Me: Yes, I'd like to order the strawberry balloon for dessert.
Waiter: Right away. That will be right up in about 14 hours.

Special delivery just for you...lasagna, and pumpkin pie for dessert.

I know it's a dessert here in the middle of the night but I'm going to try and *promote this bastard anyway

We didn't have fights like this in our house, but I have heard that one person cuts the cake, the other person gets to choose which is the biggest piece.

(We fought over which channel to watch, not size of desserts.)

I remember realizing how awful some nursery rhymes and kids songs were. Like the Three Little Kittens. They lost their mittens, as children do. That's life with kids. But they lose dessert privileges. And to compound it, the fact they were lucky enough to find their mittens suddenly erases their previous wickedness and they get to have dessert again. If that wasn't enough of a giveaway, it was first published in the U.S. in a book called, "New Nursery Songs for All Good Children"

And "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" has the same issue. Children who are unhappy are being bad and won't get presents. It doesn't say, children who don't steal, or who don't bully, or anything vaguely moral. No, it's whether you cry and pout or not that determines whether you get a little tin horn or a little toy drum. In fact, a strict reading of the lyrics shows this behaviour doesn't even determine whether you've been naughty or nice this year, but whether you in fact are naughty or nice inherently.

These two were written by failed parents, clearly.

Well now ... THAT was worth coming back for. No need for dessert tonight, that was a sugar load overdose! =oD

>> ^messenger:

I have a feeling we're going to disagree on this one, but you might be interested in hearing my take.
I agree that giving in and letting it go would have been a bad choice on his part. However, I don't think the father communicated anything useful to the daughter. I don't think she was capable of receiving the intended message in her condition. An adult would have understood it. Maybe after a nap she would have understood it, but that girl there was beyond learning at that point. This is not a teaching moment.
To me, this scene shows disrespect for the kid's feelings. For her own reasons, not the least of which is being overly-tired, she very strongly doesn't want to put the bowl in the sink. For all the effort she's making to avoid moving the bowl, the parent is making as much effort to make her move the bowl. Both sides are working harder now than it would take to move the bowl. It has ceased to be about the bowl, or about chores, and now it's a battle of wills. The kid is learning that daddy is more powerful than her and his seemingly random orders are more important than how she feels. She's 3 years old and exhausted, so that's all she's internalizing. She isn't learning anything about responsibility, or cleanliness, or aesthetics or feelings. She's not learning why she should put the bowl away instead of her dad. Her dad's avoiding the task just as much as she is. The only difference is he's smarter and more powerful.
This is a common stance of parents, but not a necessary one. The first part of my answer is I would not tell my kids to do any chores, but instead ask them to do things, just like I would ask an adult, giving them as much autonomy as possible. If they didn't do them, I would explain my feelings about why I wanted them done, explain how it made me feel to see those things not done and how it felt to do those things myself without their help. I would hear their side about it and compare it with my own. If they still refused, I would establish consequences that don't require their cooperation (like I choose not to serve any dessert, rather than grounding). If you're doubtful it could work, this is what my sister did with her two. The result? By age six they were arguing with the parents over who got to do the dishes. Contributing felt like a reward for them because they understood the consequences of their choice either way.
The second part of my answer is about this exact situation. Let's say I forgot about my position on not telling my kids to do things, and accidentally got into a stupid win-lose (or even lose-lose) battle of wills with my 3-year-old daughter. Once I realized I was in a situation I had wanted to avoid and it was my fault (you can't fault the 3-year-old), I would change the dialogue to resolve it in such a way that both of us felt good -- or as good as we could, considering. First, I would never pretend that I believed the lie that it's too heavy. This just encourages the behaviour. I would start off by acknowledging her feelings (upset, tired, angry, frustrated, ...) and eliciting confirmation. I would aim for some sort of compromise, like she goes for her nap now, and we agree to talk about the bowl after. The goal would be her understanding the point, not getting her to move the bowl.
When she left, I would put the bowl away, and after her nap, I'd explain like I said in the first part about my feelings around chipping in. If she's too young to understand the connection between my feelings and her doing chores, then she's too young to be expected to do meaningful chores.


The method described that your sister uses is guilt tripping and extortion. Using emotional guilt as a lever and the threat of no dessert (carrot and stick) is hardly more enlightened then flat out requiring that the job be done. And every parent uses it at some point.

And as for 'you can't fault a 3 year old', are you fucking stoned? Talk about arrogance, 'oh, their precious little intellects aren't developed enough to understand what's going on'. Bullshit. 2-3 year olds learn things very very fast (I call it 'velociraptoring'), and they're a lot brighter than you give them credit for. Isn't that the point of your whole parenting by negotiation schtick?

I have a feeling we're going to disagree on this one, but you might be interested in hearing my take.

I agree that giving in and letting it go would have been a bad choice on his part. However, I don't think the father communicated anything useful to the daughter. I don't think she was capable of receiving the intended message in her condition. An adult would have understood it. Maybe after a nap she would have understood it, but that girl there was beyond learning at that point. This is not a teaching moment.

To me, this scene shows disrespect for the kid's feelings. For her own reasons, not the least of which is being overly-tired, she very strongly doesn't want to put the bowl in the sink. For all the effort she's making to avoid moving the bowl, the parent is making as much effort to make her move the bowl. Both sides are working harder now than it would take to move the bowl. It has ceased to be about the bowl, or about chores, and now it's a battle of wills. The kid is learning that daddy is more powerful than her and his seemingly random orders are more important than how she feels. She's 3 years old and exhausted, so that's all she's internalizing. She isn't learning anything about responsibility, or cleanliness, or aesthetics or feelings. She's not learning why she should put the bowl away instead of her dad. Her dad's avoiding the task just as much as she is. The only difference is he's smarter and more powerful.

This is a common stance of parents, but not a necessary one. The first part of my answer is I would not tell my kids to do any chores, but instead ask them to do things, just like I would ask an adult, giving them as much autonomy as possible. If they didn't do them, I would explain my feelings about why I wanted them done, explain how it made me feel to see those things not done and how it felt to do those things myself without their help. I would hear their side about it and compare it with my own. If they still refused, I would establish consequences that don't require their cooperation (like I choose not to serve any dessert, rather than grounding). If you're doubtful it could work, this is what my sister did with her two. The result? By age six they were arguing with the parents over who got to do the dishes. Contributing felt like a reward for them because they understood the consequences of their choice either way.

The second part of my answer is about this exact situation. Let's say I forgot about my position on not telling my kids to do things, and accidentally got into a stupid win-lose (or even lose-lose) battle of wills with my 3-year-old daughter. Once I realized I was in a situation I had wanted to avoid and it was my fault (you can't fault the 3-year-old), I would change the dialogue to resolve it in such a way that both of us felt good -- or as good as we could, considering. First, I would never pretend that I believed the lie that it's too heavy. This just encourages the behaviour. I would start off by acknowledging her feelings (upset, tired, angry, frustrated, ...) and eliciting confirmation. I would aim for some sort of compromise, like she goes for her nap now, and we agree to talk about the bowl after. The goal would be her understanding the point, not getting her to move the bowl.

When she left, I would put the bowl away, and after her nap, I'd explain like I said in the first part about my feelings around chipping in. If she's too young to understand the connection between my feelings and her doing chores, then she's too young to be expected to do meaningful chores.>> ^oritteropo:

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I thought the Dad did a pretty good job of letting the girl know that it was her responsibility to clear the plate, and that carrying on wasn't going to get her out of it. I would have done pretty much the same thing in pretty much the same way, except perhaps not quite so well.
Now if he'd given in and cleared the plate for her... well that leads to a bad place.
How would you have managed it differently?

Heh, it would be a sushi chef doing it. We ate at this one sushi joint once and the chef prepared us a fresh orange for dessert. He cut it in such a way, that when it was handed to us, the entire orange skin was still intact, forming a bowl, save for the top which had been cut off and used as a lid. Once you removed the lid, the inside contained just the fruit, which had been nicely sectioned, and it also included a toothpick for eating the sections. I really wish I had paid more attention at how he did it as it was really neat.

I like how the person on the right seems to be thinking: Hahaha, she's breathing dessert. Oh, cake! *nom nom nom!* I'm sure she's fine. *Nom nom*

I'll have the mixed melon salad to start, chicken dumplings with chestnuts, taters, and coconut cream pie for dessert. And a milkshake!

'Modern balloons can be made from materials such as rubber, latex, polychloroprene, or a nylon fabric' (WIKI). The sites where I have seen the recipes recommend a latex balloon, so I am hoping there is no aftertaste. And you should wash the balloon with mild soap and water first too. I saw this on Top Chef: Just Desserts first and thought it was brilliant!

Sadly the last two minutes says otherwise. >> ^Trancecoach:

another feel-good news story about charmed banksters getting their just desserts.

another feel-good news story about charmed banksters getting their just desserts.

Most overrated dessert ever. Maybe I've just not had a good one..