i think just about every parental decision can be summed up in one question "when he is an adult how do I want him to remember this moment?" Not to care about whether she thinks it fair now, but how will she think of the decisions he made for her 20 years from now.

Ones relationship with his/her child lasts long after, hopefully, childhood. Most children will think of you as unfair at the time, what matters is will they look back and be able to realize that what you did was for their best interest, or will they, as adults, immune from your authority, still think you treated them unfairly.

I am strongly convinced that the best parents are those that parent least. Keep your kids from harm. Keep them from crime. Make them work well. But never forbid them from doing something ONLY because you just don't like it. Your children are not you, they don't share your outlook on all things. "Because I said so" should never be a good enough reason

my parents were pretty good at the arbitrary rules.....I hated it. Still have resentment from that.

I have set down basic rules in my house

don't hurt yourself
don't hurt anyone else
respect other people's things

I think that just about covers everything....I don't feel the need for more, however hubby is more authoritarian than I am. >.>

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?
Because hair grows out. It isn't permanent. What the heck is wrong with Dad, anyway? Would he rather see Missy get a tattoo (http://www.tattoos-by-design.co.uk/rate_my_tattoo/tattoos/tattoo/act/2172483846480.jpg) when she gets older?

I used the "that's an arbitrary rule" thing and he said indignantly "fine do it, do whatever you want"

I have decided to take that at face value......right? I mean if I can't throw a fit and say the opposite of what I mean, he can't either.......right? right?

anyone?

I used the "that's an arbitrary rule" thing and he said indignantly "fine do it, do whatever you want"

I have decided to take that at face value......right? I mean if I can't throw a fit and say the opposite of what I mean, he can't either.......right? right?

anyone?
If my wife said that exact same thing, I'd think twice...maybe three times before I went ahead and left to go fishing...

If my wife said that exact same thing, I'd think twice...maybe three times before I went ahead and left to go fishing...

ah, but he doesn't. if I say "fine do what you want"

know what he does?

what he wants.

I think turn about is fair play. :p

ah, but he doesn't. if I say "fine do what you want"

know what he does?

what he wants.

I think turn about is fair play. :p

And you've got that to hold over him...Well done.

... you could try sites like this (http://www.makeoversolutions.com/).

that way she could avoid... disasters...

hmmm.... pink with yellow highlights... then show him a pic... ;)

I used the "that's an arbitrary rule" thing and he said indignantly "fine do it, do whatever you want"

I have decided to take that at face value......right? I mean if I can't throw a fit and say the opposite of what I mean, he can't either.......right? right?

anyone?

he gave permission. Sure, he doesn't like it, and he might pout, but he gave permission.

He can get over it.

In the mean time, he said "do what you want"...may I suggest mother/daughter tattoos and a porsche?

The dad's right.

Dying your hair is a gateway to drugs.

In all seriousness, here's a good reason: Why not?

Depends how you intend on dying it. If her hair is darker than very light blonde, you'll probably have to bleach it first for the pink dye to take. Bleaching can damage hair irreversibly and burn the scalp if you're inexperienced. Pink dye, even the "permenant" types, wash out within 20 or so washes (at max), leaving you with a dull, faded version. She'd have to redye every few weeks.

The only rational excuse not to do it is that it's a bit of a hassle.

Neo Art is right on the ball.

My mom was the sort who just went with arbitrary rules that didn't really make sense to me (she was big on tradition and worrying about what others might think). I kind of came to the conclusion that we are just two different people, and now that I am doing my own thing I really don't confide anything to her because my aversion to letting her in on my decisions generally outweighs any need I might have for her advice.

Depends how you intend on dying it. If her hair is darker than very light blonde, you'll probably have to bleach it first for the pink dye to take. Bleaching can damage hair irreversibly and burn the scalp if you're inexperienced. Pink dye, even the "permenant" types, wash out within 20 or so washes (at max), leaving you with a dull, faded version. She'd have to redye every few weeks.

The only rational excuse not to do it is that it's a bit of a hassle.

it's very light blonde, and we were going to do just like the temporary tinting type, not the full on dye like I did mine.

I started dying my hair (without permission) when I was like 9, so I don't want her to go through all the pain I did (burnt scalp, hair loss, etc.)

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?
You dyed your hair pink and it would be hypocritical to deny your daughter the opportunity when the effect on your life was null.

Good argument for:

"If we do it together, it won't seem so rebellious and not forbidden, which will make her want to do it all the more....

It's safer if I do it than if she tries it herself...."

I've heard of kids dying their hair temporarily with Kool Aid -- maybe try that first? :) http://www.faqs.org/faqs/food/kool-aid-faq/

my parents were pretty good at the arbitrary rules.....I hated it. Still have resentment from that.

I have set down basic rules in my house

don't hurt yourself
don't hurt anyone else
respect other people's things

I think that just about covers everything....I don't feel the need for more, however hubby is more authoritarian than I am. >.>
And look how well authoritarianism made your teenage life. No offense. It was for the sake of winning.

dying hair is no big deal. it's a way of showing her own opinion in her life as well as being just normal. but what is really normal? well, my case is that normal is just being yourself because truthfully, normal- no one is normal and weird is relative!!!!!:rolleyes:

Good argument for:

"If we do it together, it won't seem so rebellious and not forbidden, which will make her want to do it all the more....

It's safer if I do it than if she tries it herself...."

I've heard of kids dying their hair temporarily with Kool Aid -- maybe try that first? :) http://www.faqs.org/faqs/food/kool-aid-faq/

Yay! I remember dying my hair with Kool-aid in junior high, but we did the "stick your head in a bowl and soak it" method which was messy and unpredictable.

that site had another method that seems more controllable, like mixing it with conditioner.

I am going to try it first.

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?
The basis for his arguement doesnt seem to be logical, so even if you did have logical arguemtn I doubt he would yield.

He doenst WANT her to dye her hair pink.

The real question you should ask is this;

Do I want to go to the mat for my five year old to dye her hair pink?

If this is the case then cool, go to war.

If not, then explain to your daighter dady said no, and for RIGHT NOW you and her will abide by that...for RIGHT NOW.

Then let him know that this issue isnt resolved.

Husbands know when to pick battles as well.

...and I am not allowed to let my daughters dye their hair blue.

Yay! I remember dying my hair with Kool-aid in junior high, but we did the "stick your head in a bowl and soak it" method which was messy and unpredictable.

that site had another method that seems more controllable, like mixing it with conditioner.

I am going to try it first.

Kool-aid dye rocks! I remember kids dyeing their hair in the toilet bowl,though. Big big EW.

I finally tried the stuff on my own hair my freshman year of college. Just don't ever put blue on blonde hair. It fades to this nasty pondscummy green, and it's a pain to get out.

Kool-aid dye rocks! I remember kids dyeing their hair in the toilet bowl,though. Big big EW.

I finally tried the stuff on my own hair my freshman year of college. Just don't ever put blue on blonde hair. It fades to this nasty pondscummy green, and it's a pain to get out.

From what I am reading (though I don't know if it is true) toothpaste takes it out.

The rule with my children was "nothing permanent" until you are supporting yourself. Otherwise they were free to experiment. My son once shaved his head for "crazy hair day" at school. But my wife and I agreed on this. When there is a parenting disagreement I tend to say "go with the most conservative position". There is a reason (as we have discussed) for the traditions.

"because it's pretty and I don't have to go to school so there isn't any real reason to not let me do it unless this isn't my hair and last time I checked it was"



It's not her hair. She has nothing until you give it to her or she supports herself.

Having read more posts, I would also throw in one more piece of advice. The discussion of this doesn't include her and should not take place in front of her. And no opinions should be aired in front of her. Something like this should not be playing dad and mom against each other and playing both sides against the middle. Dad is not to be portrayed as evil just because he disagrees. Discuss this only when she's not around and what ever decision is made should be presented as a unified decision of BOTH parents.

It's not her hair. She has nothing until you give it to her or she supports herself.

Having read more posts, I would also throw in one more piece of advice. The discussion of this doesn't include her and should not take place in front of her. And no opinions should be aired in front of her. Something like this should not be playing dad and mom against each other and playing both sides against the middle. Dad is not to be portrayed as evil just because he disagrees. Discuss this only when she's not around and what ever decision is made should be presented as a unified decision of BOTH parents.

she has no clue that there is any discussion, as far as she knows we both need a logical reason for her to do it. I have remained quiet in front of her other than agreeing that she needs to know why she does things before she does them so that she will know if she is making a wise choice.

if it comes down to dad saying "no" the official story will be that the answer is "no".

I really don't think she or her sister have any clue that her dad and I ever disagree on anything.....other than trivial stuff.

I used the "that's an arbitrary rule" thing and he said indignantly "fine do it, do whatever you want"

I have decided to take that at face value......right? I mean if I can't throw a fit and say the opposite of what I mean, he can't either.......right? right?

anyone?

CAREFUL------

Men may allow but they don't forget. You will live with a decision based on this forever.

When a man says NO he means NO. If you get a weak agreement like this it means he can't stop you but will resent you not taking his opinion seriously. I just past our 25th anniversary and I could tell you several stories about when my wife went directly against a NO.

You sometimes write as a Christian. As such you know the man is the head of the house. It seems that your husband (like me) gives his wife a lot of free rein, but those few times when he gives an opinion he means it.

Tell him that if she gets through this dying her hair funky colours phase early he won't have to deal with it when she's a teenager and screaming about how she should be allowed to do so.

CAREFUL------

Men may allow but they don't forget. You will live with a decision based on this forever.

When a man says NO he means NO. If you get a weak agreement like this it means he can't stop you but will resent you not taking his opinion seriously. I just past our 25th anniversary and I could tell you several stories about when my wife went directly against a NO.

You sometimes write as a Christian. As such you know the man is the head of the house. It seems that your husband (like me) gives his wife a lot of free rein, but those few times when he gives an opinion he means it.
You know this is the year 2007, right? Or are you going to take your club and bash the next pretty little thing on the head and drag her back to your cave by her hair now?

CAREFUL------

Men may allow but they don't forget. You will live with a decision based on this forever.

When a man says NO he means NO. If you get a weak agreement like this it means he can't stop you but will resent you not taking his opinion seriously. I just past our 25th anniversary and I could tell you several stories about when my wife went directly against a NO.

You sometimes write as a Christian. As such you know the man is the head of the house. It seems that your husband (like me) gives his wife a lot of free rein, but those few times when he gives an opinion he means it.

yeah, I know, he hardly ever says no, it just seems like he doesn't have a good reason this time.

and yeah, even though I am arguing for the kid, if it comes down to it, I will take his side.

pink hair really isn't the kind of battle I want to fight.

CAREFUL------

Men may allow but they don't forget. You will live with a decision based on this forever.

When a man says NO he means NO. If you get a weak agreement like this it means he can't stop you but will resent you not taking his opinion seriously. I just past our 25th anniversary and I could tell you several stories about when my wife went directly against a NO.

You sometimes write as a Christian. As such you know the man is the head of the house. It seems that your husband (like me) gives his wife a lot of free rein, but those few times when he gives an opinion he means it.

Wow, I got a little ill reading this shit.

Wow, I got a little ill reading this shit.

really?

I think Good Lifes understands my relationship dynamic more than most on the site.

Wow, I got a little ill reading this shit.
Good to know I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

really?

I think Good Lifes understands my relationship dynamic more than most on the site.
That your husband owns you?

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

Well, what reason would there be not to?

Pink is an "unnatural" color, but temporarily dying hair pink neither harms anyone nor causes any permanent complications. It's a temporary, if somewhat unfashionable, personal expression, and I see nothing wrong with dying hair pink.

That is probably heavily insufficient, but I haven't had much time to think on the subject.

really?

I think Good Lifes understands my relationship dynamic more than most on the site.

I understand it. I remember your thread on it when I was new here 'bout a year ago. I understand that you both hold that view. I understand where you get that view from and why you believe in it.

I understand it.

I just don't agree with it.

That, however, is a topic for another thread.

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

As a five year old, she's still fairly new to the idea of people as separate entities... rather than mommy and daddy as kind of extensions of self. Your body is a temple, and you have to come to grips with where the walls are, and what their limitations acually are.

Hair dye is like painting your bedroom.

The thing that occurs to me is - we are all tempted to do things to our 'temples'. The secret might be to find out how to be balanced in our approach. Maybe a little harmless fun when the temple is still new and exciting will help avoid much more extreme modifications in a few years?

For me, it's been important to try to foster a positive body image in my eldest... and, if pink hair makes her comfortable with what she's got, maybe I won't have headaches with anorexia, bullimia, extreme body-modding or self-harm...

Good to know I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

meh, I'm still mad at you for going off on me for something I didn't say last year in the "male abortion" thread :p

Good to know I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

To be honest, it was a little long winded. I did not finish reading it, so I am just going to emulate your reaction to it. :)

Well, what reason would there be not to?

Pink is an "unnatural" color, but temporarily dying hair pink neither harms anyone nor causes any permanent complications. It's a temporary, if somewhat unfashionable, personal expression, and I see nothing wrong with dying hair pink.

That is probably heavily insufficient, but I haven't had much time to think on the subject.

If the child has classmates that might be distracted by the crazy hair styling, that's something to consider, though.

That your husband owns you?

he does not own me. I submit to him willingly because I have chosen to.

As a five year old, she's still fairly new to the idea of people as separate entities... rather than mommy and daddy as kind of extensions of self. Your body is a temple, and you have to come to grips with where the walls are, and what their limitations acually are.

Hair dye is like painting your bedroom.

The thing that occurs to me is - we are all tempted to do things to our 'temples'. The secret might be to find out how to be balanced in our approach. Maybe a little harmless fun when the temple is still new and exciting will help avoid much more extreme modifications in a few years?

For me, it's been important to try to foster a positive body image in my eldest... and, if pink hair makes her comfortable with what she's got, maybe I won't have headaches with anorexia, bullimia, extreme body-modding or self-harm...

maybe I can talk her into a new hairstyle if he says no......I mean he already said she could get whatever haircut she wanted (Mohawk even!) he just doesn't want her to dye her hair.....I think he has a thing against chemical modification.

he does not own me. I submit to him willingly because I have chosen to.

and yes yes, I appreciate the irony of me of all people taking some degree of issue to this. I have seen folks, not necessarily you, who take that position, not "choosing" to, but rather feeling obligated by religious tenants.

I think "I'm in charge, god told us so" is abhorent and unhealthy in most instances. It can work, I just don't agree.

But like I said, that's sort of off topic here.

If the child has classmates that might be distracted by the crazy hair styling, that's something to consider, though.

Only insofar as the children need to learn to accept someone with a different hairstyle. Pink hair is not something that can be considered revealing or obscene. Merely different. If Smunkee's daughter wants to look different, she should be allowed to, regardless of what effect it has on her classmates.

Also, she's homeschooled, so I think that's a non-issue.

If the child has classmates that might be distracted by the crazy hair styling, that's something to consider, though.

she has none, well, none her age.......she doesn't go to public school. It's summer anyway and her hair color would feasibly be "normal" again before she heads back to class anyway.

If the child has classmates that might be distracted by the crazy hair styling, that's something to consider, though.

I believe Smunkee's kids are home schooled.

he does not own me. I submit to him willingly because I have chosen to.
Doesn't mean that doesn't make me nauseous... why should a relationship be about domination and submission (unless it's in that kinky sort of way) and why is it that in many relationships it is the woman who is expected to submit to the will of her husband all the time?

This is without even going into the issue I take with using the Bible as a guide to a healthy relationship... a book written when women were basically property.

and yes yes, I appreciate the irony of me of all people taking some degree of issue to this. I have seen folks, not necessarily you, who take that position, not "choosing" to, but rather feeling obligated by religious tenants.

I think "I'm in charge, god told us so" is abhorent and unhealthy in most instances. It can work, I just don't agree.

But like I said, that's sort of off topic here.

yeah, I understand. It's a difficult dynamic to explain when the world has twisted the view of it so much.

I might start another thread on it in the future, but I have to go to sleep now. (husband's orders) ;)

and yes yes, I appreciate the irony of me of all people taking some degree of issue to this. I have seen folks, not necessarily you, who take that position, not "choosing" to, but rather feeling obligated by religious tenants.

I think "I'm in charge, god told us so" is abhorent and unhealthy in most instances. It can work, I just don't agree.

But like I said, that's sort of off topic here.

That's silly. Marriage is much like a contract, and if the female partner wants to leave a certain degree of decisionmaking to the male and give deference to that, it's no different than any other social transaction. The fact that it's tradition doesn't make it wrong. ;)

Doesn't mean that doesn't make me nauseous... why should a relationship be about domination and submission (unless it's in that kinky sort of way) and why is it that in many relationships it is the woman who is expected to submit to the will of her husband all the time?

This is without even going into the issue I take with using the Bible as a guide to a healthy relationship... a book written when women were basically property.

why is it okay (even healthy) in sex but not anywhere else?

oh, and I think I should start another thread about this....but not tonight.

I believe Smunkee's kids are home schooled.

Ah, I noticed that too late.

If they weren't, I think the perfect response would be "sure, but not until summer." Most kids would forget by summer. :p

Just thought I would chime in...

My parents always treated me with respect, even when I was a little kid.
They would usually sit down and explain exactly why something was not a good idea - there were exceptions to that, of course, but almost always they made sure they had solid reasons for forbidding something. The rare times they did act irrationally or over-played their authority I still remember to this day - but fortunately it was rare enough for me to recognize (even at the time) that it was very unusual behavior for them.

When I was little my parents would make sure I knew the implications of what I wanted, then let me make my own mistakes. If it wasn't something that was going to truly ruin my life (as in resulting in death or dismemberment, serious jail time, or whatever) they just rationally explained the implications and repercussions of my choices then let me make my own mistakes (then usually be there to help me out and give some advice on how to get out of the mess I got into).

Had I wanted to drop out of school and become a mime, they would counsel me against it and give a good logical arguments against doing so, but were I to be steadfast they would sign me up for mime classes. Of course by the time I became a teenager, my decision making skills, and ability to think through the implications and repercussions of my decisions, were sufficiently developed that they didnt need to - by the time I was old enough to get into real trouble on my own, I already knew to avoid it and why. Which, before cell phones, they knew by the time I was a teenager I had to be able to function completely on my own.

There is one big flaw in that though: as a teenager, I had nothing to rebel against.

Doesn't mean that doesn't make me nauseous... why should a relationship be about domination and submission (unless it's in that kinky sort of way) and why is it that in many relationships it is the woman who is expected to submit to the will of her husband all the time?

This is without even going into the issue I take with using the Bible as a guide to a healthy relationship... a book written when women were basically property.

I'm not going to discuss the religious portion of this post, but I have to say:
If an individual chooses to let his or her partner be in greater control of the relationship than he or she is, and the partner understands the limitations of that control, and that he or she largely does so by his or her partner's choice, then I see nothing wrong with an imbalance of control in a relationship.

The problem arises when a feeling of obligation is forced or assumed by a party of the relationship, rather than it being a consensual (sp?) giving up of control.

That's silly. Marriage is much like a contract, and if the female partner wants to leave a certain degree of decisionmaking to the male and give deference to that, it's no different than any other social transaction.

Oh she certainly has the right to, I'd never say she doesn't have the right. However I can still be critical of people's choices, even if they had the right to make those choices.

I never stated she could not do so, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point out that she could. I never said she couldn't. I know she can, I just wonder if in most instances she should.

The fact that it's tradition doesn't make it wrong. ;)

Doesn't make it right either. In fact, I can think of a whole list of traditions that are not only wrong, but down right destructive. What I find harmful in these situations is not that one does so, but why one does so. in many situations in this, one feels obligated by religious tenants.

In other words it is NOT a free choice, but one made, in some fashion, under fear of divine reprisal or overriding obligation. In short, under duress.

And since you're so fond of contract law, I will point out that a contract entered into under duress is void :)

I think that just about covers everything....I don't feel the need for more, however hubby is more authoritarian than I am. >.>

You guys really should go for authoritative. Anyway, for the actual thing...

1) As has been sort of covered by others, it is a good way for her to learn how to make decisions, what she likes, what she doesn't like, etc. It is good for her to generally be able to make her own choices so that she can learn the responsibility. Of course, you are her parents, so you should keep her from things that will harm her. How is the hair coloring going to harm her? Well, she might learn that if she wants something, her parents will just give it to her (this is always a problem if you allow her to make all her choices). Also, it should be noted that allowing her to continually have her hair dyed will cost quite a bit. So, possible solution? Tell her that she may dye her hair once to try it out, but that she cannot continue to dye her hair for a while (and if she asks again soon after, don't let her and be firm about it). That way, she gains the life lesson (whatever it may be), but she will also learn that she will not automatically be indulged (resulting in a child who might actually be indulged/spoiled, but will not act like an indulged/spoiled child) and you don't have to handle the cost of her having her hair dyed all the time. At any rate, it would be good to explain whatever decision you make (yes, she's five, but it also helps her learn). Anyhow, you should make sure you understand what concerns your husband and reach a compromise with him (I say "only once" for a long time is a good compromise, but maybe you guys will agree on something else/better after a good dialogue).
My parents did this (not with hair dye, but with other things), and I've turned into someone that a lot of significantly older people like a lot, and I've been referred to as an angel by lots of people, so, I'd guess that I didn't turn out badly. Plus I'm also noted as "practical" and a good problem solver. And very smart, both in terms of intelligence and wisdom. Obviously not all of this is due to what I'm suggesting, but the sort of parenting-idea, as placed within an authoritative parenting style (which, in case you don't know the jargon, means that you explain whatever decisions you make and allow for dialogue, generally allowing for more freedoms, etc., as the child gets older), is the cause of a good deal of it. :)

2) Maybe it will turn out badly, but if it doesn't.... do you really want to miss an opportunity to take a picture of something that sounds so absolutely adorable???? :P

2) Maybe it will turn out badly, but if it doesn't.... do you really want to miss an opportunity to take a picture of something that sounds so absolutely adorable???? :P
Yes, that would be a great pic to show at her wedding.

why is it okay (even healthy) in sex but not anywhere else?

Oh dear Smunk, if you think d/s relationship in "that" sense are only about sex you're sadly misinformed :p

But that's REAAAAAALLY out of topic here.

Oh she certainly has the right to, I'd never say she doesn't have the right. However I can still be critical of people's choices, even if they had the right to make those choices.

I never stated she could not do so, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point out that she could. I never said she couldn't. I know she can, I just wonder if in most instances she should.


I don't know much about how her family works - I was generalizing about marriage. It's just that dividing authority, in my experience, seems to be the thing to do. Successful married couples that I've seen have a fairly cut-and-dry division of authority, a sort of jurisdictional thing where there doesn't need to be a meeting over every decision. Maybe I was addressing an argument that wasn't being made yet - it's possible. :p

I don't know much about how her family works - I was generalizing about marriage. It's just that dividing authority, in my experience, seems to be the thing to do. Successful married couples that I've seen have a fairly cut-and-dry division of authority, a sort of jurisdictional thing where there doesn't need to be a meeting over every decision. Maybe I was addressing an argument that wasn't being made yet - it's possible. :p

I was speaking, specifically, to situations in which a married couple has decided to defer the final say in ALL decision making to the male "head of household" for religious reasons.

I'm not talking about seperation of authorities and such, but rather the specific discussion revolving around families, like Smunkee's, in which the decision has been made that the man has final authority due to religious beliefs.

That was a specific thing I was addressing, not the general concept of trading authority.

In other words it is NOT a free choice, but one made, in some fashion, under fear of divine reprisal or overriding obligation. In short, under duress.

And since you're so fond of contract law, I will point out that a contract entered into under duress is void :)

Heh. I didn't see that you added this bit when I replied earlier. I think we'd have to void a *lot* of contracts if we started striking those compromises made after some arm-twisting, guilt-tripping or moralizing. :p

meh, I'm still mad at you for going off on me for something I didn't say last year in the "male abortion" thread :p
I don't even remember that.

I don't even remember that.

was back under "arthais101". If I recall right, I had agreed with the OP on general principle of allowing for "paper abortions" but didn't agree with him on a lot of other sentiments.

You thought something I posted came from him, and said some not so nice things, thinking I was the OP

But I was mostly kidding about holding a grudge, mostly :p

Of course by the time I became a teenager, my decision making skills, and ability to think through the implications and repercussions of my decisions, were sufficiently developed that they didnt need to - by the time I was old enough to get into real trouble on my own, I already knew to avoid it and why. Which, before cell phones, they knew by the time I was a teenager I had to be able to function completely on my own.

There is one big flaw in that though: as a teenager, I had nothing to rebel against.

Not quite pre-cellphone here, but same idea. A lot of peers my age were surprised by my obedience to my parents. Why didn't I sneak out of my house at night, etc? But they were also surprised at how "nice" of parents I had - I had no curfew instated (because I never chose to stay out ridiculously late, so they had no need to specify), etc. What my peers never realized was that I was obedient because my parents were "so nice", and my parents were "so nice" because I was obedient. It's a re-enforcing cycle, where one in a small amount causes an increase in the other, which then causes an increase in the first, which... . If you guys start it properly, you'll have a really good kid by high school. One that you won't have to make many rules for (especially not new ones) because she's making them herself! :)

I've dyed my hair more times than I can count. If your kid really wants to dye it, and you can afford to get it dyed, then all your husband is doing is laying down silly rules that will make more important rules seem empty in the future.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that you need to be careful if you do it yourself (although, without doing the bleach, it won't be too bad), and that having someone else do it is sickeningly expensive. Pink is a fairly light color, and so it fades quickly, so I would not suggest having it done professionally (or, if you have it done professionally, do so once, and leave it at that, unless you are really willing to shell out the dollars for it), unless you don't feel safe doing the dying yourself.

Your husband is being silly. If he lets little things like how his child's hair is colored become big issues, he is letting authoritarian control stand in the way of effective parenting. Parents who spend all their time laying down the law on tiny, inconsequential things are likely to teach their children all the wrong lessons. In the long run, you don't have to have a reason to want to dye your hair. The reason can just be, "It makes me happy". That's why I do it. Let her have her fun now, because as she gets older, she won't have those options. Finding a job as a teenager with brightly colored hair is a pain in the ass.

My parents didn't let me dye my hair when I was five either, but that was because they didn't want to pay for someone else to do it, and neither of them knew how to do it.

why is it okay (even healthy) in sex but not anywhere else?

oh, and I think I should start another thread about this....but not tonight.
I don't think it's healthy in decision making for one person to be constantly subordinate to another. I mean, it's one thing if one person makes most of the decisions in one area, but overall, a relationship should be a partnership between equals, not a near dictatorship where one partner can put their foot down and overrule the other every time.

was back under "arthais101". If I recall right, I had agreed with the OP on general principle of allowing for "paper abortions" but didn't agree with him on a lot of other sentiments.

You thought something I posted came from him, and said some not so nice things, thinking I was the OP

But I was mostly kidding about holding a grudge, mostly :p
Well, the :p gave away the kidding part.

And I do tend to get confused sometimes when there's a large debate that has gone on for quite a while... :S

I don't think it's healthy in decision making for one person to be constantly subordinate to another. I mean, it's one thing if one person makes most of the decisions in one area, but overall, a relationship should be a partnership between equals, not a near dictatorship where one partner can put their foot down and overrule the other every time.

I agree.

Also: How's grad school going? Is your candidacy/proficiency exam coming up? I know the physics grad students round here are cramming hard for theirs.

I don't know much about how her family works - I was generalizing about marriage. It's just that dividing authority, in my experience, seems to be the thing to do. Successful married couples that I've seen have a fairly cut-and-dry division of authority, a sort of jurisdictional thing where there doesn't need to be a meeting over every decision. Maybe I was addressing an argument that wasn't being made yet - it's possible. :p

My parents do really well discussing everything instead. Esp. when it comes to us kids (who are now in college, but, meh). :)

Speaking of which, I'm about to take a walk with Mum. Byebyes.

Well, the :p gave away the kidding part.

And I do tend to get confused sometimes when there's a large debate that has gone on for quite a while... :S

Hah, I actually went back and found it, it's worse than I thought. We both got pretty snippy at each other. I'll TG the links to you if you want

My parents do really well discussing everything instead. Esp. when it comes to us kids (who are now in college, but, meh). :)

It's just observation. ;) I know a guy who's been divorced three times, and only made his most recent one work (five years plus) by dividing up duties and authority, for example. Just seems to be a trend.

I don't think it's healthy in decision making for one person to be constantly subordinate to another. I mean, it's one thing if one person makes most of the decisions in one area, but overall, a relationship should be a partnership between equals, not a near dictatorship where one partner can put their foot down and overrule the other every time.

well it does create a question of dominant/submissive relationships, and is it authoritarian, or voluntary, and there is a whole lot of interplay between those concepts. But then again, such things are not for everyone.

It's just observation. ;) I know a guy who's been divorced three times, and only made his most recent one work (five years plus) by dividing up duties and authority, for example. Just seems to be a trend.

Division of powers is not partnership, it is shared governance. It may be administrationally effective, but marriage isn't a business, it's a relationship.

I agree.

Also: How's grad school going? Is your candidacy/proficiency exam coming up? I know the physics grad students round here are cramming hard for theirs.
I haven't started yet... I just finished my undergrad this year and I'm starting grad school in the fall (although my prof has already figured out how to ship me off for some subsidized travel opportunities... er... I mean, learning experiences by the end of the summer). I'm also just going for a masters (so far, I want to see how that goes before trying for a PhD) so there aren't any comprehensive exams for that.

Hah, I actually went back and found it, it's worse than I thought. We both got pretty snippy at each other. I'll TG the links to you if you want
Sure, it could be interesting.

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

Headlice are repelled by pink. :)

Division of powers is not partnership, it is shared governance. It may be administrationally effective, but marriage isn't a business, it's a relationship.

Division of powers is a part of our daily lives whether in relationships or otherwise. Marriage isn't a business in the sense that there isn't a strict profit motive, but there are implied and explicit agreements that are similar to contracts. There's division of authority, but there's some overlap, too - sort of like "you deal with the groceries, I'll deal with gassing the cars, and we'll meet before deciding where to go on vacation this summer," that sort of thing. Happens every day, within formal relationships and outside them. :)

well it does create a question of dominant/submissive relationships, and is it authoritarian, or voluntary, and there is a whole lot of interplay between those concepts. But then again, such things are not for everyone.
Maybe I just don't like dominant/submissive relationships outside the bedroom where the woman is the submissive one... it just seems like most of the time there's an unequal distribution of decision making that's generally how it is and justifying it with religion is just especially shitty. I mean, it's not like women have worse decision making faculties than men.
I don't think that anyone in a relationship should be able to "put their foot down" consistently in household decision making issues. It should be that both parties discuss the issue and work to find a mutually satisfying compromise.

Sure, it could be interesting.

K. TG sent.

Maybe I just don't like dominant/submissive relationships outside the bedroom where the woman is the submissive one...

Oh but you don't mind when the man is? heh :p

I don't think that anyone in a relationship should be able to "put their foot down" consistently in household decision making issues. It should be that both parties discuss the issue and work to find a mutually satisfying compromise.

The problem becomes what if she agrees to it? In fact, what if she wants that?

Why should a couple try to "find a mutually satisfying compromise" when what is mutually satisfying to both of them is that there isn't a compromise?

That's the problem, what if they actually PREFER it that way?

The problem with religious arguments is, there's not the element of "I want it this way", it's the element of "god said so", no consent, no preference, I might actually even HATE it, but I'm expected to.

That's the problem I have with it. I have no issues what so ever in a more serious d/s relationship where what is mutually acceptable is that there is that dynamic.

But they both have to WANT it that way. Not just accept it that way.

I mean, it's not like women have worse decision making faculties than men.
A chick at the old place I worked had a yellow Toyota Celica with yellow fuzzy seat covers.

I haven't started yet... I just finished my undergrad this year and I'm starting grad school in the fall (although my prof has already figured out how to ship me off for some subsidized travel opportunities... er... I mean, learning experiences by the end of the summer). I'm also just going for a masters (so far, I want to see how that goes before trying for a PhD) so there aren't any comprehensive exams for that.

Ah, didn't realize. Cool!

Aye, I'm looking forward to a possible travel experience...learning experience myself :)

Ah, your program works differently than the one here. At my school the grad program for Masters is the same for Ph. D. Once you hit the summer of your first and second grad school year you take the candidacy exam. If you opt out both times you graduate with a Masters, if you fail it both times but have enough credits to graduate you graduate with a Masters, and if you pass it you go on to do a Ph. D.

Division of powers is a part of our daily lives whether in relationships or otherwise. Marriage isn't a business in the sense that there isn't a strict profit motive, but there are implied and explicit agreements that are similar to contracts. There's division of authority, but there's some overlap, too - sort of like "you deal with the groceries, I'll deal with gassing the cars, and we'll meet before deciding where to go on vacation this summer," that sort of thing. Happens every day, within formal relationships and outside them. :)

There's a difference between having people do what they like and are good at and having them forced into pre-assigned roles.

A chick at the old place I worked had a yellow Toyota Celica with yellow fuzzy seat covers.

And I've got a purple Honda Civic. Your point?

Oh but you don't mind when the man is? heh :p
When I see a relationship like that outside the television screen, I'll let you know what I think about it.

The problem becomes what if she agrees to it? In fact, what if she wants that?
I don't get why someone would want to have their decisions and choices constantly overruled.

Why should a couple try to "find a mutually satisfying compromise" when what is mutually satisfying to both of them is that there isn't a compromise?
Well, yeah, some situations it doesn't work, but it shouldn't always be the same person who is giving in every single time. To me it seems like that's saying that one person is always right and the other is always wrong and that is very, very rarely the case.

The problem with religious arguments is, there's not the element of "I want it this way", it's the element of "god said so", no consent, no preference, I might actually even HATE it, but I'm expected to.

That's the problem I have with it. I have no issues what so ever in a more serious d/s relationship where what is mutually acceptable is that there is that dynamic.

But they both have to WANT it that way. Not just accept it that way.
That's fair.

I don't get why someone would want to have their decisions and choices constantly overruled.

yes, well, you're not a submissive (or at least not in that regard, would hate to speak for anyone). I can't understand why the hell people would enjoy hunting deer. yet some do.

Ah, didn't realize. Cool!

Aye, I'm looking forward to a possible travel experience...learning experience myself :)

Ah, your program works differently than the one here. At my school the grad program for Masters is the same for Ph. D. Once you hit the summer of your first and second grad school year you take the candidacy exam. If you opt out both times you graduate with a Masters, if you fail it both times but have enough credits to graduate you graduate with a Masters, and if you pass it you go on to do a Ph. D.
Yeah, I'm guessing that you're in the states? That seems to be how it works there.

In Canada (and I'm pretty sure it works similarly in Europe as well) you usually start in a Masters programme first and while you can skip getting a Masters and just get a PhD, I don't think most people do that. I like the way it is here better since it means that if I figure out that I don't like what I'm working on for my Masters I can change fields for a PhD (or if I wanted to go study somewhere else or some such... well, except the states, then I'd have to pretty much start all over again with coursework since the states pretty much seems to look at a Masters as a consolation prize).

There's a difference between having people do what they like and are good at and having them forced into pre-assigned roles.

I made no mention of enjoyment of tasks or efficiency - that's something every couple will judge for itself, but odds are the majority of routine tasks are neither enjoyable or subject to an efficiency gap between partners. Tasks like I mentioned (groceries, gas) aren't going to naturally favor the male or female - it's just a matter of compromise and dividing authority for mutual benefit. When you do this enough, you form "roles" and "role expectations," which can be unequal or unfair if done wrong, but when done right promote harmony and co-operation. :)

yes, well, you're not a submissive (or at least not in that regard, would hate to speak for anyone). I can't understand why the hell people would enjoy hunting deer. yet some do.
That's true... but I feel like a lot of the time women are conditioned to accept submissive roles and are frequently told that that's just how it should be. But women are just as capable decision makers as men are.

yes, well, you're not a submissive (or at least not in that regard, would hate to speak for anyone). I can't understand why the hell people would enjoy hunting deer. yet some do.

Surely you understand the thrill of the hunt and the kill... ever play online games? :p Of course, there's no substitute for the rich, irony smell of fresh spilled blood. :p Seriously though, venison is very tasty. :)

That's true... but I feel like a lot of the time women are conditioned to accept submissive roles and are frequently told that that's just how it should be. But women are just as capable decision makers as men are.

Oh sure, I agree with you that women are perhaps pushed into that role, either overtly or subvertly in much of our society. Absolutly I agree.

That however doesn't mean that there aren't women who do not actually prefer to submit. Just as there are men who do so as well, and women who prefer to be in charge.

But yes, women are certainly under a degree of conditioning pushing them to that direction.

When I see a relationship like that outside the television screen, I'll let you know what I think about it.

Well then, I see it all the time (of a sort), I was in one personally. I like to call it "lose if you do and lose if you dont"
Most likely does not help that some of the women I know tell me that women are all crazy

But hubby, if we don't let her express her true feelings in a non-harmful way such as dying her hair pink, which, by the way, will only last for probably 3 weeks, she'll rebel and do something she will regret for the rest of her life! Why are you against her expressing herself? You better remember that time when she was there rooting you on! Why would you ever want to deny her this? What if I were to tell you to never act again? Would you accept it and move on, or would you not listen and potentially ruin our relationship?

If you don't let our daughter do this, I hope you're ready for the backlash.




That'll do it. :cool:

Yeah, I'm guessing that you're in the states? That seems to be how it works there.

In Canada (and I'm pretty sure it works similarly in Europe as well) you usually start in a Masters programme first and while you can skip getting a Masters and just get a PhD, I don't think most people do that. I like the way it is here better since it means that if I figure out that I don't like what I'm working on for my Masters I can change fields for a PhD (or if I wanted to go study somewhere else or some such... well, except the states, then I'd have to pretty much start all over again with coursework since the states pretty much seems to look at a Masters as a consolation prize).

Aye, from the states.

I dunno, I kind of like this setup. It's true that a Masters is viewed as a consolation prize, but I'm not sure if you need to start with a Masters from scratch in a subject in order to go for a Ph. D. I'm fairly sure that once you've got a Masters you'd just need to pass the candidacy exam for the Ph. D. and then take your Ph. D. level classes/do your research towards your dissertation.

I could easily be wrong though...I'll ask my boss tomorrow.

Also, nothing stops you from calling it quits at a Masters in the states, though it is frowned on in some regards.

Well then, I see it all the time (of a sort), I was in one personally. I like to call it "lose if you do and lose if you dont"
Most likely does not help that some of the women I know tell me that women are all crazy
... Like I said, if I ever see such a relationship outside the television screen, I'll form an opinion on it.
Sometimes men like to claim that their girlfriends or wives are trying to own them or refusing to let them make any decisions because they don't let them make all the decisions and through a nice little process of selective memory, they only remember the times when they were forced to go see a chick flick instead of watching a game on tv while ignoring all the times she had to sit through a football game instead of doing something she wanted to do.

Sometimes men like to claim that their girlfriends or wives are trying to own them

And some men actually want them to do that.

they only remember the times when they were forced to go see a chick flick instead of watching a game on tv while ignoring all the times she had to sit through a football game instead of doing something she wanted to do.

And some women like to claim that their boyfriends or husbands never listen to a thing they say, with their own bit of selective memory.

Aye, from the states.

I dunno, I kind of like this setup. It's true that a Masters is viewed as a consolation prize, but I'm not sure if you need to start with a Masters from scratch in a subject in order to go for a Ph. D. I'm fairly sure that once you've got a Masters you'd just need to pass the candidacy exam for the Ph. D. and then take your Ph. D. level classes/do your research towards your dissertation.

I could easily be wrong though...I'll ask my boss tomorrow.

Also, nothing stops you from calling it quits at a Masters in the states, though it is frowned on in some regards.
From what I've heard one is usually expected to stay with the same institution the entire time. And I've heard stories from a couple of students who went stateside for a PhD after doing an MSc here and they were usually promised that they wouldn't have to retake all their coursework, but wound up having to do so anyways on some random technicalities (though apparently if you force them to put it in writing you can avoid this).

And yeah, there isn't anything to keep you from calling it quits after a Masters and going outside the US for further studies, I've just heard that it's very hard to stop at a Masters at one school and go for a PhD at another in the states.

And some men actually want them to do that.
Yes, that's true, but I doubt that they're the ones complaining about how they never get their way in a relationship.

And some women like to claim that their boyfriends or husbands never listen to a thing they say, with their own bit of selective memory.
Oh believe me, I'm well aware that there are a lot of women who are stupid bitches who would do something like that.

edit: also it's bedtime for me because my eyelids are deciding to get all droopy and I'm going to take their advice.

edit: also it's bedtime for me because my eyelids are deciding to get all droopy and I'm going to take their advice.

shouldn't you and your eyelids should be sharing responsibility rather than you having to listen to them.

shouldn't you and your eyelids should be sharing responsibility rather than you having to listen to them.

GOOOOOOAAAAALLLL!!!! :D:D

shouldn't you and your eyelids should be sharing responsibility rather than you having to listen to them.
We are sharing responsabilities. They have just made the most convincing argument and I am agreeing with them.

We are sharing responsabilities. They have just made the most convincing argument and I am agreeing with them.

*waves* good to see you're not in a d/s relationship with your eyelids.

that is one step short of brilliant. I might use this.

Do because I agree with it ... I think (and I have limited parental experience) that the harm rule is important

My parents were too far into the arbitrary side, I knew they were trying to protect me but they had no problems just laying down the law on simple stuff like that and at first after I got out on my own it was a little bit confusing sifting the flack from the real important parts when they tried to give me advice

I am just lucky I learned before I got two confused and did something possibly permanently harmful (I was not rebellious per-se but I can see myself making a big mistake)

Do because I agree with it ... I think (and I have limited parental experience) that the harm rule is important

My parents were too far into the arbitrary side, I knew they were trying to protect me but they had no problems just laying down the law on simple stuff like that and at first after I got out on my own it was a little bit confusing sifting the flack from the real important parts when they tried to give me advice

I am just lucky I learned before I got two confused and did something possibly permanently harmful (I was not rebellious per-se but I can see myself making a big mistake)
I know plenty of people who aren't "rebellious", but have managed to mess up pretty hardcore. amazingly, all come from more authoratative families, and say they never had the freedom to mess up before.

*waves* good to see you're not in a d/s relationship with your eyelids.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sigworthy. :D

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

Oh well. If your daughter has enough character to withstand eventual criticism (and eventually very stupid criticism) at school for her pink hair, I'd say no problem.

You should consider, on the "no" side, two things:

1.Does your daughter want pink hair to be socially accepted at school (or kindergarten)? Does she want it because she's seen in TV a fictional character she wants to emulate? In these cases, I'd say NO. Kids should grow up with a critic attitude to social standards. It builds personality and intellect.

2.Hair dye is generally bad for hair and skin. Also, young kids are prone to developing strange allergies. Be sure that the dye won't do any strange things - maybe ask your doc, or a dermatologist.

Oh well. If your daughter has enough character to withstand eventual criticism (and eventually very stupid criticism) at school for her pink hair, I'd say no problem.

A man walked past me when I had my blue mohawk. He pointed and said to his son "look! he has blue hair"

my response was "Holy shit! When the fuck did that happen?!"


Smunk, I suggest ordering Manic Panic. It works well, and really is temporary (if she's blonde, you'll have issues. Also, koolaid is really hard to get out, even with pro salon chemicals.

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

Well, what reason does dad give?

Oh dear Smunk, if you think d/s relationship in "that" sense are only about sex you're sadly misinformed :p

But that's REAAAAAALLY out of topic here.
I think they have that view, I know about others.;) I had a friend......nevermind, it's off topic.

Well, what reason does dad give?

after much discussion last night, I found out that he doesn't really care what color her hair is and was mostly arguing against the pink to annoy me, he does have the following concerns

1. it might look bad and she would be disappointed

I explained that would be her problem and not his

2. she can't outline a clear reason why she wants to do it

I can't really argue 2. I can give reasons why he shouldn't say no, but not really a reason for her to do it. He is very big on knowing why you want to do things, and since this was (he thought) a rather arbitrary decision it would be good for her to learn to explore motives for making decisions. I am left with the idea that maybe there isn't a "good reason" to want to dye your hair pink....not just one that he would find good, but a good one in general.

He has me thinking all day now "why did I do this?" I can come up with logical/rational reasons for everything I have done today....still can't think of one for why my own hair is another color than natural. I wonder why I dye my hair. :confused: (totally not giving him this information)

A man walked past me when I had my blue mohawk. He pointed and said to his son "look! he has blue hair"

my response was "Holy shit! When the fuck did that happen?!"
when my hair was purple (think pastel purple) people used to ask me "is that your natural color?" :p half of them were trying to be funny I am sure.....but some of them.....I think they really wanted to know if I was born with purple hair.

Can anyone think of a rational reason NOT to let someone change their hair color?

And if it's "It kills your hair" you fail at life.

Can anyone think of a rational reason NOT to let someone change their hair color?

And if it's "It kills your hair" you fail at life.

no, but apparently that's not the exercise........:(

I think they have that view, I know about others.;) I had a friend......nevermind, it's off topic.



after much discussion last night, I found out that he doesn't really care what color her hair is and was mostly arguing against the pink to annoy me, he does have the following concerns

1. it might look bad and she would be disappointed

I explained that would be her problem and not his

2. she can't outline a clear reason why she wants to do it

I can't really argue 2. I can give reasons why he shouldn't say no, but not really a reason for her to do it. He is very big on knowing why you want to do things, and since this was (he thought) a rather arbitrary decision it would be good for her to learn to explore motives for making decisions. I am left with the idea that maybe there isn't a "good reason" to want to dye your hair pink....not just one that he would find good, but a good one in general.

He has me thinking all day now "why did I do this?" I can come up with logical/rational reasons for everything I have done today....still can't think of one for why my own hair is another color than natural. I wonder why I dye my hair. :confused: (totally not giving him this information)

Here's an argument against two : She does not have to give a reason. It's her hair, it's her body. She is not going to do herself any harm by dying her hair, so nobody, including parents, should have a right to deny her decision.

My hair is another colour than it would naturally be for the simple reason that I like it better that way. That's all the reason needed.

Here's an argument against two : She does not have to give a reason. It's her hair, it's her body. She is not going to do herself any harm by dying her hair, so nobody, including parents, should have a right to deny her decision.

My hair is another colour than it would naturally be for the simple reason that I like it better that way. That's all the reason needed.

I think he is going to let her do it anyway, I think he just wants her to think about why she wants to do it.

no, but apparently that's not the exercise........:(

Look! It's appearance! It's not a matter of fucking rationality!

I think he is going to let her do it anyway, I think he just wants her to think about why she wants to do it.

Give her a little hint :
Tell her to tell him that unless he's got any good reasons against it, "I want" is all the reason anybody ever needs ;)

Look! It's appearance! It's not a matter of fucking rationality!

everything is a matter of rationality to him.

everything.

everything is a matter of rationality to him.

everything.

Wait a sec... that guy's religious, isn't he? And he rationalises that??? :confused:

Wait a sec... that guy's religious, isn't he? And he rationalises that??? :confused:

he wasn't when I met him. I can rationalize religion to him, it's how I got him to attend church in the first place.

he wasn't when I met him. I can rationalize religion to him, it's how I got him to attend church in the first place.

*sits down cross-legged on a cushion* That's gonna be instructive... how do you rationalise religion?

*sits down cross-legged on a cushion* That's gonna be instructive... how do you rationalise religion?

as long as you apply critical thinking skills and stuff it does more good than harm?

I don't really remember what I told him......something about how it helps me more than it hurts me (which is to say as long as I use critical thinking and am careful who I hang out with, it doesn't hurt me at all)

as long as you apply critical thinking skills and stuff it does more good than harm?

I don't really remember what I told him......something about how it helps me more than it hurts me (which is to say as long as I use critical thinking and am careful who I hang out with, it doesn't hurt me at all)

Hmm... I would agree that on a personal, individual level it can help some people. On a communal level, I've yet to see positive influence.
And that made him go to church? I somehow don't believe that was all you told him ;)

Hmm... I would agree that on a personal, individual level it can help some people. On a communal level, I've yet to see positive influence.
And that made him go to church? I somehow don't believe that was all you told him ;)

I am shying away from "organized religion" more and more every day (not that I ever really liked the idea)

The whole God thing should always be more about the personal experience than the communal experience.

I didn't make him go, I asked him to go.....he pretty much always does everything I ask him to. I think they pulled him in with the music.

If my wife said that exact same thing, I'd think twice...maybe three times before I went ahead and left to go fishing...

What did you catch? ;)

Then ask him to come up with a good reason for her to NOT dye her hair.

he did. She doesn't know why she wants to do it.

Not knowing why you want to do something, is usually a sign that you are making an irrational decision.

everything is a matter of rationality to him.

everything.

Then ask him to come up with a good reason for her to NOT dye her hair.

I didn't make him go, I asked him to go.....he pretty much always does everything I ask him to. I think they pulled him in with the music.

I heard if you play that music backwards it contains Christian messages. Do we really want that influencing our youth! This so-called music is disgusting and obscene!

he did. She doesn't know why she wants to do it.

Not knowing why you want to do something, is usually a sign that you are making an irrational decision.
Irrational decisions are fun sometimes and make for interesting outcomes. Especially when they're not for something dangerous like temporarily dyeing one's hair. I mean, really, is there ever a rational reason to dye one's hair? I've done it (only really natural colours though) because I thought it would look nice or be a nice change and once (with really temporary 5-7 shampoos stuff) because I needed a crazy hair colour for a week. A lot of people dye their hair to cover up greys and keep themselves looking young... is that rational? It's hair, more or less anything you do to it is just to be vain or maybe have some fun with it.
When it comes to the little things in life, there's nothing wrong with irrational decisions here and there. I can't say I've ever pierced my ears (again) with any reason other than "it would look neat"

you put holes in your body because "it would look neat"? :(

irrational decisions might be fun......but they aren't always wise.

Well, I have. And they do look very neat indeed :)
I also got my tattoo for just that reason. Cause I wanted it.

Irrational decisions are fun sometimes and make for interesting outcomes. Especially when they're not for something dangerous like temporarily dyeing one's hair. I mean, really, is there ever a rational reason to dye one's hair? I've done it (only really natural colours though) because I thought it would look nice or be a nice change and once (with really temporary 5-7 shampoos stuff) because I needed a crazy hair colour for a week. A lot of people dye their hair to cover up greys and keep themselves looking young... is that rational? It's hair, more or less anything you do to it is just to be vain or maybe have some fun with it.
When it comes to the little things in life, there's nothing wrong with irrational decisions here and there. I can't say I've ever pierced my ears (again) with any reason other than "it would look neat"

you put holes in your body because "it would look neat"? :(

irrational decisions might be fun......but they aren't always wise.

maybe I can talk her into a new hairstyle if he says no......I mean he already said she could get whatever haircut she wanted (Mohawk even!) he just doesn't want her to dye her hair.....I think he has a thing against chemical modification.

I was thinking about something else last night at work, and it brought this back to me...

And, I've decided I was wrong.

The correct answer is, that your husband is wrong.

There is no 'harm' issue here, and your daughter already thought this out, and worked out that there is minimal social repurcussion... she isn't at school.

Re-read her little quote that you typed on the first page, and you might see why your husband is wrong, why she is right, and why it might be important for you to 'fight' over pink hair. Not just the fact that her reasons (as given) are logical...

"...because it's pretty and I don't have to go to school so there isn't any real reason to not let me do it unless this isn't my hair and last time I checked it was..."

Your husband has decided she has to provide a 'logical reason' in order to do something non-harmful and non-socially-problematic... to her own body. Rather than protecting her from harm or mis-step, he has asserted a right to her body that supercedes her own. SHE has to provide a reason to do it, he can simply state a ruling that she can't.

It's not a precedent I would want to set with my daughters... I want them to think of their bodies as their own property... not something that is the property of another.

I guess he gets to choose which offends him more... pink at 5, or pregnant at 14.

dyeing her hair pink will make her more visible in a crowd or wherever necessary, like crossing the road, so you won't ever lose her in the supermarket and she won't get run over by unobservant drivers.

I don't have time to read all the responses........but here's mine

the snotty response...not one I recommend for use with parents, but one I use on my husband all the time:

give a gentle tug to your own hair...ask other person if they can feel it:

"If you can't feel it, obviously it isn't YOUR hair, and therefore, YOU can't tell me what to do with it"

If you, as mom, don't have an issue with it...rather than try and justify the non-issue, ask him to tell you why HE is against it. (because I don't want her too isn't justification) Said 5 year old doesn't even need to be involved in the conversation...so he can be honest...even if it's something like "if she dyes her hair, it may give the impression that we are not good parents" whether it's true or not, his feelings are valid...and should be respected, what ever they are, even if you think they are ridiculous. If he doesn't have a reason, then there shouldn't be an issue.

Good luck, I told my 6 year old she has to be 16 before she dyes her hair, but that was a totally arbitrary age I grabbed out of the air

I was thinking about something else last night at work, and it brought this back to me...

And, I've decided I was wrong.

The correct answer is, that your husband is wrong.

There is no 'harm' issue here, and your daughter already thought this out, and worked out that there is minimal social repurcussion... she isn't at school.

Re-read her little quote that you typed on the first page, and you might see why your husband is wrong, why she is right, and why it might be important for you to 'fight' over pink hair. Not just the fact that her reasons (as given) are logical...

"...because it's pretty and I don't have to go to school so there isn't any real reason to not let me do it unless this isn't my hair and last time I checked it was..."

Your husband has decided she has to provide a 'logical reason' in order to do something non-harmful and non-socially-problematic... to her own body. Rather than protecting her from harm or mis-step, he has asserted a right to her body that supercedes her own. SHE has to provide a reason to do it, he can simply state a ruling that she can't.

It's not a precedent I would want to set with my daughters... I want them to think of their bodies as their own property... not something that is the property of another.

I guess he gets to choose which offends him more... pink at 5, or pregnant at 14.

this one is WAY better than what I wrote

who wants to help out your favorite NSG genius?

my 5 year old wants to dye her hair pink, and I have no problem with it, however, apparently it's up for vote and dad votes "no" until one of us can come up with a logical/rational reason to do so.

anyone got one?

Pink is an awful colour.

Well I hate pink, so much, so I would naturally be against it.

OK, I wasn't going to comment again but the more I read the more rational your husband seems and the less rational the posters seem.

"I want to" is not a reason. This is a little girl not a 25 year old. Where did she get the idea? Was it her idea really? I doubt it. This idea came from somewhere and that place may have been innocent or bad. And Hubby has no way to know right now which. It won't be but around the corner when she may say "I did drugs because I wanted to and it's my body so you have no right to say anything." Or, "I had sex with Bobby next door and it doesn't matter that I'm 12, it's my body and you can't say a thing."

I don't listen to "Dr. Laura" much, but a while back she was talking about a little Jewish boy that went to a party at a fast food spot. Before he would eat with the other children he asked if the fish was Kosher. The manager had to go find a box, and sure enough it was. Dr. Laura's point was that the child had been raise under the disipline of Kosher so when others would offer him something (such as drugs) he would ask himself if what he was offered was proper. The child had not been raised under the attitude of "I want it so I have the right to have it." Such an attitude is one of a 1-10 year old. Not one of an adult. As a child becomes older, the ME, ME, ME needs to mature. That doesn't happen overnight. It happens one decision at a time. It happens when a father asks the value of a decision.

Allowing anything because "It's hers" at this age is stupid. She needs to be taught. She needs to learn that things others do and offer to you are not always good. There are times to say no to wants.

Daddy isn't being unreasonable, he's asking for the beginnings of rational thought and a self denial. A self denial that may one day bring a NO to drugs or sex.

I know plenty of people who aren't "rebellious", but have managed to mess up pretty hardcore. amazingly, all come from more authoratative families, and say they never had the freedom to mess up before.

Authoritative???? Do you really mean authoritarian?

Re-read her little quote that you typed on the first page, and you might see why your husband is wrong, why she is right, and why it might be important for you to 'fight' over pink hair. Not just the fact that her reasons (as given) are logical...

"...because it's pretty and I don't have to go to school so there isn't any real reason to not let me do it unless this isn't my hair and last time I checked it was..."

Your husband has decided she has to provide a 'logical reason' in order to do something non-harmful and non-socially-problematic... to her own body. Rather than protecting her from harm or mis-step, he has asserted a right to her body that supercedes her own. SHE has to provide a reason to do it, he can simply state a ruling that she can't.

It's not a precedent I would want to set with my daughters... I want them to think of their bodies as their own property... not something that is the property of another.

<3
(Although it is important for her to remember that her parents can make rules that supercede her whims, too, but I already said my bit on that and gave my ideas on how to achieve both.)

***

Actually, what she's saying is really logical for a 5 year old. I think he may be asking a bit too much of her rationality for her age (although continuing to ask the questions, esp. at a slightly higher level than she should be at, will help her develop it, so he shouldn't stop asking!). "Because it's pretty and it won't harm me" (basic idea of what she said) is quite rational. "It won't harm me" pretty much says that there's no reason why she shouldn't, while "because it's pretty" handles why she wants it. It pleases her sense of aesthetics.
And hey, if she's wrong and it's not pretty, her sense of aesthetics will probably grow. :)
I'm going to hazard a guess that your case, Smunkee, would be sorta similar to hers - it pleased your sense of something, probably aesthetics too. At the very least, it probably pleases your sense of aesthetics now, even if that wasn't the original reason.
But I could be wrong, since I don't really know you. Or your daughter. ^_^;;

OK, I wasn't going to comment again but the more I read the more rational your husband seems and the less rational the posters seem.

"I want to" is not a reason. This is a little girl not a 25 year old. Where did she get the idea? Was it her idea really? I doubt it. This idea came from somewhere and that place may have been innocent or bad. And Hubby has no way to know right now which. It won't be but around the corner when she may say "I did drugs because I wanted to and it's my body so you have no right to say anything." Or, "I had sex with Bobby next door and it doesn't matter that I'm 12, it's my body and you can't say a thing."

I don't listen to "Dr. Laura" much, but a while back she was talking about a little Jewish boy that went to a party at a fast food spot. Before he would eat with the other children he asked if the fish was Kosher. The manager had to go find a box, and sure enough it was. Dr. Laura's point was that the child had been raise under the disipline of Kosher so when others would offer him something (such as drugs) he would ask himself if what he was offered was proper. The child had not been raised under the attitude of "I want it so I have the right to have it." Such an attitude is one of a 1-10 year old. Not one of an adult. As a child becomes older, the ME, ME, ME needs to mature. That doesn't happen overnight. It happens one decision at a time. It happens when a father asks the value of a decision.

Allowing anything because "It's hers" at this age is stupid. She needs to be taught. She needs to learn that things others do and offer to you are not always good. There are times to say no to wants.

Daddy isn't being unreasonable, he's asking for the beginnings of rational thought and a self denial. A self denial that may one day bring a NO to drugs or sex.

She only wants pink hair, for crying out loud. If she wanted to get her ears pierced to be able to wear earrings, I'm sure you wouldn't object. After all, many parents have their children's ears pierced at a very young age, often before the children themselves could object.
She wants to dye her hair. It's not doing any harm to anybody, so why object? Simply because other kids DON'T have theirs dyed?
By denying her to decide on her own, and to respect her decision, all you teach her is that she doesn't have any authority to decide what happens with her. You encourage her to do as she's told, to obey anybody perceived as authority. I think that in itself is far more likely to prove negative than to allow her to decide harmless things like her haircolour herself.

OK, I wasn't going to comment again but the more I read the more rational your husband seems and the less rational the posters seem.

"I want to" is not a reason. This is a little girl not a 25 year old. Where did she get the idea? Was it her idea really? I doubt it. This idea came from somewhere and that place may have been innocent or bad. And Hubby has no way to know right now which. It won't be but around the corner when she may say "I did drugs because I wanted to and it's my body so you have no right to say anything." Or, "I had sex with Bobby next door and it doesn't matter that I'm 12, it's my body and you can't say a thing."

*snip*
As a child becomes older, the ME, ME, ME needs to mature. That doesn't happen overnight. It happens one decision at a time. It happens when a father asks the value of a decision.

Allowing anything because "It's hers" at this age is stupid. She needs to be taught. She needs to learn that things others do and offer to you are not always good. There are times to say no to wants.

Daddy isn't being unreasonable, he's asking for the beginnings of rational thought and a self denial. A self denial that may one day bring a NO to drugs or sex.

You make a very important and valid point, which (I hope) I've also addressed in my posts. "I want to" needs to be placed with "it shouldn't harm me," and she does need to learn that she can't (or, in some cases, shouldn't) simply get everything.

It's a fine line. On the one hand, she needs to learn to make her decisions - and how to make them - because otherwise when she figures out that she can do things without her parents knowing, she'll simply do the things she wasn't allowed to do. On the other hand, limitations do need to be set so that she understands what a good decision is in the first place, etc. Hubby is right to ask and make sure that the daughter evaluates her decision, but this is probably a good one to let the daughter try out (but maybe only once).

She only wants pink hair, for crying out loud. If she wanted to get her ears pierced to be able to wear earrings, I'm sure you wouldn't object. After all, many parents have their children's ears pierced at a very young age, often before the children themselves could object.
She wants to dye her hair. It's not doing any harm to anybody, so why object? Simply because other kids DON'T have theirs dyed?
By denying her to decide on her own, and to respect her decision, all you teach her is that she doesn't have any authority to decide what happens with her. You encourage her to do as she's told, to obey anybody perceived as authority. I think that in itself is far more likely to prove negative than to allow her to decide harmless things like her haircolour herself.

actually, she asked to get her ears pierced a few weeks back, seems 4 of her little friends had theirs done. I told her no because she hasn't shown me that she can be responsible for the post piercing upkeep and also because it is a permanent form of body modification and I don't believe she is old enough to make that decision.

actually, she asked to get her ears pierced a few weeks back, seems 4 of her little friends had theirs done. I told her no because she hasn't shown me that she can be responsible for the post piercing upkeep and also because it is a permanent form of body modification and I don't believe she is old enough to make that decision.

Query* : did you tell her "no because..." or "no" because... ?

*because I've been trying to figure out how your family works - you can not tell me if you'd rather not, of course! After all, we seem to have been getting into discussions about parenting in general, and saying "this is what you should do" which can be annoying if you didn't want the detailed question to be answered in a generic manner.

CAREFUL------

Men may allow but they don't forget. You will live with a decision based on this forever.

When a man says NO he means NO. If you get a weak agreement like this it means he can't stop you but will resent you not taking his opinion seriously. I just past our 25th anniversary and I could tell you several stories about when my wife went directly against a NO.

You sometimes write as a Christian. As such you know the man is the head of the house. It seems that your husband (like me) gives his wife a lot of free rein, but those few times when he gives an opinion he means it.

I almost exploded. Almost. I'm controlling myself. Hey, want to switch countries? It seems Iran is more suitable for you.

Query (because I've been trying to figure out how your family works - you can not tell me if you'd rather not, of course!): did you tell her "no because..." or "no" because... ?

"no, because"

it does me no good to forbid things without explaining to her why they are forbidden......

"can I have a fish?"
"no, because we don't have a place for one right now, and also you haven't been keeping up with your other responsibilities so I can't justify letting you have a living thing under your care"

growing up my mom was like

"can I have a fish?"
"shut up"

I think my way is better. ;)

I almost exloped. Almost. I'm controlling myself. Hey, want to switch countries? It seems Iran is more suitable for you.

oh, grow up.

actually, she asked to get her ears pierced a few weeks back, seems 4 of her little friends had theirs done. I told her no because she hasn't shown me that she can be responsible for the post piercing upkeep and also because it is a permanent form of body modification and I don't believe she is old enough to make that decision.

Well, I got my first pair when I was 6, without any discussion. All my parents asked was that I'd pay for the piercing out of my pocket money money.

I very well remember my mom sitting my brothers and me down at the kitchen table and saying "Kids, you can shave off everything you want, you can grow your hair as long as you want, you can dye anything you want any colour you want, and you can pierce anything you want. Nothing of that will be permanently visible. But if one of you comes home with a tattoo, he or she won't be getting any money from me ever again". :D

Well, I got my first pair when I was 6, without any discussion. All my parents asked was that I'd pay for the piercing out of my pocket money money.

I very well remember my mom sitting my brothers and me down at the kitchen table and saying "Kids, you can shave off everything you want, you can grow your hair as long as you want, you can dye anything you want any colour you want, and you can pierce anything you want. Nothing of that will be permanently visible. But if one of you comes home with a tattoo, he or she won't be getting any money from me ever again". :D

my mom pierced my ears without my permission when I was an infant, I am forever stuck with these holes in my ears......I am still really mad about it too.

my kids autonomy ends when she wants to permanently modify her body. If she wants her ears pierced I need indication that she is able to make that decision. Tattoos and the like will have to wait until she is no longer a minor.

oh, grow up.

I refuse. However, I will show respect by leaving this discussion. Goodbye.

Edit: actually, no, I wont. Goodlifes post was disgusting drivel. I maintain that Iran would fit him much better.

"no, because"

it does me no good to forbid things without explaining to her why they are forbidden......

*snip

I think my way is better. ;)

I agree.

OK, I wasn't going to comment again but the more I read the more rational your husband seems and the less rational the posters seem.

"I want to" is not a reason. This is a little girl not a 25 year old. Where did she get the idea? Was it her idea really? I doubt it. This idea came from somewhere and that place may have been innocent or bad. And Hubby has no way to know right now which. It won't be but around the corner when she may say "I did drugs because I wanted to and it's my body so you have no right to say anything." Or, "I had sex with Bobby next door and it doesn't matter that I'm 12, it's my body and you can't say a thing."

I don't listen to "Dr. Laura" much, but a while back she was talking about a little Jewish boy that went to a party at a fast food spot. Before he would eat with the other children he asked if the fish was Kosher. The manager had to go find a box, and sure enough it was. Dr. Laura's point was that the child had been raise under the disipline of Kosher so when others would offer him something (such as drugs) he would ask himself if what he was offered was proper. The child had not been raised under the attitude of "I want it so I have the right to have it." Such an attitude is one of a 1-10 year old. Not one of an adult. As a child becomes older, the ME, ME, ME needs to mature. That doesn't happen overnight. It happens one decision at a time. It happens when a father asks the value of a decision.

Allowing anything because "It's hers" at this age is stupid. She needs to be taught. She needs to learn that things others do and offer to you are not always good. There are times to say no to wants.

Daddy isn't being unreasonable, he's asking for the beginnings of rational thought and a self denial. A self denial that may one day bring a NO to drugs or sex.

I moved into a community where women are the good Christian subservient wives, where children are raised pure, where the husband is the head of the household....

I've lived in an English inner city too, with not enough to do, and far too much opportunity to be up to no good.

You'd never guess which one has the WAY higher per capita teen pregnancy.

The girl has shown rational thought... she said it looked pretty (which IS a logical reason, like it or not), and she showed that she had thought about the risks of harm (she really isn't in school). It comes down, then - to who has ownership of her body. A parent SHOULD step in if there is risk of harm. A parent should be an informed member of the decision where things like social circumstances are an important consideration.

The problem is - when you start letting people think someone else owns their body, other people really do get ownership of their body.