Anonymous wrote:Special needs. My delayed kid doesn't get it. But thanks for judging me and making me feel bad!
Anonymous wrote:Both of my twins learned around 3.5 and are still wet at night at 9.5. We had no idea that they had severe,Chronic constipation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there a point to training them earlier than they want? Does potty training at 4 have any negative effect on a child?
Yes, four year olds notice that all the other children can use the bathroom and aren't wearing diapers under their clothes, hanging out of their bathing suits at the pool, etc. Do you think they are like infants and have no social awareness at 4?? Also, they will remember it because also unlike infants, 4 year olds are forming long term memories. Have you ever interacted with a child older than about 12 months?
If they notice other kids, all the better. If the kid isn't trained simply because he's resistant (no other physical or neurological problems), then seeing their peers using the toilet can be a good motivator.
This could apply to everything! Genius! Don't teach your kid to use silverware and hopefully he will feel like the odd one out and a little ape-like and start using it once he sees peers doing so! Shame! Who would have thought of this?! I am going to lay off all the teaching right now! Will save me a ton of effort.
No one is saying that PT shouldn't have at least been attempted by the age of 4. Yeah, the kid knows what a potty is and what it is used for but for whatever reason is not fully trained by the age of 4. I'm still not sure why a parent would owe you or anyone else an explanation as to why it is taking so long. Ironically, many times these issues stem from having attempted potty training too early - before the child was really ready/willing. I know that must be a hard one for the "I Potty Trained my baby at 9 months!" crowd to believe. But it happens.
If you potty trained your toddler - good for you!! But a kid isn't a freak if he/she is still PT in preschool.
It's not your kid, it's you. Someone else could have trained him. No one thinks your kid can't do it...
Gah! So what? It isn't a contest. It isn't a race. There is no competition, there is no trophy for getting your kid PT first. YOU are doing that for YOU and your own sense of accomplishment. If you want to spend a year of year life rushing a 2 year old to a little potty seat and changing crapped on underwear and britches - go for it. If you want your kid to learn to go potty all by themselves - wait until they are ready.
Some might be ready for the whole process at 2. MANY are not ready until they are 3/3.5. Some might not be ready until they are 4. Eventually - they do learn!
This is such an odd characterization. I'm not the PP you're arguing with, but that's such a false dichotomy (I have literally never met a person who PT by 2 or so do that-- rush or clean up inconvenient major accidents-- more than rarely)... not to mention, you know you're changing diapers and wiping poop off your kid for an extra year or two, right? I mean, that's the tradeoff. It doesn't come for free. We're not doing all this AND changing diapers for years.
I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with that, but it's not actually less work for you than for the vast majority of parents of kids who train by 2 or so.
I had a woman on DCUM tell me that having to stop briefly to take my PT'ed 16-month-old potty (at my DC's initiation) every 2-3 hours on a long road trip was "her idea of h*ll" and "why she waited until 3.5 for her kid to PT himself."
Huh?
I mean, if it's her idea of h*ll, I'm not going to convince her otherwise, but she was totally discounting all the work she had to do for an extra 2 years (wiping poop off a preschooler being just the most significant part) because it had become normal to her.
She was saying that she'd rather not have to make maybe one extra stop on a 9-hour road trip she took once or twice a year-- and this was such a deal breaker to her that she would rather change diapers for an additional 2 years instead.
To each her own-- absolutely. But I think some people get so wrapped up in the possibility of rare accidents or "rushing" occasionally (usually for a couple months-- if that-- not a year)-- while totally discounting the thousands of extra diaper changes, etc. (which I'm sure all bigger kids totally 100% tolerate without argument).
It's just kind of myopic, frankly. And I'm talking only about THIS aspect of the argument ("it's so much easier to wait an extra 2 years than deal with occasional accidents for 2 months"). Because if my kid has 4 accidents a week for 2 months, and the training pants are absorbent/waterproof like mine were, it was literally no bigger a deal than changing 32 (pee) diapers during a period which you'd be changing at least, what, 336? And then you'd go on to change another 4000+, when I'd be done. It's not about my sense of accomplishment. It's about my kid for the most part-- but if it's about me, it's about it being easier for me. Or my perception that it's easier-- and that's all yours is, too-- perception-- definitely not a fact.
Anonymous wrote:Is there a "Toilet Training for Dummies" book?
Anonymous wrote:Here's what happened the first and last time I had an untrained big kid, age five. He came to me announcing he pooped in his pants. I said get some clean clothes to put on. He brought them to me expecting me to clean him. I told him he needed to clean himself. It took forever, but there were no more "accidents" after that.
Apparently mom and dad took turns cleaning his pants. Gross. They had their boy spoiled rotten in more ways than that.
The epitome of neglectful parenting.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For me it is because I wanted them to learn to read first so they can read on the toilet. We're a zero screen time house.
What? why do they need to be able to read on the toilet? Business on the toilet should take less than five minutes.
Anonymous wrote:Because parents are gone 10-11 hours every day and it's way easier on the weekends to just put them in pull-ups and let the daycare deal with it. It's time consuming and requires large blocks of time, patience and staying inside to do it the "fast" way (3 day method) and no one is taking days off work to potty train. Or running to spend their only family time I the weekends about potty training. So it gets put off until the daycare starts to apply pressure or kindergarten is looming.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there a point to training them earlier than they want? Does potty training at 4 have any negative effect on a child?
Yes, four year olds notice that all the other children can use the bathroom and aren't wearing diapers under their clothes, hanging out of their bathing suits at the pool, etc. Do you think they are like infants and have no social awareness at 4?? Also, they will remember it because also unlike infants, 4 year olds are forming long term memories. Have you ever interacted with a child older than about 12 months?
If they notice other kids, all the better. If the kid isn't trained simply because he's resistant (no other physical or neurological problems), then seeing their peers using the toilet can be a good motivator.
This could apply to everything! Genius! Don't teach your kid to use silverware and hopefully he will feel like the odd one out and a little ape-like and start using it once he sees peers doing so! Shame! Who would have thought of this?! I am going to lay off all the teaching right now! Will save me a ton of effort.
No one is saying that PT shouldn't have at least been attempted by the age of 4. Yeah, the kid knows what a potty is and what it is used for but for whatever reason is not fully trained by the age of 4. I'm still not sure why a parent would owe you or anyone else an explanation as to why it is taking so long. Ironically, many times these issues stem from having attempted potty training too early - before the child was really ready/willing. I know that must be a hard one for the "I Potty Trained my baby at 9 months!" crowd to believe. But it happens.
If you potty trained your toddler - good for you!! But a kid isn't a freak if he/she is still PT in preschool.
It's not your kid, it's you. Someone else could have trained him. No one thinks your kid can't do it...
Gah! So what? It isn't a contest. It isn't a race. There is no competition, there is no trophy for getting your kid PT first. YOU are doing that for YOU and your own sense of accomplishment. If you want to spend a year of year life rushing a 2 year old to a little potty seat and changing crapped on underwear and britches - go for it. If you want your kid to learn to go potty all by themselves - wait until they are ready.
Some might be ready for the whole process at 2. MANY are not ready until they are 3/3.5. Some might not be ready until they are 4. Eventually - they do learn!
This is such an odd characterization. I'm not the PP you're arguing with, but that's such a false dichotomy (I have literally never met a person who PT by 2 or so do that-- rush or clean up inconvenient major accidents-- more than rarely)... not to mention, you know you're changing diapers and wiping poop off your kid for an extra year or two, right? I mean, that's the tradeoff. It doesn't come for free. We're not doing all this AND changing diapers for years.
I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with that, but it's not actually less work for you than for the vast majority of parents of kids who train by 2 or so.
I had a woman on DCUM tell me that having to stop briefly to take my PT'ed 16-month-old potty (at my DC's initiation) every 2-3 hours on a long road trip was "her idea of h*ll" and "why she waited until 3.5 for her kid to PT himself."
Huh?
I mean, if it's her idea of h*ll, I'm not going to convince her otherwise, but she was totally discounting all the work she had to do for an extra 2 years (wiping poop off a preschooler being just the most significant part) because it had become normal to her.
She was saying that she'd rather not have to make maybe one extra stop on a 9-hour road trip she took once or twice a year-- and this was such a deal breaker to her that she would rather change diapers for an additional 2 years instead.
To each her own-- absolutely. But I think some people get so wrapped up in the possibility of rare accidents or "rushing" occasionally (usually for a couple months-- if that-- not a year)-- while totally discounting the thousands of extra diaper changes, etc. (which I'm sure all bigger kids totally 100% tolerate without argument).
It's just kind of myopic, frankly. And I'm talking only about THIS aspect of the argument ("it's so much easier to wait an extra 2 years than deal with occasional accidents for 2 months"). Because if my kid has 4 accidents a week for 2 months, and the training pants are absorbent/waterproof like mine were, it was literally no bigger a deal than changing 32 (pee) diapers during a period which you'd be changing at least, what, 336? And then you'd go on to change another 4000+, when I'd be done. It's not about my sense of accomplishment. It's about my kid for the most part-- but if it's about me, it's about it being easier for me. Or my perception that it's easier-- and that's all yours is, too-- perception-- definitely not a fact.
Anonymous wrote:What does "being ready" even mean? Perhaps everyone is waiting for their child to say "I'm ready!" and that's why so many 4 year olds are gleefully pooping in their pants.