OT - COG regarding: Unconditional Love

[mrsc]

don't correct the child; correct the behavior.

And even this is open to interpretation from one person to another. I think my mother WAS trying to correct my behavior. I was very shy as a teen and often was home reading or something. She thought I should have been out. I (the introvert) was compared to my cousin (the extrovert) and because I didn't behave like my cousin did, I was weird and abnormal.

My sensitive nature drove her batty because she couldn't deal with it. So she labeled me oversensitive.

I remember her coaching me (and not because I asked) on how to smile, how to walk, how to greet people (always say their name, i.e., "hi, Jane.") She WAS trying to correct my behavior. I suppose you could do this in a way that didn't give the child/teen a negative message, but mostly I saw it as yet another example of her pointing out my "flaws."

I wasn't behaving "badly." I wasn't hurting anyone by staying home and reading when I was a teen. My mother tried to push me to conform to her preconceived idea of what a teenage girl should be, and when I resisted, she labeled me as weird.

I say she should have accepted me for who I was (unconditional love). I was getting good grades, I was involved in extracurricular activities (music mostly) and I always had girlfriends. IMO, she should have been very happy with me!

I remember being at my mother's aunt's house about 10 years ago and our aunt made a comment to my mother about what a nice or great or lovely daughter she had, and I just cringed. It made me very uncomfortable because I thought surely my mother didn't agree with that. I found it difficult to hear a compliment about myself in my mother's presence.

BTW, I would never say "you will never be alone because I will always love you" to my child. Why would anyone say that? We can't guarantee that our children will never be alone. That seems like a statement designed to create dependency on the parent. I'd be more inclined to say "I love you because you're you."

[cac4]

I'm unclear as to why you are so against making the statement "I will not live in a sexless M." It's not like you even have to make that decision because MrsCac has decided on her own to address the issues.

I'm not "against" it...I'm just sayin'...for the sake of discussion..."speaking acedemically", on the sub-debate "boundary=condition". (I still say its the same thing!) anyway, "IWNLIASM" would not have been right for *me*. that's all. Might be perfect for some. can't make a threat like that without actually being able to back it up, and I wouldn't.

But what about those people on here that don't have a S that is willing to look at their own part in the sexless state of the M? Should they just be patient and hope for the best?

LOL! worked for me!!!
lucky me!!

We've seen M go into decades of SSM. Seems to me the best progress has been made in confrontation, not just "being the best person you can be" and hope your S notices.
LFL

maybe so. confrontation is just fine...threats on which you are not actually prepared to deliver is another thing, though.

[Corri]

Cac:

I suppose I see the difference between boundaries and confrontation much like I see the difference between economic sanctions and declaring war.

The first tactic is... 'if you want to behave that way, fine. We as a country(s) will not deal with you.'

The second is... 'if you keep that crap up, we're going to bomb the sh!t out of you.'

But... you are correct when you say, if you are not prepared to take action on either course, both come off as an 'empty threat.'

Corri