Well, I'm certainly not interested in whether or not my experiences hold "water" with you, but I was raised in a Nazarene church. Later I attended a "New Testament" church. Several of my family members attend a Pentecostal church and practice a Pearl-ish model of Biblical submission. Finally, my MIL is Catholic and also believes in the above-mentioned model, although she has no idea who the Pearls are.

It seems to contradict "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to G-d what is G-d's". Also the idea that Christians are to live "in" this world, not "of" it.

Not to open up a can o' worms or anything, but while I don't care if people choose to have children without a financial plan other than G-d providing I do hope that those very people keep their votes to themselves when it comes to whether or not a homosexual couple can marry or whether I can choose to have an abortion. People don't have to answer to me about what they see as morally correct. But nor should I to them.

I'm not sure if this is rhetorical but it's relatively simple (although I wouldn't say, certainly, that we are a mutually submissive couple). We're both good debaters and, if it's important to you, you should be able to give a logical argument to support it. Or we defer to the one that knows more about the subject.

I actually think it's many evangelicals who have perverted the meaning. What I've seen taught as "Biblical submission" in churches has been, well, what those here seem to be against.

I didn't vote. The "evil myth" one would be closest to mine but I hate to make judgements on what works for others. I can say this, however, I would be submissive to my husband the same day I sprout wings from my behind. (but I'm an atheist, so take it for what its worth)

It's funny--we also live on a farm and I was thinking that perhaps that's why I feel that punishment is less necessary--as we live a life a bit closer to earth (we're not Laura Ingalls Wilder or anything but our milk comes from one of our cows, not the store) the kids are better able to see the consequences of our actions. It might be hard for a seven year old to understand the concept of office politics but it's pretty easy to understand that if you treat the milk customers badly they will buy their milk elsewhere. Those consequences are quite real and obvious; it would be silly and seemingly arbitrary for me to also, say, take away television privelages because the hens weren't fed on time. But I do agree with you on one point--there is never any need for rudeness. My belief is just that it's a universal rule. I expect my kids to adhere to a standard of behavior that is rather high. In turn, I expect the adults to behave at least that well. My problem with many adults is that they seem to expect kids to act better than they do and with that I have a problem.

I absolutely agree. None of us know what is going to happen down the road and, perhaps the most wealthy aside (like, Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey wealthy), we could all find ourselves in dire financial straits with a startling quickness.

I have no issues with people who use public assistance. I'm very much a social liberal. However, I think it's foolhardy to rely on social programs when choosing to have more children. Those social programs might not always be available. They might be much less accessible. They might otherwise no longer be reliable for you.

I was sick last night and missed the game. :( It was great to see the highlights this morning on ESPN. I'm a lifelong Hoosier here. Go Colts!

I'm not Laurie, but I can give an example of how we've dealt with this. DD, who is 10, is a dancer with a performance troupe. These kids practice together 5 days a week and sometimes there are cliques. There is one girl, in particular, who is just a mean girl. This girl seems to have focused on my dd, in particular, to pick on. We discussed the matter with the head of the dance school (very informally, as he's a buddy of mine from high school); just an fyi dd and this girl are having issues. Then we discussed ways of dealing with the girl with dd. Could she tell the girl to kiss her behind? Sure. But I reminded her that the dance school might have something to say about that choice. DD is not just my jurisdiction when she's there; she has to follow their rules or she won't dance. Anyway, to make a long story short dd adopted a pretty mature avoidance policy with this girl (I've never been good at ignoring people so I was impressed with her resolve). The girl still picked on her. I can't control that girl, nor could dd. Nor could your (proverbial your) child control her, even if your child had grown up in a punitive household. It still hurts when someone picks on you. You aren't any more prepared just because you've been grounded or had the TV taken away. To make a long story short I ended up overhearing some info about this girl's background that makes her behavior a little more understandable (not acceptable, mind, but understandable). When we know *why* people do the things they do it makes it easier for us to have compassion and not just anger. DD and I talked about this girl and both of us came away from the conversation feeling quite differently about her. Now dd and her are cautious friends. Not best buddies, certainly, but not enemies. I think that discipline is about giving my children the tools it takes to make the right decisions. Certainly under my guidance until she is older (and, with luck, she'll always find my opinion valuable) but those are still her decisions to make. By raising her in a household where her opinions were always valued (but placed in a framework of mutual respect) she has the self confidence to make those decisions. Could she have told the girl off? She could have--and certainly telling someone off isn't exclusive to non-punitively parented children. She would have faced the dance school's consequences. She didn't need a background in grounding to understand those consequences. Again, I'm not trying to say that anyone who parents differently than I do is wrong or that my way is the only way or anything, just offering up how we handle things.

I don't want to actually debate anybody but I did want to agree with this. Our tactic with our kids is simple--model respect and other things that we want to our children and they behave that way in turn. I treat them the way I want to be treated and, for the most part, I get that in return. It's not like every day is super easy. There are four of them. One has sensory issues and epilepsy. We have bad days. I'm not trying to sound like I have a model of perfection in my little house. But it always makes me feel uncomfortable when people seem ovely invested in controlling all the little things about kids. I did grow up in a very authoritarian household, though, so it might be a natural avoidance.

I'm very rarely on the taken-out-to-eat side of life but I treat my mom regularly when we go places to eat. My idea is that if I'm offering to buy you dinner then I have the money to pay for whatever you might like to eat. Obviously I might suggest Steak and Shake rather than Red Lobster if I have less money to divide per person but I wouldn't treat my children as if they had less choices because they didn't have the money. After all, they're kids. They *can't* compete financially. And why should they? They're kids. I have a son with sensory issues that will literally throw up if a weird food texture is forced upon him in the interest of not being rude. I guess I have a bit of a mama bear over that one. But then I don't eat food that I don't like. I don't need to be rude about it or obnoxious, but I don't gag down a food that I really don't care for just because someone made it. For us meals are a family affair and I take everyones likes and dislikes into consideration when I'm cooking. After all, it is as important to be a kind and gracious hostess (modelling the behavior I want from others and not just demanding it) as it is to not appear to be a spoiled child.

I don't mean to sound dense, but I'm not sure I understand. When I go to a restaurant I order what I want. My MIL loves buffets. If she chooses the restaurant she'll be picking something with a buffet. Generally I don't care for buffets so I order off the menu. Am I being "very demanding" about what I choose to eat? It's my food. I know what I'm hungry for. Now, surely I'm not excusing a rude tone of voice or a failure to use manners, but sometimes it seems like grown-ups (particularly older grownups, IME) have one set of standards for children and one (ironically, always one that is more lax) for adults. I've certainly seen adults that expect kids to eat what is placed before them, without regard to their dietary likes and dislikes. I find that to be more rude than a kid that is so ungrateful as to say, "I don't want any broccoli." (Again, not saying that the above is the situation described by the poster, but it's something I've noticed and that irks me. I think sometimes adults take control of children to absurd levels)

This. Having fair expectations helps me a lot too. If *I* feel cranky and whiny after doing a lot of errands (or having a late lunch, or whathaveyou) then I can certainly not expect an 8 year old to feel cheerful. Not saying that your expectations are wrong, just that sometimes I find myself asking too much of everyone, including myself, and it sets us up for conflict.

Huh. I think that people are always entitled to offense when others are rude. My children are expected to mind their manners no matter who it is they are speaking to. If they didn't I would hold *them* responsible, not the person they were rude to. What kind of message is that, anyway?

True 'nuff. I have visible tats and love them. ETA: Sorry about the serial posting--I'm reading from the beginning. :)

This belief has always been so in this household. My dh and I have both always been very much individualists and we haven't toed the lines that those around us would have liked. We don't ask our kids to, either. As for reflecting upon our family, it's okay with me if it's obvious that we let our kids make a lot of decisions about things like hair and dress. If that reflects "badly" it is generally among people that we don't care to please anyway. Both of us are successful in our fields and stable in our lives--the approval of people because of our appearances is not really something that we strive for.

I have dreadlocks and, up until a month ago, my husband had dreadlocks that went past the middle of his back and my 5 year old had dreadlocks as well (he got them cut off, by choice, on his sixth birthday). So, no, I don't have a lot of hangups on how socially acceptable a person's hairstyle is. My boys--and girl--can wear their hair however they want. If someone wants to give them a hard time about it that person can come and talk to me. It won't likely be pretty.

I don't understand your question marks. My "if" is very clear. He has not been found guilty in a court of law (either military or regular). He is entitled to that under our Constitution. I have no doubts as to his guilt but, until he is given a trial, my "if" stands and for good reason.

I've tried reading Don Quixote several times and never could. I'm reading it now on my Kindle and it seems to be slightly more bearable in that format.

I normally don't get mine posted so early but it's here

I've never denied a selfish streak but, seriously, my happiness versus Grandkid going to visit Grandpa instead of me on Christmas Eve? Give me happiness. I will make all attempts at making the people I love in life happy. That does not include forfeiting my own happiness. Further, I don't know what adult child would be so selfish as to want Mom and Dad to stay together to make holidays and special events less awkward, even if Mom and Dad are obviously unhappy together.

I think that he deserves a fair trial and, if found guilty, needs to live his life out in prison. I do not support the death penalty.

I understand that, I was meaning from a Biblical pov since the OP has mentioned that a couple of times. Either it's Biblically acceptable now or it isn't, but the religous acceptability isn't going to change when Little Susie heads to Notre Dame. Personally, as someone who grew up with parents who stayed together "for the kids", I'd have papers filed tomorrow. Broken families aren't just ones whose parents live apart and nobody is doing the kids any favors when they stay in relationships like that. (ETA: And when they divorced when I was 19 my life was very much upended, even though I had lived on my own for a couple of years at that point)