kids and their furniture?

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.

DB

"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.

wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

Yes, I think it would give it character and sort of freeze a moment in time,
not that I would want all my furniture decorated in that fashion.

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

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.

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

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:19:21 -0500, "Sue"
I third that suggestion. My son used to play with all his toys that
had little parts in the playpen and his sister could watch but not
destroy his creations.

Gosh, I never thought of that. Ds loves Playmobil and Lego but he has to go
upstairs to play with them because Jessica (15m) wrecks everything he
creates. However, he won't go upstairs much because he gets lonely. I wonder
if he would use it though, he's five and already too cool for himself.

JennP.

In article ,
"JennP" wrote:

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:19:21 -0500, "Sue"
I third that suggestion. My son used to play with all his toys that
had little parts in the playpen and his sister could watch but not
destroy his creations.

Gosh, I never thought of that. Ds loves Playmobil and Lego but he has to go
upstairs to play with them because Jessica (15m) wrecks everything he
creates. However, he won't go upstairs much because he gets lonely. I wonder
if he would use it though, he's five and already too cool for himself.

JennP.



It seemed to work pretty well for us -- but I think it was my daughter's
idea in the first place; I don't remember for sure. It may make a
difference that she seldom saw me use it much for the babies, nor did
she spend much time it it as a baby or toddler -- it was there for the
occassional time when a brief confinement was necessary -- to run to the
bathroom, for example.

It can't hurt to try; present it to him, and see what he thinks. Let
us know.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

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?

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.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

toypup wrote:
"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.

But that's *exactly* the point! Why is it that one
should only take care of "precious" things? Why is it not
appropriate to take good care of everyday, ordinary things?
I'm with Banty here. I think the default setting is that
one takes care of things. If it's worth having at all, it's
worth taking care of. I would never, ever treat something
that belonged to someone else roughly without their
express permission, even if it seemed disposable to me.
I certainly expect my children to treat anything that is
not theirs with the utmost care, regardless of whether it's
no more than a crappy plastic kids meal toy from some fast
food joint, unless the owner is the one encouraging them
to do otherwise. I expect my children to treat their
own stuff with care. I think if they were taught that
it's okay to be careless with stuff, they'll be careless
with other people's stuff--and probably get in trouble
for it at times.
That said, I do agree that there are times when
it's okay to take off the kid gloves. However, one only
does that after careful consideration, *especially* if
the thing doesn't belong to you. The default is to be
careful. With everything. All the time. If you're going
to be rough with something or use it in a manner that
could damage it in any way, then you need a justification
*before* you start in on it--and you need the agreement
of the owner, if that's not you.
I just don't see that there's any excuse for
a child (or an adult) having the notion that it's okay
to be cavalier with stuff. Others can choose to be
cavalier with their stuff, but then I think it's
incumbent upon them to teach their children that
sort of thing is not okay elsewhere without the
express permission of whoever's stuff is being
affected.
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.

Best wishes,
Ericka

dragonlady wrote:

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?

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.)

Personally, I think this is very simple. The
stuff didn't belong to the father or the other child.
So, the appropriate question is whether the proposed
action has any possibility of damaging the item in
any way. Ball? Nope. Stuffed animal? Almost certainly
not. Little metal car with a painted finish? You betcha.
Voila! It is inappropriate to throw the car unless it
is clear that the owner approves. You don't have to
know how such toys are usually played with. You don't
have to know what is precious to whom. All you need to
know is whether the proposed action might possibly
cause the condition of the item to change. Small children
might be excused from being able to predict what will
and won't damage something precisely, but the father
has no such excuse.
Does this mean the dad was a bad person? Of
course not, and Banty said as much. But it was an
inappropriate action to take.

Best wishes,
Ericka