kids and their furniture?

toypup wrote:
"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...

I'm with Banty and Erika on this thing. I think everything should be
taken care of, not just precious things. So, I dont care of the couch
is ten years old, ya dont bounce on it,


But can you sit on it?

...and when you get up from sitting on it, it looks
and functions as well as it did previously.

and I dont care if the bed is
second hand, you dont write on headboard with Markers,

But can you lay on it?

...and when you get up, it looks and functions as
well as it did previously (especially presuming you make
the bed, if it was made prior to your laying in it).

And even
though the dishes may be second hand corelle, yes, they deserve to be
washed and dried and treated properly.

But can you eat from it?

...and when you're done eating from it and washing
it up properly, it's back to the same state it was in before.

My point is, though you may not be destructive with it, you use it the way
it was intended. Like I said in another post, I have relatives with a couch
that is used only for display. How is anyone to know that? If they invite
you over, assuming a sleepover or party where you are not formally invited
to sit here or there and the couch is not mentioned as off limits (because
everyone ought to know a pristine looking couch is only for display), are
you showing blatant disregard to their property for sitting on the couch?

That's a red herring. No one's claiming that you
can't use or touch anything. Couches are clearly made for
sitting, and it would be quite unusual for sitting on a
couch (without putting your feet up on it) to be considered
inappropriate action. The fact that you've got an oddball
in your family who has a no-sit couch doesn't change that
general rule of thumb. But that in no way makes it okay
to take actions that *do* change the condition of something
owned by someone else. And who knows? Maybe your oddball
relatives are reacting defensively because so many people
thought that not only was it okay to sit on a couch, but
it was okay to put feet up on it (shoes intact), eat and
drink on it, and other things that are okay in their house
because they don't really see any need to treat their own
furniture in such a way as to preserve its condition, so
it must be okay to do that in someone else's home. Or
maybe they're just looney tunes. I wouldn't know. But
the argument is still a red herring.

Likewise, toys usually go in the toybox when a toybox is present. How is
the dad to know the cars don't go there?

It ain't rocket science to figure out that the
pristine cars can't be tossed into the toy box from across
the room without changing their state.

Best wishes,
Ericka

toypup wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

So, I don't think that "maybe it's not as
precious to someone else as it is to you" is ever
a justification. It doesn't matter. You never
treat anything carelessly if it belongs to someone
else, even if you think it's silly.


I don't mean that I would treat things that are not precious carelessly. I
would treat them as they are normally meant to be treated. I just wouldn't
give them extra special gentle treatment. That's a lot different than being
cavalier with others' belongings. I wouldn't do that. But a Matchbox car
gets crashed and buried in sand. That's the usage I had in mind for them.

But then it would be quite obvious to anyone encountering
your Matchbox cars that they were dinged up and full of sand,
and it would be equally obvious that tossing them in a box and
playing with them in the sandbox wouldn't change their state.
Not true of a Matchbox car that is in pristine condition.

What if someone collected balls and didn't want them bounced because they
might get scuffed or dirtied with oil? How in the world are you supposed to
know that? They are made for bouncing. You would constantly have to ask
about everything, which would make you look pretty silly for having to ask
if the ball can be bounced.

Again, a red herring. It's very simple to figure out.
The pristine basketball full of signatures doesn't get bounced,
because bouncing would change its state. The scuffed basketball
that has clearly seen use can be bounced with no problem. The
brand new looking basketball with no signs of wear and tear,
you ask the owner if it's okay to play with.
I don't get why this is complicated.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Banty says...

In article , toypup says...


"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
. ..
I'm with Banty and Erika on this thing. I think everything should be
taken care of, not just precious things. So, I dont care of the couch
is ten years old, ya dont bounce on it,

But can you sit on it?

and I dont care if the bed is
second hand, you dont write on headboard with Markers,

But can you lay on it?

And even
though the dishes may be second hand corelle, yes, they deserve to be
washed and dried and treated properly.

But can you eat from it?

My point is, though you may not be destructive with it, you use it the way
it was intended. Like I said in another post, I have relatives with a couch
that is used only for display. How is anyone to know that? If they invite
you over, assuming a sleepover or party where you are not formally invited
to sit here or there and the couch is not mentioned as off limits (because
everyone ought to know a pristine looking couch is only for display), are
you showing blatant disregard to their property for sitting on the couch?

But this is a false dichotomy. Not damaging stuff does not mean not even using
things, and I think these stories of extremely touchy people are relevant,
actually.

I meant to say - I *don't* think these stories are relevant.

Banty

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

Caledonia wrote:
Banty wrote:

But normal everyday care should be careful enough to allow things to last as
well as they can. Throwing metal things that are carefully painted and detailed
damages them. Drawing grafitti on furniture defaces it. I don't see how
refraining from damaging things is "special handling".


Yes and no -- don't you also have some metal cars that are used in the
sandbox?

No need to unnecessarily complicate this. The cars that
it's fine to bang around and get full of crud are banged around
and full of crud, no? Again, the issue is causing the item to
change state. It's probably a safe bet that the cars that are
banged up and dinged don't have to be played with as carefully
as the ones in pristine condition. This isn't rocket science.
If your actions would leave the item worse off, don't do it
without explicit permission.

Actually, he treated the sand-box cars (trucks, mostly - little loaders and snow
plows and stuff) well as far as their use. We'd rinse them off and let them dry
at the end of the season or when he wanted them for his in-home construction
scenarios. Sure, the sand marred the finish, but not like in big chips. More
like real construction equipment. Even those wouldn't be thrown around.

We still have most of the die cast cars - well used and played with, but not
trashed and chipped and smashed up. They'll be passed down or sold eventually.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article ,
Banty wrote:

In article , toypup
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
But *somewhere* the concept has to be planted that things, at least
some
things,
yes, those accessible to kids too, need to be well treated, and that
has
to
happen at home.

But some things precious to one person are not precious to others. At
home,
you may teach them to care for your and their precious items, and they
may
treat their other belongings with not as much care. But sometimes,
kids may
not realize something that's not precious to them may be precious to
someone
else. The cars, for instance. I don't know a lot of boys who take
great
care not to scratch up their cars, because normal use of the cars
involve
crashing them together. Most children would know not to smash them
with a
hammer to destroy them, but they would not know to treat them gently
so as
not to scratch them. Heck, even the dad didn't know. So, if
something is
to be treated with more care than usual, then it needs to be kept from
others who might not know how not to damage them. On this vein, DH
won't
even let me touch his baseball cards.



Why would only *precious* things be treated with care? Especially
others'
stuff.

Banty



Did you have a problem with the OTHER stuff being thrown into the
toybox?

I'm genuinely curious about this. Do you think that the very idea of
making throwing things into the toybox as a game is disrespectful
towards those belongings -- a distructive thing to do?

You're restating me - I didn't say "toys" in general, I was talking about
die
cast cars.


If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree -- I think most
people would not have a problem with throwing toys into a toybox, and
using it for "target practice" is a fairly common way to get kids to
help clean up.

If you don't -- if, in general, tossing toys into a toybox IS an
appropriate way to put toys away -- then why do you think this father
should have known that these particular toys were in a different
category? (They wouldn't be in most households.)

I have a real problem with THIS incident being used to judge a
particular parent. Once your son got upset, he may have not responded
appropriately -- but the game itself just doesn't sound that out of line
to me.


I didn't judge the parent past this one incident! I've gone on to say it
wasn't
mentioned again and we're still friends.

Really, this isn't fair. We've gone from die cast cars, specifically, to
"toys"
in general, and my relating one incident specifically, even describing a
continuing friendhip and no further mention, to "THIS incident being used
to
judge....".

Perhaps you're defensive because *you'd* lead the kids in throwing hard,
painted, good-condition METAL toys across the room, taking no mind as they
chip
and grind agaisnt each other, 'cause after all, it's just some kids toys
and
don't all kids wreck their stuff anyway. Well, consider that not all kids
wreck
their stuff.
I have to say that a young child who is picky about the condition of
matchbox cars and doesn't bang them together, run them into walls, etc is
probably the exception, not the rule. And, if you're that concerned, would
you store them in the toy box anyway? Or have them out to play with? Or
would it be more like the Madame Alexander dolls a well-meaning relative
keeps giving my daughter (Why would you give a 1 yr old a doll which can't
be mouthed and chewed on???) -on a shelf not to be played with, just
admired.







Banty

In article , Barbara Bomberger
says...



Aside from the primary discussion, I happen to not believe in "toy
boxes" because things do get damaged and in general, everyime the kid
wants to get somethign out, they are dumping other toys out that they
may not play with. So we have alwyas had plastic shelves and bins.



Yes - I can't imagine how legos and die cast cars and kennex sticks and all can
be jumbled up in a big toy box and be much fun to play with later. Half the
play time would be taken up picking out which pieces would be used and many
would be pretty much lost. We used plastic boxes and bins, too.

Banty

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:06:13 -0600, "Donna Metler"
wrote:

I have to say that a young child who is picky about the condition of
matchbox cars and doesn't bang them together, run them into walls, etc is
probably the exception, not the rule. And, if you're that concerned, would
you store them in the toy box anyway? Or have them out to play with? Or
would it be more like the Madame Alexander dolls a well-meaning relative
keeps giving my daughter (Why would you give a 1 yr old a doll which can't
be mouthed and chewed on???) -on a shelf not to be played with, just
admired.

We used to live in an apt, and had an upstairs neighbor whose son
collected Matchbox cars. It was very apparent they weren't for
"normal" play, as they were kept displayed in a cabinet with a glass
door.

My ds and he would take them out to play with them, but the father
supervised, and it was clear the child was very careful with them.
My ds would be equally careful by following the child and father's
example, in spite of being allowed to play with his own cars in what I
considered to be "normal" play.

Now, I believe the upstairs neighbor was an exception, and I believe
it was important for my ds to learn to respect his belongings.
However, I wouldn't have taught my child to treat another child's toys
with 'extraordinary care'. I would (and did) teach him to treat them
they way he would want his own things treated. If a friend wanted his
toys treated in a special manner, then I felt it was up to that friend
to make that known.

Nan

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Caledonia wrote:
Banty wrote:

But normal everyday care should be careful enough to allow things to last as
well as they can. Throwing metal things that are carefully painted and detailed
damages them. Drawing grafitti on furniture defaces it. I don't see how
refraining from damaging things is "special handling".


Yes and no -- don't you also have some metal cars that are used in the
sandbox?

No need to unnecessarily complicate this. The cars that
it's fine to bang around and get full of crud are banged around
and full of crud, no? Again, the issue is causing the item to
change state. It's probably a safe bet that the cars that are
banged up and dinged don't have to be played with as carefully
as the ones in pristine condition. This isn't rocket science.
If your actions would leave the item worse off, don't do it
without explicit permission.

I understand this and it's relatively intuitive for me (as mentioned,
I'm the compulsive 'toys sorted in each plastic box' lady) -- but I can
easily see how someone else wouldn't see the difference, not out of
wanton Disregard For All Things, but just by pattern matching on 'toy
cars = toy cars'. (DH, for example, can't figure out what clothes are
'play clothes' for our 3 yo -- he's meticulous about clothing care, but
seemingly doesn't 'see' a difference between older scuffy leggings and
new leggings.)

Caledonia

Banty wrote:
In article . com,
says...


Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...



We took this approach too. Theirs, within reason. I think the
underlying principle was not to disable the functionality of the
object. So stickers on lamps, desks, clocks and other flattish surfaces
was okay. Dropping them from a height was not. The other thought was
that the room and contents should be reasonably presentable,
age-appropriately. So stickers, drawings, even little engravings on the
furniture would be okay, slathering them with mud or black paint would
not.

DB


Reasonably presentable, "age - appropriately"??

It might work if one replaces furniture every few years! I dont' know about
you, but I expect to use furniture for some years. Even my son's old Little
Tykes stuff now has storage duty in the furnace room.

Banty

Yup. Meaning, some gets replaced and some lives on, stickers, drawings
and all. Beds go. Dressers and shelves stay. Carpet, sheets, curtains
change.

Stickers, drawings and other 5 y-o modifications enliven their teen
room furniture. If it bothered them - doesn't seem to - they can
remove, cover, re-paint. At some point, the furniture will be tossed,
having served its purpose for maybe a decade or more. This is not
mahogany we speak of, more like pine and/or particle-board. If it
morphs into basement storage, stickers/ graffiti won't bother us. Kinda
cute, actually.

Why is pine furniture, or laminate furniture, even, so disposable?? Why does it
have to be mahogany to be expected to last? My son is still using his pine
furniture, and we added more, and he *really* wanted the stickers and other
little-boy stuff out. Twelve year old boys aren't much for their friends seeing
cutesy cowboys and smiling little airplanes in their rooms anymore. Maybe
teenaged girls don't mind so much the little-girl stuff, but still, they do make
it into their twenties or the guest room will need the dresser.

Inexpensive pine and laminate furniture (or my nemesis, drawers that
are nailed together) that's subjected to daily use (versus a bookshelf,
with minimal moving parts) is not typically *built* to last. (It's like
asking 'why are those $.50 goody bag toys not expected to last -- or
why is using particleboard for a kitchen countertop a bad idea...) Pine
with large exposed knots that can't be sealed and paste-waxed seems to
expand, contract, swell and crack a whole lot more with our temperature
swings here (and no, I'm too cheap to heat my house above 62 in the
winter). Without being sealed, if you don't wash your hands before
touching it, it will discolor from the (natural) oils on your hands.
The nails will eventually work themselves out due to the open/shut
action over a few years -- even screws would be better, truly, if it's
not dovetailed. Typically, the nails also rust, too. Then again, my
pine furniture experience is limited to the 'pine furniture you buy in
college.' We still have it, but it's basement quality stuff despite
relatively gentle use.

It's like wondering why those red oak kids school chairs from the 1920s
are still around, but the plastic ones with the tubular legs from the
1980's have all cracked and rusted (despite indoor only use) -- it's
not that we've treated the 1920s chairs any better, but that the 1980s
chairs weren't built to last, and require repair every couple years or
so.

But, hey, I expect my cars to last 10 years or more. I don't think it's
particularly great value to teach that things are disposable. Sorry, I don't -
it's been making for a crappy, consuming, throw-away society.

Banty

True -- but it's easier to maintain a 1960's Chevy Suburban here, than
a 1980's Subaru Justy. Materials and construction are as large a factor
in longevity as 'appropriate use'.

Caledonia

In article , Donna Metler says...



Perhaps you're defensive because *you'd* lead the kids in throwing hard,
painted, good-condition METAL toys across the room, taking no mind as they
chip
and grind agaisnt each other, 'cause after all, it's just some kids toys
and
don't all kids wreck their stuff anyway. Well, consider that not all kids
wreck
their stuff.
I have to say that a young child who is picky about the condition of
matchbox cars and doesn't bang them together, run them into walls, etc is
probably the exception, not the rule. And, if you're that concerned, would
you store them in the toy box anyway? Or have them out to play with? Or
would it be more like the Madame Alexander dolls a well-meaning relative
keeps giving my daughter (Why would you give a 1 yr old a doll which can't
be mouthed and chewed on???) -on a shelf not to be played with, just
admired.

The die cast cars were *not* stored in a toy box. The toy box was there for
*other* stuff. There were bins and little divided boxes for the cars, although
they often 'lived' in parking garages made to their scale.

Do folks truly not see any middle ground between smash-and-crash and up on a
shelf pristine in boxes like Madam Alexander dolls?? This is the fallacy of
false dichotomy. It's some of why I object to this idea that 'precious' stuff
should be hidden away (so that even the owner can't enjoy them!), else it's
fair game for whatever use strikes someone else. There's a huge and livable
middle ground of using things decently, such that they're not ruined can can
continue to be used. Indeed, it's necessary to recognize that to ever be able
to have nice things happen - to enjoy things, and enjoy them for a length of
time. Hide-and-hoard or smash-and-trash doesn't allow for that.

Banty