D, I agree. Raising children properly is one of the most important roles in creating a wise society, yet the only qualification to raise children is the act of reproductively functional people having unprotected sex. It makes no sense at all.Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Laird asked:
Yes, it is shallow minded for a man, or a woman to love a child.It is shallow to love a child?
Loving a child as a parent does, or as paedophile does, or even just loving children in the same way as people ‘love’ animals - are all acts of violence done to children. These expressions of love, these “appreciations†as Shardrol would say (though not to describe the paedophile’s idea of love), are really just acts of plain old-fashioned selfishness. Not that many adults can see it as such as they have no understanding of their own minds, and therefore have no knowledge of why they do the things they do. For example, they don’t know that the main reason they are attracted to, and form attachments to children is because children are useful amusing distractions. They don’t recognize that kiddies are, at base, just another one of their big-people’s toys – used to try and plug the gapping emotional black-hole that constitutes much of their life.
Children have been successful gap-fillers for generation upon generation. These days, many adults consider bonding to children as pleasurable as snorting cocaine, watching TV, having a successful career, or traveling on overseas holidays; but for others, children will never surpass the pleasure of shopping, chatting on the mobile phone, playing computer games, decorating their home, or seeing their favourite sports team take home the winner’s trophy. Some adults, such as mothers and paedophiles, find children are their greatest source of pleasure and become completely obsessed by them. These lovers of loving children basically rip the living spirit out from their beloved little ones, and only leave go of them when their childhood is spent. (Well, paedophile's do; mothers will often keep on squeezing life from their children until death intervenes.)
But even more horrifying is that the violence doesn’t end when the children are children no longer. No. The violence endures and emanates now out from those who were a short time ago the 'tortured ones'. They, having been dragged down into the emotional abyss by their loving adults, now emerge fully grown with gapping emotional black-holes of their own that need to be fed. And using the lessons well learnt from their parents and other ‘loving’ adults, they set about using the next generation of little ones in the same horrific manner that they’d been used.
--Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:This is really disturbing, especially knowing that you were responsible for two children during their critical development phase.
Your theory is quite the opposite of what has been shown to be true. In this article, pay particular attention to the section marked What happens if this window of opportunity is missed? where it says:They, having been dragged down into the emotional abyss by their loving adults, now emerge fully grown with gapping emotional black-holes of their own that need to be fed.Although your method is likely to produce the goal you seek for your son, as according to this article:The problems that result from this can range from mild interpersonal discomfort to profound social and emotional problems.It would seem to me that having two emotionally detached parents would increase the liklihood even further.Causes
The exact causes of schizoid personality disorder are unknown, although a combination of genetic and environmental factors — particularly in early childhood — are thought to contribute to development of all personality disorders.
A person with schizoid personality disorder may have had a parent who was cold or unresponsive to emotional needs, or might have grown up in a foster home where there was no love. Or, because people with schizoid personality disorder are often described as being hypersensitive or thin-skinned in early adolescence, a person with schizoid personality disorder may have had needs that others treated with exasperation or scorn.
A family history — such as having a parent who has any of the disorders on the schizophrenic spectrum — also increases the chances of developing the disorder.
Risk Factors
Personality development is affected by genetic tendencies as well as environmental factors, particularly during childhood. Factors that increase the risk of developing schizoid personality disorder include:
* Having a parent or other relative who has schizoid personality disorder
* Experiencing a childhood environment of neglect or scorn
* Suffering child abuse or mistreatment
* Having an emotionally detached parent
But although schizoid personality disorder may have worked out well enough for his father, according to this article:(both of the above seem to have gotten their information from Mayo Clinic)People with schizoid personality are at an increased risk of:
* Developing schizotypal personality disorder, schizophrenia or other delusional disorder
* Drug addiction, particularly to psychedelic drugs
* Alcohol addiction
* Major depression
* Anxiety disorder
* Panic disorder
* Social phobia
* Other personality disorders
Further, because people with schizoid personality disorder may have trouble interpreting and responding to social stimuli, they may have trouble warding off the predatory behavior of other people. As a result, they may be more prone to victimization than are most other people.
Not providing love to a child, particularly during the first year of life, can cause precisely that which you accuse those of damaging children with love. Although you may never know it, as often schizoids become complacent about their condition (reference above articles and just about anything else you can click on about the condition).
Yes, you know how to provide the maximum possibility of engendering schizoid personality disorder, but you have not convinced me that it is wise to do that to a child. As it states in this article about orphanage children in China, emotional neglect during the first year is likely to cause a child to shut down his or her ability to give or receive love as part of a protective mechanism to avoid pain. There is a vast difference between being emotionally secure enough to not need emotional attachments as an adult, and emotionally starving a child into burying his emotional needs out of the belief that it is no use complaining as his needs will never be met anyway. Here's one reference, I'm sorry I could not find a better one online, stating that regarding physical pain:I've seen in offline sources that the same is with emotional pain. There is a difference between suppressing emotional pain and not having emotional pain. Here is an interesting chapter on thought suppression, and you may be interested in page 383 regarding thought rebound. Although this ebook does indicate that thought suppression can work if there are no cues of the thought being suppressed, in the case of emotional security and relationships, it's pretty hard to not run into cues on a regular basis. Hitting these cues frequently, combined with the protective mechanism of not being able to give or receive love, they could, as this article suggests:because they were in an orphanage and were used to their needs not being met, this pain becomes the norm to them and they don't cry when they are in pain.This could result in a chronic emotional pain that would result in the complications listed above instead of general feelings of security that are peppered with occasional spikes of pain.People with schizoid personality disorder may appear detached and aloof to outsiders, but some experts believe that they're actually quite sensitive and experience a deep longing for intimacy. However, people with schizoid personality disorder either are incapable of initiating and maintaining a personal relationship, or find themselves suffocated or anxious in the company of others.
I am not convinced that either condition is better. I believe the best condition is to be able to remove the spikes of pain through having internal emotional security - which would have to be fed from outside sources from time to time but could last more like food in the stomach than an electrical feed to a lamp.
.Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Elizabeth,
Your above response to my post on the abhorrent use of children by adults to get their emotional fix, shows just how difficult a topic this is for you and, I know, for many other people to approach. I actually wrote that this would be the case in that same post:EI: This is really disturbing, especially knowing that you were responsible for two children during their critical development phase.
It’s extremely difficult (and in most cases, completely impossible) for emotional junkies (most of the human population) to be able to see anything past their need for the next fix. So it isn’t at all surprising to me that the points I raised in my post would be twisted by others into a demented justification for the continued torturing of children.SH: They (children), having been dragged down into the emotional abyss by their loving adults, now emerge fully grown with gapping emotional black-holes of their own that need to be fed.
Even your liberal use of references backed up what I was saying about the unsuitability of most adults to have anything at all to do with young lives.
--
But anyway – you were saying something about my having been “responsible†for two children. From your study of them, you have observed…
--Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I have little idea what your children are like - you mentioned your son is quiet and easy to live with, and David speaks highly of him. I have no idea what his internal life is like. You mentioned that you have nothing in common with your daughter, and have not lived with her since she was - I think you said 7. You know very well that all I have on the matter is results of professional studies on children, and have no way to specifically cite your children as examples either in support or as exceptions. Of course, many parents consider their children to be exceptions... Based on broad studies, it is not unreasonable for me to find your statement disturbing.
I'm still waiting for you to present either a logical or an empirical data based rebuttal to the points I made, rather than just the reaction of an indignant mother.
.DHodges wrote:What do you think of the idea of requiring some sort of permit, and perhaps some sort of training class, before you are allowed to have kids?Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Even your liberal use of references backed up what I was saying about the unsuitability of most adults to have anything at all to do with young lives.
A lot of people seem to fall into having kids with no idea of what they are getting into, and all sorts of bizarre misconceptions of what it will be like.
Or would this be the government butting in where it doesn't belong? It seems to me that allowing untrained people to have kids is kind of like not requiring any training before you get a driver's license.
Sue, I do agree that the way children are currently being raised is obviously not producing optimal results, nevertheless the measures you seem to be suggesting correlate with methods that have been shown to also have bad results. Lets look at this rationally to work out the optimal method.
As for observing your children, I wonder if you would be willing to invite your son to join this thread?
.