Yet another media strike against AP!

[Clisby Williams]

Stephanie and Tim wrote:

>"Marie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>ted wrote in message >...
>>
>>
>>>>Meanwhile, this child has been deprived of the inestimable benefit of
>>>>
>>>>
>>learning
>>
>>
>>>>that he was not a member of the wedding, that the marriage is not a
>>>>
>>>>
>>threesome.
>>
>>
>>>Who is this guy? Does he know what he's talking about? What a horrible
>>>
>>>
>>thing to say!
>>
>>The only thing I've ever agreed with him about is toilet training.
>>Everything else is really stupid sounding, cold-hearted and mean.
>>Some people really have a big problem with children in the "marriage" bed.
>>Strange, b/c dh and I have a marriage everywhere we are, not just in our
>>bedroom.
>>Ha, my kids were part of my wedding ;o) Guess that means it's ok for them
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>>sleep with us?
>>Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well, I have no problem with other people who want to cosleep safely. But
>this newsgroup gets to be a pretty unfriendly place regarding the issue of
>cosleeping sometimes. *I* like having no children in our bed. Like the Ted
>Bundy (or someone) comment above. Should this group be renamed radical AP
>instead? If so, I will take my bf issues elsewhere when my baby is born.
>
>S
>
>
>
>
>
I think there are plenty of people on this newsgroup who weren't too
fond of co-sleeping.
I'm one of them. We did it for awhile with my first child because it
was the best way
to get her to sleep, but it was terrible for *our* sleep. The heck with
the marriage bed;
I wanted the sleeping bed. I lucked out with the 2nd, who never
minded a crib.

Clisby


Clisby

[Karen Askey]

Of course, with Rosemond, it is no surprise that he has yet another article
against an AP tenet, but this one I think is bad. Grandma needs to mind her
own business. It's not the parents who are writing in complaining! Access it
at www.rosemond.com

July 8, 2003
John's Weekly Column: 07/08/2003
"The Family Bed"

by John Rosemond

Q: My 2-year-old grandson has slept with his parents since he was born, but
with the birth of a third child (he has a 4-year-old sister), he was moved to a
bed of his own in an adjoining room. Since he refuses to cooperate in the new
sleeping arrangements, either my son or daughter-in-law rocks him to sleep,
which might take an hour or more. Then, without fail, he wakes up in the middle
of the night and goes to his parents' bed where the new baby is sleeping. The
parents try to make him go back to his bed, but oftentimes, the father goes to
the other room to sleep. At other times, the 2-year-old wakes up his older
sister and together they wake up the entire house with their shenanigans. What
can a grandma do to help in a situation like this?



A: Let this be a lesson to all who are reading this that while the "family bed"
may seem warm and fuzzy, it often devolves into chaos of this sort. If this
2-year-old had been trained to sleep in his own bed since birth, this would not
be happening. Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a bed of his own.

Despite the claims of "family bed" advocates, not one study done by an
objective researcher has demonstrated benefit in either the short- or long-term
to the children so bedded. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends
against the practice, noting that infants are sometimes smothered by parents
who inadvertently roll over on them in the night or as a result of getting
tangled in king size sheets and blankets.

Rarely do I meet a father who has chosen to initiate this unnecessary practice.
It's nearly always the mother's call, and the mother in question is almost
invariably one who has bought into the propaganda that bedding with her child
promotes mother-child bonding. If the other moms in her social group are
bedding with their kids, she feels the additional pressure of not wanting to be
the most "un-bonded" mom in the neighborhood.

There are no two ways about it, a child who sleeps with his parents develops a
dependency upon sleeping with his parents, one that comes back to haunt all
concerned when the parents decide the child's presence in the bed has become
inconvenient.

Meanwhile, this child has been deprived of the inestimable benefit of learning
that he was not a member of the wedding, that the marriage is not a threesome.

During my private practice years, I saw a lot of these kids. They were, as a
rule, not happy campers. The parents in the above question are obviously slow
learners as they're making the same mistake with the newborn.

What can Grandma do to help? She can say, "When you would like some
old-fashioned advice from an old-fashioned older woman who is obviously out of
step with the times, don't hesitate to ask." While she's waiting for her son
and daughter-in-law to come to their senses, she might consider cutting this
column out of her local paper and mailing it to her them in a plain brown
envelope, sans return address.


koa
Still nursing James, 02/06/01
EP'ing for Joey 04/02/03 (BCP)

[H Schinske]

John Rosemond wrote in a column:

> Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
>well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a bed of his
>own.

Well, duh. If no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be the perfect
child, no? At least he'd look like one.

Anyone remember Pet Rocks? I think some people ought to have Rock Babies. They
do behave themselves awfully well, and you don't have to rock them -- they're
already permanently rocked :-)

--Helen

[Karen Askey]

In article >, (H
Schinske) writes:

>> Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
>>well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a bed of his
>>own.
>
>Well, duh. If no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be the perfect
>child, no? At least he'd look like one.
>
>Anyone remember Pet Rocks? I think some people ought to have Rock Babies.
>They
>do behave themselves awfully well, and you don't have to rock them -- they're
>already permanently rocked :-)

Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content in their
rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does not mean a child is
well-adjusted in other areas as well.

"He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never complained. . . "
Sound familiar?

koa
Still nursing James, 02/06/01
EP'ing for Joey 04/02/03 (BCP)

[Elana]

Karen Askey > wrote:

> During my private practice years, I saw a lot of these kids. They were, as a
> rule, not happy campers. The parents in the above question are obviously slow
> learners as they're making the same mistake with the newborn.

Really? I guess StupidHead didn't think that the 2yo is doing it cause
he wants the attention that the newborn's getting.

E

[Belphoebe]

"Elana" > wrote in message
...
> Karen Askey > wrote:
>
> > During my private practice years, I saw a lot of these kids. They were,
as a
> > rule, not happy campers. The parents in the above question are obviously
slow
> > learners as they're making the same mistake with the newborn.
>
> Really? I guess StupidHead didn't think that the 2yo is doing it cause
> he wants the attention that the newborn's getting.

<sarcasm>Right, and I suppose that two-year olds who have been "trained from
birth" to sleep in their own bed in their own room *never* display any
attention-getting behavior when a new sibling arrives.</sarcasm>

Belphoebe

[ted]

> Meanwhile, this child has been deprived of the inestimable benefit of learning
> that he was not a member of the wedding, that the marriage is not a threesome.
>


Who is this guy? Does he know what he's talking about? What a horrible thing to say!

[Marie]

ted wrote in message >...
>> Meanwhile, this child has been deprived of the inestimable benefit of
learning
>> that he was not a member of the wedding, that the marriage is not a
threesome.
>>
>
>
>Who is this guy? Does he know what he's talking about? What a horrible
thing to say!

The only thing I've ever agreed with him about is toilet training.
Everything else is really stupid sounding, cold-hearted and mean.
Some people really have a big problem with children in the "marriage" bed.
Strange, b/c dh and I have a marriage everywhere we are, not just in our
bedroom.
Ha, my kids were part of my wedding ;o) Guess that means it's ok for them to
sleep with us?
Marie

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Karen Askey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
(H
> Schinske) writes:
>
> >> Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
> >>well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a bed of
his
> >>own.
> >
> >Well, duh. If no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be the
perfect
> >child, no? At least he'd look like one.
> >
> >Anyone remember Pet Rocks? I think some people ought to have Rock Babies.
> >They
> >do behave themselves awfully well, and you don't have to rock them --
they're
> >already permanently rocked :-)
>
> Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content in
their
> rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does not mean a child
is
> well-adjusted in other areas as well.
>
> "He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never complained. . . "
> Sound familiar?
>
> koa
> Still nursing James, 02/06/01
> EP'ing for Joey 04/02/03 (BCP)
>

Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow up to
be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must be it.

S

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Marie" > wrote in message
...
> ted wrote in message >...
> >> Meanwhile, this child has been deprived of the inestimable benefit of
> learning
> >> that he was not a member of the wedding, that the marriage is not a
> threesome.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Who is this guy? Does he know what he's talking about? What a horrible
> thing to say!
>
> The only thing I've ever agreed with him about is toilet training.
> Everything else is really stupid sounding, cold-hearted and mean.
> Some people really have a big problem with children in the "marriage" bed.
> Strange, b/c dh and I have a marriage everywhere we are, not just in our
> bedroom.
> Ha, my kids were part of my wedding ;o) Guess that means it's ok for them
to
> sleep with us?
> Marie
>
>

Well, I have no problem with other people who want to cosleep safely. But
this newsgroup gets to be a pretty unfriendly place regarding the issue of
cosleeping sometimes. *I* like having no children in our bed. Like the Ted
Bundy (or someone) comment above. Should this group be renamed radical AP
instead? If so, I will take my bf issues elsewhere when my baby is born.

S

[Circe]

Stephanie and Tim wrote:
> "Karen Askey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> (H Schinske) writes:
>>>> Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
>>>> well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a
>>>> bed of his own.
>>>
>>> Well, duh. If no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be the
>>> perfect child, no? At least he'd look like one.
>>>
>>> Anyone remember Pet Rocks? I think some people ought to have Rock
>>> Babies. They
>>> do behave themselves awfully well, and you don't have to rock them
>>> -- they're already permanently rocked :-)
>>
>> Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content
>> in their rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does
>> not mean a child is well-adjusted in other areas as well.
>>
>> "He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never complained.
>> . . " Sound familiar?
>>
> Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow
> up to be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must
> be it.
>
I don't think that was what Karen was implying. I certainly didn't read it
that way, and my kids all sleep in their own rooms.

I think what Karen was saying is that the behavior described in the letter
and inveighed against by Rosemond (who, IMO, is a hard-line parenting
idealogue cut from the same basic cloth as Ezzo) *isn't* necessarily a
problem. It's only a problem if the parents *think* it's a problem. And even
if it *is* a problem, it doesn't necessarily mean the child in question is
poorly disciplined and maladjusted, any more than sleeping through the night
in one's own room means the child in question is well-disciplined and
well-adjusted.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Circe" > wrote in message
news:RgVQa.8484$u51.7356@fed1read05...
> Stephanie and Tim wrote:
> > "Karen Askey" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >,
> >> (H Schinske) writes:
> >>>> Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
> >>>> well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a
> >>>> bed of his own.
> >>>
> >>> Well, duh. If no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be the
> >>> perfect child, no? At least he'd look like one.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone remember Pet Rocks? I think some people ought to have Rock
> >>> Babies. They
> >>> do behave themselves awfully well, and you don't have to rock them
> >>> -- they're already permanently rocked :-)
> >>
> >> Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content
> >> in their rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does
> >> not mean a child is well-adjusted in other areas as well.
> >>
> >> "He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never complained.
> >> . . " Sound familiar?
> >>
> > Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow
> > up to be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must
> > be it.
> >
> I don't think that was what Karen was implying. I certainly didn't read it
> that way, and my kids all sleep in their own rooms.
>
> I think what Karen was saying is that the behavior described in the letter
> and inveighed against by Rosemond (who, IMO, is a hard-line parenting
> idealogue cut from the same basic cloth as Ezzo) *isn't* necessarily a
> problem. It's only a problem if the parents *think* it's a problem. And
even
> if it *is* a problem, it doesn't necessarily mean the child in question is
> poorly disciplined and maladjusted, any more than sleeping through the
night
> in one's own room means the child in question is well-disciplined and
> well-adjusted.
> --
> Be well, Barbara
> (Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
> See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln
>
> This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
> "Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign
>
> What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.
>
>

I hear what *you* are saying. That is not what it sounded like *she* was
saying at all. :)

S

[Circe]

Stephanie and Tim wrote:
> "Circe" > wrote in message
> news:RgVQa.8484$u51.7356@fed1read05...
>> Stephanie and Tim wrote:
>>> "Karen Askey" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content
>>>> in their rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does
>>>> not mean a child is well-adjusted in other areas as well.
>>>>
>>>> "He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never
>>>> complained. . . " Sound familiar?
>>>>
>>> Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow
>>> up to be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must
>>> be it.
>>>
>> I don't think that was what Karen was implying. I certainly didn't
>> read it that way, and my kids all sleep in their own rooms.
>>
>> I think what Karen was saying is that the behavior described in the
>> letter and inveighed against by Rosemond (who, IMO, is a hard-line
>> parenting idealogue cut from the same basic cloth as Ezzo) *isn't*
>> necessarily a problem. It's only a problem if the parents *think*
>> it's a problem. And even if it *is* a problem, it doesn't
>> necessarily mean the child in question is poorly disciplined and
>> maladjusted, any more than sleeping through the night in one's own
>> room means the child in question is well-disciplined and
>> well-adjusted.
>
> I hear what *you* are saying. That is not what it sounded like *she*
> was saying at all. :)
>
<Shrug> It can be remarkably difficult to "hear" what people are saying in a
strictly written formal. Sarcasm and irony often don't come across properly
at all. To me, it "sounded" like Karen was simply saying that sleeping
through the night in one's own room was no indication of normalcy. I think
it's quite likely that most mass murderers DID sleep through the night in
their own rooms as children, given the fact that this is the societal norm.
That doesn't mean their sleeping through the night in their own rooms
*caused* them to be mass murderers or even that it meant their mothers
didn't love them (and I don't think Karen meant it did, though it's entirely
possible that *I* misunderstood her); it simply means that appearing normal
and being normal aren't one and the same!

I just get the impression that you felt attacked by what Karen wrote because
you've chosen not to co-sleep. And I'm not sure why. Because *we* don't
co-sleep, but I didn't remotely feel that Karen was attacking my choice not
to or that she was suggesting my kids were going to turn out to be psychotic
killers as a result. I realize this group has a *lot* of co-sleepers in it
and folks here are generally enthusiastic about it. Like Clisby, I happen to
be one of those people who doesn't find co-sleeping particularly pleasant or
restful, and therefore choose not to do it unless absolutely necessary. But
I've never felt like anyone who was enthusiastic about co-sleeping was
attacking me or putting me down for being different. Ever. So I'm wondering
where your sense of injury is coming from. I don't think it's just from what
Karen wrote.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

[Rosie]

> Rarely do I meet a father who has chosen to initiate this unnecessary
practice.

Rarely do I meet a father who says "No dear, you stay here in our bed whilst
I get up and soothe the baby to sleep for an hour or so in his own room...."

ROSIE

p.s. DH said the other night, that when DD is asleep in her own bed, he just
lies awake worrying about her until she comes into bed with me ... ahhh!

[Sue theo b]

At risk of opening another can of worms, I'll stick my two pence in. John
Redmond strikes me as someone who has never spent an entire day alone and soely
responsible for the care of an infant. Daddy sitter, yes and I'd bet he did an
adequate job of child watcher. But he doesn't seem to GET what it is like to be
a breastfeeding stay at home mom with an infant. It wouldn't matter so much
EXCEPT... when it comes to things like cosleeping, and daycare he gets onto
these high horses that show his arrogance more than his expertise.
Now I will say, I do like (full disclosuer, I have one daughter who is all
of 2) his style of handeling teens. 15 & 16 year olds can get into really
dangerous trouble. His "lower the boom" technique (take away the car, the
stuff, the allowance, the job, whatever) makes a lot of sense to me. We will
see if I have the balls for it when she is 16. Sue
Tupperware without the party???
Shop online at my website.
http://my.tupperware.com/SueBurton

** remove "spamnot" to reply**

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Circe" > wrote in message
news:EJVQa.8501$u51.4579@fed1read05...
> Stephanie and Tim wrote:
> > "Circe" > wrote in message
> > news:RgVQa.8484$u51.7356@fed1read05...
> >> Stephanie and Tim wrote:
> >>> "Karen Askey" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Heh, I wonder if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer slept all nite content
> >>>> in their rooms? Being content all nite in a room of your own does
> >>>> not mean a child is well-adjusted in other areas as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> "He was a quiet guy, kept pretty much to himself. Never
> >>>> complained. . . " Sound familiar?
> >>>>
> >>> Right, if you child sleeps in his own room, then he is going to grow
> >>> up to be an ax murder because his mother did not love him. That must
> >>> be it.
> >>>
> >> I don't think that was what Karen was implying. I certainly didn't
> >> read it that way, and my kids all sleep in their own rooms.
> >>
> >> I think what Karen was saying is that the behavior described in the
> >> letter and inveighed against by Rosemond (who, IMO, is a hard-line
> >> parenting idealogue cut from the same basic cloth as Ezzo) *isn't*
> >> necessarily a problem. It's only a problem if the parents *think*
> >> it's a problem. And even if it *is* a problem, it doesn't
> >> necessarily mean the child in question is poorly disciplined and
> >> maladjusted, any more than sleeping through the night in one's own
> >> room means the child in question is well-disciplined and
> >> well-adjusted.
> >
> > I hear what *you* are saying. That is not what it sounded like *she*
> > was saying at all. :)
> >
> <Shrug> It can be remarkably difficult to "hear" what people are saying in
a
> strictly written formal. Sarcasm and irony often don't come across
properly
> at all. To me, it "sounded" like Karen was simply saying that sleeping
> through the night in one's own room was no indication of normalcy. I think
> it's quite likely that most mass murderers DID sleep through the night in
> their own rooms as children, given the fact that this is the societal
norm.
> That doesn't mean their sleeping through the night in their own rooms
> *caused* them to be mass murderers or even that it meant their mothers
> didn't love them (and I don't think Karen meant it did, though it's
entirely
> possible that *I* misunderstood her); it simply means that appearing
normal
> and being normal aren't one and the same!
>
> I just get the impression that you felt attacked by what Karen wrote
because
> you've chosen not to co-sleep.


Nope. I just thought the Ted Bundy reference was a tad off the top. The
smiley was intended to take some of the seriousness out of the complaint.

> And I'm not sure why. Because *we* don't
> co-sleep, but I didn't remotely feel that Karen was attacking my choice
not
> to or that she was suggesting my kids were going to turn out to be
psychotic
> killers as a result. I realize this group has a *lot* of co-sleepers in it
> and folks here are generally enthusiastic about it. Like Clisby, I happen
to
> be one of those people who doesn't find co-sleeping particularly pleasant
or
> restful, and therefore choose not to do it unless absolutely necessary.
But
> I've never felt like anyone who was enthusiastic about co-sleeping was
> attacking me or putting me down for being different. Ever. So I'm
wondering
> where your sense of injury is coming from. I don't think it's just from
what
> Karen wrote.
> --
> Be well, Barbara
> (Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
> See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln
>
> This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
> "Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign
>
> What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.
>
>

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Sue theo b" > wrote in message
...
> At risk of opening another can of worms, I'll stick my two pence in. John
> Redmond strikes me as someone who has never spent an entire day alone and
soely
> responsible for the care of an infant. Daddy sitter, yes and I'd bet he
did an
> adequate job of child watcher. But he doesn't seem to GET what it is like
to be
> a breastfeeding stay at home mom with an infant.


I wonder if his wife agrees with him. You know what this makes me think of?
The woman, whose name escapes me now, who drowned all of her children in the
bathtub. Her husband sounded similar to this uy, all demands.


> It wouldn't matter so much
> EXCEPT... when it comes to things like cosleeping, and daycare he gets
onto
> these high horses that show his arrogance more than his expertise.

Just goes to show that Anyone can become an expert. I am feeling a little
poor today. Maybe I should write a book on parenting.


> Now I will say, I do like (full disclosuer, I have one daughter who is
all
> of 2) his style of handeling teens. 15 & 16 year olds can get into really
> dangerous trouble. His "lower the boom" technique (take away the car, the
> stuff, the allowance, the job, whatever) makes a lot of sense to me. We
will
> see if I have the balls for it when she is 16. Sue
> Tupperware without the party???
> Shop online at my website.
> http://my.tupperware.com/SueBurton
>
> ** remove "spamnot" to reply**

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Rosie" > wrote in message
...
> > Rarely do I meet a father who has chosen to initiate this unnecessary
> practice.
>
> Rarely do I meet a father who says "No dear, you stay here in our bed
whilst
> I get up and soothe the baby to sleep for an hour or so in his own
room...."
>


This is my DH. Not all the time of course. DH frequently sleeps through baby
cries better than I do. But he definitely is a hands on Dad who will suggest
just this sort of thing if I am dying.

> ROSIE
>
> p.s. DH said the other night, that when DD is asleep in her own bed, he
just
> lies awake worrying about her until she comes into bed with me ... ahhh!
>
>

[Karen Askey]

In article <EJVQa.8501$u51.4579@fed1read05>, "Circe" >
writes:

>> I hear what *you* are saying. That is not what it sounded like *she*
>> was saying at all. :)
>>
><Shrug> It can be remarkably difficult to "hear" what people are saying in a
>strictly written formal. Sarcasm and irony often don't come across properly
>at all. To me, it "sounded" like Karen was simply saying that sleeping
>through the night in one's own room was no indication of normalcy. I think
>it's quite likely that most mass murderers DID sleep through the night in
>their own rooms as children, given the fact that this is the societal norm.
>That doesn't mean their sleeping through the night in their own rooms
>*caused* them to be mass murderers or even that it meant their mothers
>didn't love them (and I don't think Karen meant it did, though it's entirely
>possible that *I* misunderstood her); it simply means that appearing normal
>and being normal aren't one and the same!

Thanks, Barbara. That is exactly what I was implying. Rosemond seems to say
that only a child who sleeps in his own room by himself is Normal. I was
replying to a comment that was in reply to Rosemond's quote:
>> Assuming no other behavior problems had developed, he'd be a
>>well-adjusted child who was perfectly content with a room and a bed of his
>>own.
And my comment was simply that just because he is content in his room does not
mean that he's content in other areas of his life.

Hey, my parents didn't co-sleep with me and I'm not an ax murderer yet. I do
co-sleep with my children and I guess I would be a shocking sight to Rosemond,
as I am told that my older child is usually well-behaved. (It's too soon to
tell about the 3-mo old!)


koa
Still nursing James, 02/06/01
EP'ing for Joey 04/02/03 (BCP)

[Jenrose]

> > Meanwhile, this child has been deprived of the inestimable benefit of
learning
> > that he was not a member of the wedding, that the marriage is not a
threesome.
> >

Heh. So my 10 year old, who WAS a member of the wedding party, IS a part of
the marriage? That seems like a rather dumb way of defining it.

Jenrose

[Jenrose]

"Clisby Williams" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stephanie and Tim wrote:
<snip>
> >Well, I have no problem with other people who want to cosleep safely. But
> >this newsgroup gets to be a pretty unfriendly place regarding the issue
of
> >cosleeping sometimes. *I* like having no children in our bed. Like the
Ted
> >Bundy (or someone) comment above. Should this group be renamed radical AP
> >instead? If so, I will take my bf issues elsewhere when my baby is born.
> >
> >S
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I think there are plenty of people on this newsgroup who weren't too
> fond of co-sleeping.
> I'm one of them. We did it for awhile with my first child because it
> was the best way
> to get her to sleep, but it was terrible for *our* sleep. The heck with
> the marriage bed;
> I wanted the sleeping bed. I lucked out with the 2nd, who never
> minded a crib.
>
> Clisby

My thing is that
a) I can't sleep when the baby *isn't* in the bed
b) I figure families need to do what works best for them, as a family
c) I don't want to teach a kid to hate going to sleep--my daughter doesn't
d) We tend to use our bed for sleeping at night. Other stuff happens OTHER
times, but rarely "bedtime"

I don't care what other families do as long as it works for them. If they
complain about how hard it is to get enough sleep when baby is sleeping
somewhere else, or how they're struggling to "get" baby to sleep through the
night so they don't have to get up, I'm not all that sympathetic. But if it
works, hey! If it doesn't, and they're unwilling to co-sleeping, then I just
don't have a whole lot of advice on the subject. I *do* have ways of making
co-sleeping easier/more managable, so that's where I focus my own advice.
Jenrose

[iphigenia]

Karen Askey wrote:
>>
>> Rarely do I meet a father who has chosen to initiate this
>> unnecessary practice. It's nearly always the mother's call,

Heh, well, the mother's the one who's got to feed the child, so I do think
she's got a little more say in the matter! If a husband is really firmly
against cosleeping, I think he should be the one to have to wait for the
baby to nurse then get baby settled back into the crib.

Actually, my DH was at first a little unsure about the cosleeping, but after
a week or two he told me he loved the closeness and security of it. And he
loved having a wife who wasn't a totally sleep-deprived bitch.

--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net

[Mary Gordon]

Yeah, its like no one whose kid sleeps in a crib EVER has this
problem. Bwa, ha,ha, hee, ha, snort. Clunk. Mary falls on the floor
laughing.

Parents have a second baby. Oldest at age 2 goes into a regular bed
from the crib and discovers he can escape, wakes up at 3 am, runs all
over the house and wakes everyone up. Family bed or no family bed.
Obviously Mr. Redmond never read any sleep training books, since they
seem to be universally aimed at the parents of toddlers who almost all
go through a phase of getting out of bed and generally driving
everyone nuts at 2 am.

Mary G.
(mom of three, and yes, they all did it at some point no matter what
the heck the sleep arrangements were)

[Jenrose]

"Stephanie S" > wrote in message
.. .
<snip>
> > d) We tend to use our bed for sleeping at night. Other stuff happens
OTHER
> > times, but rarely "bedtime"
> >
>
> What do you mean other stuff? Sex? The whole santity of the marriage bed
> thing is horsepucky as far as I am concerned. Or at least needn't be
> considered seriously if other arrangements suit. BUT just to be an evil
> troublemaker, anyone see that article in Newsweek a couple weeks ago about
> the sexless marriage? There was a very subtle implication at one point
that
> differing parenting styles were causing to decreased availabilty for sex
as
> well as overall exhaustion. There was a letter from someone the next week
> about keeping the bedroom sacred. I kinda thought of you all and laughed
> about it.

Heh. I'm a newlywed, so that whole article just isn't relevant at
present...<g> But remembering back to when my daughter was tiny--cosleeping
was never a barrier to sex if sex was on the agenda...

Jenrose

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Jenrose" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephanie S" > wrote in message
> .. .
> <snip>
> > > d) We tend to use our bed for sleeping at night. Other stuff happens
> OTHER
> > > times, but rarely "bedtime"
> > >
> >
> > What do you mean other stuff? Sex? The whole santity

WOOOPS. I meant SANCTITY!

> of the marriage bed
> > thing is horsepucky as far as I am concerned. Or at least needn't be
> > considered seriously if other arrangements suit. BUT just to be an evil
> > troublemaker, anyone see that article in Newsweek a couple weeks ago
about
> > the sexless marriage? There was a very subtle implication at one point
> that
> > differing parenting styles were causing to decreased availabilty for sex
> as
> > well as overall exhaustion. There was a letter from someone the next
week
> > about keeping the bedroom sacred. I kinda thought of you all and laughed
> > about it.
>
> Heh. I'm a newlywed, so that whole article just isn't relevant at
> present...<g> But remembering back to when my daughter was
tiny--cosleeping
> was never a barrier to sex if sex was on the agenda...
>
> Jenrose
>
>

I am an oldywed (tee hee). What's sex? ;)

S