Tori and Bobby Smith 6: Now with Kade, Kolter, and Charlotte

[CarrotCake]

On 1/21/2021 at 3:11 AM, Lgirlrocks said:

The Duggar’s also had grand kids before the Bates too. Josh and Anna had at least three maybe four by the time the Bates kids started. The Duggar’s will soon have one more child married then the Bates. It may be hard for them to catch up. 

But the Duggars will have 20 grandkids from 8 households, the Bates will have 18 from 6 households, it looks like the average reproductive pace for Bates is much faster. 

If Michael would have been able to have kids they would have surpassed them already.

 

[lumpentheologie]

On 1/20/2021 at 9:55 PM, theotherelise said:

I think the reason you see a slowdown after kid two in several couples is that it’s actually hard to find the time, space, and energy for sex. Besides the fact that many women have reduced fertility while breastfeeding, there is typically a natural slow down in joyful availability when you’re covered in spit up and sleep deprived. 
 

YMMV, but if I had a five month old and 20 month old, I’d pick sleep. 

I pick sleep a lot of the time now even without kids, lol. 

But the problem is if they really think they have to always be joyfully available these women can't pick sleep. Because then they're failing as wives and it's their fault if their husband cheats. And they're married to guys in their 20s who think jacking off is a sin, so they probably want sex a fair bit. 

[DalmatianCat]

4 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

I pick sleep a lot of the time now even without kids, lol. 

But the problem is if they really think they have to always be joyfully available these women can't pick sleep. 

Have any of the daughters ever said the “joyfully available” line or was that only Michelle/Kelly? I think most of the marrieds probably agreed with that at one point (at least as an ideal), but no matter what your parents say, you start to adjust expectations after you’re really married. Plus, all the girls have probably gained a ton of exposure to the idea of marriages with mutual respect, conversations in consent, etc. just by browsing social media the last several years. I think the majority of these girls (Carlin, Josie, Jessa, Alyssa, Lauren) expect to be listened to, agreed with, and treated as an equal with their husbands. I don’t think they spend a lot of time agonizing over how to be as submissive as their mothers were.

[theotherelise]

It’s also a common misconception that men always want to have sex all the time. I know many of the husbands are layabouts, but if a baby is screaming all night, a husband might choose sleep too!

[FluffySnowball]

2 hours ago, theotherelise said:

It’s also a common misconception that men always want to have sex all the time. I know many of the husbands are layabouts, but if a baby is screaming all night, a husband might choose sleep too!

That’s true, and now that I think about it, the notion is even a bit sexist. It assumes that men are very into sex while women’s sex drives are much lower: men enjoy and women let it happen. But in and of itself, this idea isn’t true at all. How much sex one wants depends on each individual - regardless of gender.
Additionally, there are so many misconceptions regarding how many women need to be stimulated in order to orgasm. Penetrative sex only still seems to be what many people consider to be normal, but that’s not what the majority of women needs. 

[LillyP]

On 1/22/2021 at 4:13 PM, FluffySnowball said:

That’s true, and now that I think about it, the notion is even a bit sexist. It assumes that men are very into sex while women’s sex drives are much lower: men enjoy and women let it happen. But in and of itself, this idea isn’t true at all. 

I think women have been conditioned by society to act like they just tolerate having sex with their husband or this notion that everyone who has kids is a "tired mom". I can't tell you how many times I've been with girlfriends for wine night or girls night out and it seems like the "cool" thing to do is act like having sex with your husband is a chore. I don't get it. I mean, there's nothing wrong with someone having a lower drive or being not that interested, but why is it once you've been married any length of time or have kids you're all of a sudden supposed to not like it? 

Sure I'm tired, but that doesn't mean I don't want to have sex with my husband. If anything, I'm the one with the higher drive and would do it every night while he would choose sleep. That being said, time to decompress and spend time as a couple is one of the major benefits of sleep training, along with just having your kid learn healthy sleep habits. From the time he was 7 months our son has gone to bed around 7/7:30pm. We have the rest of the night to relax, shower, watch tv, talk, etc. 

[LancetteShing99]

I have a 2-year-old and a 6-months-old. I'm no more tired than I used to be when we didn't have kids and my sex drive is still as high as it used to be back then.

My husband is still as tired as he was when we didn't have kids and his sex drive is still as low as it was back then.

I'm waiting for the naked man every night. Usually in vain.

We didn't sleep train our kids at all. I think it is usually as unnecessary as potty training.

[Jackie3]

18 hours ago, LancetteShing99 said:

We didn't sleep train our kids at all. I think it is usually as unnecessary as potty training.

Some boys will naturally copy their fathers, but if you've never transitioned a girl off diapers, you really can't say. . . 

[bal maiden]

4 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Some boys will naturally copy their fathers, but if you've never transitioned a girl off diapers, you really can't say. . . 

What? I didn’t potty train my daughter, and she transitioned out of nappies just fine with very little fuss. That said, my son was even easier! In my experience ‘potty training’ is typically driven by the parents’ wishes, and if you wait til the child wishes it, you don’t need ‘training’ really at all. 

[Jackie3]

On 1/25/2021 at 12:04 PM, bal maiden said:

What? I didn’t potty train my daughter, and she transitioned out of nappies just fine with very little fuss. That said, my son was even easier! In my experience ‘potty training’ is typically driven by the parents’ wishes, and if you wait til the child wishes it, you don’t need ‘training’ really at all. 

"Potty trained" means:

Noticing when you need to go, walking to the bathroom, pulling down your pants and underpants,  climbing on the toilet or potty, peeing/pooping, wiping yourself properly, getting off the potty, pulling up your underpants and pants, washing your hands, drying your hands.

Your six-month old daughter can do all that? Amazing.

"Potty trained" is NOT: grunting or crying in a special way, having your mother (who knows all your sounds) recognize that cry, having her carry you to the bathroom, having her do all the work (removing pants, wiping, etc). 

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Jackie3

[Knight of Ni]

2 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

"Potty trained" means:

Noticing when you need to go, walking to the bathroom, pulling down your pants and underpants,  climbing on the toilet or potty, peeing/pooping, wiping yourself properly, getting off the potty, pulling up your underpants and pants, washing your hands, drying your hands.

Your six-month old daughter can do all that? Amazing.

"Potty trained" is NOT: grunting or crying in a special way, having your mother (who knows all your sounds) recognize that cry, having her carry you to the bathroom, having her do all the work (removing pants, wiping, etc). 

 

Thank you. I’ve only had one go through potty training so far but it seems like until the child is mentally ready for potty training, trying is an exercise in futility. It may even discourage the child from trying in the future for fear of failure or accidents.

[Nothing if not critical]

I feel that “waiting until your child is ready for it“ applies to so many things really. Now that my kids are teenagers I look back and I notice so many instances where things would have been so much easier if we’d just waited a little longer.

Obviously, each child is different. Still, there are so many areas where you can train and practice all you want, but until that developmental switch is flipped, it’s all pretty futile. Things like swimming or riding a bike or reading (as opposed to knowing your letters) - sure, you can start your kids early, but there’s no point in getting impatient if they are just not ready yet. 
They all grow up eventually, and in the grand scheme of things, it’s pretty irrelevant if they potty train a year later. As the saying goes, grass doesn’t grow faster if you pull on it.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Nothing if not critical

[bal maiden]

8 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

"Potty trained" means:

Noticing when you need to go, walking to the bathroom, pulling down your pants and underpants,  climbing on the toilet or potty, peeing/pooping, wiping yourself properly, getting off the potty, pulling up your underpants and pants, washing your hands, drying your hands.

Your six-month old daughter can do all that? Amazing.

"Potty trained" is NOT: grunting or crying in a special way, having your mother (who knows all your sounds) recognize that cry, having her carry you to the bathroom, having her do all the work (removing pants, wiping, etc). 

 

What? My daughter is much older than 6 months, and leaned to use the toilet around age 3. What you’re describing is toilet learning, as opposed to potty training. 

[JillyO]

Man, I can’t believe all the mom shaming that‘s going on in these Bates threads right now. 
 

Yes, Ezzo‘s method of “sleep training” is horrible and abusive. And shame on any Bateses who use and promote his techniques. 

But that doesn’t mean that all sleep training is bad. Sleep is a skill that babies have to learn. I chose to help my daughter learn this skill. She’s had a consistent 7pm bed time since she was 4 weeks old, and has been sleeping through the night (until between 6 and 7am) since she was 9 weeks old. She puts herself to sleep at night and for every nap. There was ZERO crying involved in me teaching her these skills. I most definitely did not starve her at night. I just started healthy, sustainable (for our family) sleep habits early and made sure she fed enough during the day so she wasn’t hungry at night. 
 

For my baby and my family, I know that we are all MUCH happier after a good night’s sleep. So we chose to help her learn these skills early. 
 

You are not a bad parent if you choose to “sleep train” your baby in a developmentally appropriate way. Sleep is important for humans. Parents’ mental health is important. 

If you choose to rock or feed your baby to sleep, if you’re co-sleeping, if you’re still getting up 4 times a night to feed your 1-year-old; whatever you’re doing and it’s working for you and your family, GREAT. You do you. I’m happy for you. 

Rant over. 

[nausicaa]

On 1/22/2021 at 2:02 PM, theotherelise said:

It’s also a common misconception that men always want to have sex all the time. I know many of the husbands are layabouts, but if a baby is screaming all night, a husband might choose sleep too!

I have several female friends who have issues in their marriages because their sex drives are higher than that of their husbands. And these aren't women you would label as super adventurous nymphomaniacs, they're pretty vanilla thirtysomething women.

52 minutes ago, JillyO said:

Yes, Ezzo‘s method of “sleep training” is horrible and abusive. And shame on any Bateses who use and promote his techniques. 

But that doesn’t mean that all sleep training is bad. Sleep is a skill that babies have to learn. I chose to help my daughter learn this skill. She’s had a consistent 7pm bed time since she was 4 weeks old, and has been sleeping through the night (until between 6 and 7am) since she was 9 weeks old. She puts herself to sleep at night and for every nap. There was ZERO crying involved in me teaching her these skills.

Yeah, I try and not weigh in on parenting stuff since I don't have kids, but I'm always confused as to why "sleep training" gets such a terrible reputation on here.

My sister was a young working mom and sleep trained my niece. (Not the Ezzo method. My sister doesn't use corporal punishment and she isn't fundie at all.) It involved a consistent bedtime, a big evening meal (my niece was formula fed so maybe that helps?), and letting my niece fuss for a bit by herself if it wasn't full on wailing. The intermittent fussing right after she was put down lasted for about a week and then my niece slept like a dream. Maybe I'm missing something, but is this really abusive?

My niece was also in like the 90th percentile for height and weight, so I don't think she was underfed. 

[Nothing if not critical]

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

It involved a consistent bedtime, a big evening meal (my niece was formula fed so maybe that helps?), and letting my niece fuss for a bit by herself if it wasn't full on wailing. The intermittent fussing right after she was put down lasted for about a week and then my niece slept like a dream.

No, I don't think that is abusive at all. I just feel the need to point out that such an approach won't work for every kid. I can assure you that it didn't work at all with my first daughter. There was no "intermittent fussing", ever. There was only full-blown, heart-rending wailing. Leaving her to cry would definitely have been abusive. In the end, we settled for co-sleeping and lots of night-time nursing. Now she's 15 and sleeps just fine, all by herself ?.
Anyway, I've noticed that lots of parents who have successfully "trained" their baby to sleep tend to be less than understanding of parents whose kids don't respond to it. The amount of times I've heard "You Just need to sleep train her properly." was enough to make anyone resent the mere mention of sleep training.

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Nothing if not critical

[Melissa1977]

4 hours ago, JillyO said:

Man, I can’t believe all the mom shaming that‘s going on in these Bates threads right now. 
 

Yes, Ezzo‘s method of “sleep training” is horrible and abusive. And shame on any Bateses who use and promote his techniques. 

Nobody is mom shaming. The only shaming is about Ezzo, not about otjer sleeptraining methods.

Your kid was an exception. The majority of little babies cry when they are sleeptrained. In addition, the majority of little babies need to be feed at night. You were very lucky, but a baby sleeping all the night at 9 weeks old, with no crying involved neither night feedings, is really unusual. Many (most!) parents set routines and let them stay fuzzy for a while and everything you did... But it rarely works. That's why the "let them cry" method is so famous, because for most families is the only way to sleeptrain.

 

On 25/1/2021 at 9:04 PM, bal maiden said:

 

 

[mstee]

Babies have such a wide variety of temperaments and what works for one may not work for another. I’m not against sleep training in healthy manners, but it just didn’t suit my daughter’s personality. Currently pregnant with my second and if she is more laidback, I’d be open to it. We shall see. I think the biggest thing we see are fundies not looking at their babies as individuals. They are using a one-size-fits-all method to churn out as many kids as possible. It’s sad. 
I think we can all agree that the Ezzo method is neglectful at best and harmful at its worst. 

[LancetteShing99]

On 1/25/2021 at 4:37 PM, Jackie3 said:

Some boys will naturally copy their fathers, but if you've never transitioned a girl off diapers, you really can't say. . . 

Maybe we have a different understanding of potty training? Potty training to me means that you put your child onto the potty every two hours/ask your child constantly if he/she has to go to the toilet or something similiar.

I think that this is totally uneccessary because your child isn't really "dry" then.

Of course you have to train your children in using the toilet. Interesting that you think it's harder for girls. As my children are still far from dry now, I don't have the experience. I have a feeling that my boy will be harder to train, but I'm looking forward to it!

 

[nausicaa]

3 hours ago, Nothing if not critical said:

No, I don't think that is abusive at all. I just feel the need to point out that such an approach won't work for every kid. I can assure you that it didn't work at all with my first daughter. There was no "intermittent fussing", ever. There was only full-blown, heart-rending wailing. Leaving her to cry would definitely have been abusive. In the end, we settled for co-sleeping and lots of night-time nursing. Now she's 15 and sleeps just fine, all by herself ?.
Anyway, I've noticed that lots of parents who have successfully "trained" their baby to sleep tend to be less than understanding of parents whose kids don't respond to it. The amount of times I've heard "You Just need to sleep train her properly." was enough to make anyone resent the mere mention of sleep training.

Oh, I definitely didn't mean to convey "Why can't everyone do this?" I really have no opinions on how people deal with babies and sleeping and imagine it varies widely. 

My sister also admits my niece was a crazy good sleeper, and IIRC, waking her up from naps was actually a problem because she'd sleep so deeply. I'm just always a bit confused when some equate sleep training with whacking kids with plumbing line or underfeeding them, since it seemed like such a non-issue with my niece. 

[JillyO]

4 hours ago, Melissa1977 said:

Nobody is mom shaming. The only shaming is about Ezzo, not about otjer sleeptraining methods.

Well, agree to disagree. I’m not going to quote because I’m really not trying to call  individual people out. But several users have said something along the lines of “sleep training is unnecessary” or “sleep training is just for the parents’ convenience” or “why would you need to sleep train if you’re a stay-at-home mom.” It very much was NOT just about the Ezzo method, which is obviously horrible and abusive. So those posts had very mom-shamey vibe to them.

I won’t delve further into the specifics of different sleep training methods at different ages because I think very few people care. Suffice it to say there are many non-abusive ways to teach your child to sleep, which will look different for different ages. I just hope we’re not the kind of place that shames parents (and let’s be realistic, in 95% of cases it’s moms who deal with this) who choose one of those ways. And if other posters don’t/didn’t sleep train their kids, also great. 

[SassyPants]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Oh, I definitely didn't mean to convey "Why can't everyone do this?" I really have no opinions on how people deal with babies and sleeping and imagine it varies widely. 

My sister also admits my niece was a crazy good sleeper, and IIRC, waking her up from naps was actually a problem because she'd sleep so deeply. I'm just always a bit confused when some equate sleep training with whacking kids with plumbing line or underfeeding them, since it seemed like such a non-issue with my niece. 

I had 1 sleeper and 1 who never took a nap, ever. She was a very good nighttime sleeper, TG. Now if the the good sleeper had been my first, I would have had myself all worked up with the habits of my other child. Luckily for me, the younger child was the easier one.

[freethemall]

19 hours ago, bal maiden said:

What? My daughter is much older than 6 months, and leaned to use the toilet around age 3. What you’re describing is toilet learning, as opposed to potty training. 

I think @Jackie3 confused your comment and the one of someone with  6 month old, who never said they were doing the "elimination method" as I've heard it called. Which by the way my Russian parents/grandparents brag about doing with me when they shame me about my 3 year old not being fully potty trained. I do tell them what Jackie said which is that it's false to say I was truly trained and also they can keep their advice to themselves, fuck you very much.

This whole thread is starting to become a mix of misunderstandings and its causing hurt feelings and misplaced defensiveness. Can we just all agree different things work for everyone, within law, reason, and medical guidelines?

[Nothing if not critical]

11 hours ago, JillyO said:

So those posts had very mom-shamey vibe to them.

But see, the thing is...  that particular vibe works both ways, because for me, personally, your original post made me slightly ragey, especially this bit:

Quote

For my baby and my family, I know that we are all MUCH happier after a good night’s sleep. So we chose to help her learn these skills early. 

Because I'd have loved more sleep, too, and I would have loved to be able to make that choice. Unfortunately my daughter "chose" to refuse being helped in that manner, no matter which (non-abusive) approach I tried.

And sure, you could blame my inferior parenting skills for that. I used to blame myself - until kiddo number 2 came along and was the polar opposite of her sister in every way. Suddenly, getting baby to sleep through the night wasn't an issue at all, and I was super mom.

Which is why I still maintain that not all kids can be sleep-trained. If it worked for your kid, congratulations! And absolutely no hard feelings - I'm pretty much over the initial ragey reaction now.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Nothing if not critical

[JillyO]

3 hours ago, Nothing if not critical said:

But see, the thing is...  that particular vibe works both ways, because for me, personally, your original post made me slightly ragey, especially this bit:

Because I'd have loved more sleep, too, and I would have loved to be able to make that choice. Unfortunately my daughter "chose" to refuse being helped in that manner, no matter which (non-abusive) approach I tried.

And sure, you could blame my inferior parenting skills for that. I used to blame myself - until kiddo number 2 came along and was the polar opposite of her sister in every way. Suddenly, getting baby to sleep through the night wasn't an issue at all, and I was super mom.

Which is why I still maintain that not all kids can be sleep-trained. If it worked for your kid, congratulations! And absolutely no hard feelings - I'm pretty much over the initial ragey reaction now.

My post was only meant to push back against the “sleep training is unnecessary” posts, quite a few of which insinuated that a good mom should just get up as many times a night as the baby wants and deal with it. 
 

I didn’t mean to say that sleep training will work on every child. Just that there are very good reasons for choosing to sleep train, and that it certainly doesn’t have to be abusive. 
 

Like I said in my first post, if other posters choose not to sleep train because they have found something else that works for them (co-sleeping, nursing to sleep, whatever), I’m genuinely happy for them. And if yet others tried to sleep train and it didn’t work, then I very much hope they found something else that worked for them. And if not, then I just wish them all the strength in the world and hope it will get better for them soon. It sounds like you are well past that stage, but I’m sure it was very hard at the time!
 

We all need sleep. We should all support parents in getting more sleep through whatever non-abusive means work best for their families. That’s all I was trying to say.