Teen Parents/ Parenting

[Piscivore]

That reminds me of 20 years ago in highschool when one of the girls were complaining about her silly parents would not let her stay over with her boyfriend.
What did they think went on in the afternoon?
With 17-18 year olds?

There must be some "keeping up appearance" involved.

I agree. Our thinking is, if the kids really want to **** they're gonna find a way to make it happen, no matter what kind of restrictions we put on them, how tight we make the bars of the cage, or how short the leash. "Life (and horny teenagers) will find a way." If I could successfully ditch school to play Super Punch-Out at 7-11, they can slip away to get it on (which would probably be a better use of the time, anyway ).

Therefore, we have few restrictions. Instead, we've focused on making sure the kids understand all the possible implications and consequences of having sex- not just the scary stuff like STDs and pregnancy, but the emotional and social consequences too. Both our children have goals and plans for their lives that don't include the costs of those consequences. That's why we don't mind the 15yo boy going to dinner with his girlfriend and her parents. That's why we didn't mind our 17yo daughter taking walks in the parks with her boyfriend (well, the dude was a complete wimp anyway, and his church had them under constant surveillance. To them, a kiss was a sin, practically.) We trust the kids to make good decisions because they are doing so for their own benefit, not ours.

Of course, that doesn't mean the boy can have a sleepover alone with the girlfriend. That's just asking for trouble.

 

[Meadmaker]

. How is he supposed to know what you can see?

Because we told him if he can't see us, we can't see him.

Duh. Is that really that hard? And do you seriously think that we stopped watching him and trusted his six year old judgement? Of course not.

There's something I find amusing about all of this. When talking with Steve, you were intensely judgemental. You had the answers. You knew everything. He's wrong. You're right. End of story. Yet, with your own kids, you explain things patiently and they always do the right thing because they know that everything you say is in their best interests and you are not
"an idiot or a bully".

I don't know what you are like in real life, but based on your communication in this thread, you come off as one of those parents who are intensely judgemental about other people's children, but extraordinarily accepting of your own. There are a lot of people like that in the world, and I do not know if, in reality, you are one of them. If you are, could you please stop? It can be really annoying to be around parents who only notice the flaws in other peoples' children.

 

[Meadmaker]

Really? That's just pathetic. You plan on having a sixteen year old child that dates, yet doesn't know about sex.

He already knows about sex, at least from a clinical, textbook, physiological, sense. He'll know plenty more as he gets older.

He doesn't know about lust. He doesn't know about passion. He can't. They are only understood by experience. Do you seriously think you can teach your kids about the "emotional consequences" of sexual relationships? Really? You think you can teach them the highs and lows and joys and sorrows by explaining them? You think you can convince them to do the wise and right thing even when their girlfriend or boyfriend is urging them otherwise, and happens to be naked? Really?

Good luck with that. It will probably work. The thing about those consequences that the universe imposes on kids who don't follow wise counsel is that those consequences tend to be quite severe, but occur with low probability. The thing about teenagers is that they are always certain those consequences happen to other people, not them. Most of the time, they're right.

 

[Piscivore]

Because we told him if he can't see us, we can't see him.

Duh. Is that really that hard? And do you seriously think that we stopped watching him and trusted his six year old judgement? Of course not.

Then why threaten to punish him? If he's never out of your sight, he can't break the rule, right?

There's something I find amusing about all of this. When talking with Steve, you were intensely judgemental. You had the answers. You knew everything. He's wrong. You're right.

I don't have to know everything to know he was wrong. That's the perfect solution fallacy. He appealed to it too. Do you "rules-is-rules" authoritarian types share the same brain, or is there a guidebook?

Yet, with your own kids, you explain things patiently and they always do the right thing

They most certainly do not always do the right thing. In fact, we discovered recently that my daughter was up to my old trick of making herself "invisible" and reading during math class. Turns out all the work she's doing for her three AP classes is starting to burn her out. Should we "punish" her for that?

because they know that everything you say is in their best interests and you are not "an idiot or a bully".

Yes, the ensuing discussion, while occasionally heated, was productive for just these reasons.

I don't know what you are like in real life, but based on your communication in this thread, you come off as one of those parents who are intensely judgemental about other people's children, but extraordinarily accepting of your own.

I'm intensely judgemental of everyone. Including myself. I just happen to be extraordinarily pleased with my kids and their behaviour- especially compared to their alleged peers. And some alleged adults. That's not always the case. Don't get me started on my daughter's standards of cleanliness with regard to her bedroom.

There are a lot of people like that in the world, and I do not know if, in reality, you are one of them. If you are, could you please stop? It can be really annoying to be around parents who only notice the flaws in other peoples' children.

What annoys you isn't a terribly compelling factor in modifying my behaviour. Especially when it's based on eroneous assumptions.

 

[Emet]

Fear is a powerful tool for the weak minded to use on a weaker person, but ultimately a poisonous one that will bite you back.

If I had a sig here at the JREFF, I would steal that.

 

[Piscivore]

He already knows about sex, at least from a clinical, textbook, physiological, sense. He'll know plenty more as he gets older.

He doesn't know about lust. He doesn't know about passion. He can't.

Why not? Is he a robot?

They are only understood by experience.

Yes, but the great thing about humans is that we can learn from other people's experiences. That's the whole reason we invented storytelling. In fact, it may even be an evolutionary adaptation.

Do you seriously think you can teach your kids about the "emotional consequences" of sexual relationships?

I can explain what they were for me. I can give them information that others have reported. I can give them an idea of what they might expect so they can prepare for it.

Can I tell them exactly what's going to happen every time they get in a car? No. Does that mean they cannot understand drving? Should I just tell them "cars are bad" and ground them if I find a driver's manual in their posession?

Really?

Yes.

You think you can teach them the highs and lows and joys and sorrows by explaining them?

I can give them an idea. So can lots of other people. It's called "literature". Look into it.

You think you can convince them to do the wise and right thing even when their girlfriend or boyfriend is urging them otherwise, and happens to be naked? Really?

It's worked so far. You're talking in hypotheticalls, I'm dealing with two real, live teenagers here. I'm going to go with observed results over your arm-waving speculation, thanks.

ETA: Really, you're just making my point for me. No amount of blind obedience is going to prevail against these urges, is it? And if the kid is just taught to obey, and not think, the've got nothing else to use, do they?

Good luck with that. It will probably work.

Yup. and yours probably won't. Keep your luck, you'll need it.

The thing about those consequences that the universe imposes on kids who don't follow wise counsel is that those consequences tend to be quite severe, but occur with low probability.

What orifice did you pull "low probability" out of? Both my kids personally know several people in their school who have had unplanned pregnancies. In fact, the elder brother of the Boy's previous girlfriend (and the Boy's bandmate) was a teen father.

The thing about teenagers is that they are always certain those consequences happen to other people, not them.

I've heard this said as a folksy generalisation. Do you have any evidence it is actually true?

And yes, they've been warned about this possibility.

Most of the time, they're right.

Are they?

 

[Niggle]

Not true entirely, though I agree some are... really out there. I am a teen parent, I constantly ask questions, and im normally reading some type of book or watching an educational channel. I do have plans for my life, and im happy with my life. Though I resorted to the Army, Im doing a Medical feild, also planning on going to a college to get myself a degree to become a PA. Sound like a "stupid teenage parent"? I have know many of my friends with this same incident become successful.

Bully for you.

What about your pregnant 15-year-old girlfriend? What did she want to do with her life before she got pregnant? How are you going to help her get there now with a child in tow?

Don't be so selfish. You're not the only person to consider in this equation.

 

[Piscivore]

If I had a sig here at the JREFF, I would steal that.

Thanks.

 

[Meadmaker]

Then why threaten to punish him? If he's never out of your sight, he can't break the rule, right?

Surely you jest. If I assume that I will be perfect and never lapse for a minute, then my six year old boy could do whatever he willed and I would be there to protect him. Alas, things happen that cause even well meaning parents to fail at the task of keeping their eyes on the kid. This is especially true for parents with more than one kid. If one runs off in one direction and the other runs off in the other, it doesn't matter how good of a parent you are, you can't see both of them. So, I explain to him why it is so important that he never go where he can't see me in those circumstances. And just in case he doesn't really appreciate the need for the rule, I explain to him that he will be in trouble if he decides not to follow the rule.

I don't have to know everything to know he was wrong. That's the perfect solution fallacy. He appealed to it too. Do you "rules-is-rules" authoritarian types share the same brain, or is there a guidebook?

I don't know how to tell you this, but you seem much more of an authoritarian than I am.

For one thing, I don't know whether or not Steve was wrong, and so I will let him do as he will. I certainly would not create laws that would punish him for his choices, and I would limit my disapproval to some kindly advice that he can accept or reject as he sees fit. You don't seem nearly so accepting.

Should we "punish" her for that?

Insufficient data. If it were my kid, I would try and figure out as much as I could about the real story, and make a decision from there. There are circumstances where I would. There are circumstances where I would not.

Why not? Is he a robot?

(In regards to experience of lust and/or passion.)

He's twelve. When it comes to sex, love, grief, or anything else that tends to be associated with strong emotions, no literature in the world can substitute for the real thing, and when it comes to lust, I'm confident he hasn't experienced the real thing. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to prepare them, but have realistic expectations.

It's worked so far.

Good. Congratulations. However, there's only so much you can know about that, isn't there? I have no idea whether or not it has worked so far, but I do know that there are a whole bunch of parents who assumed it had worked so far, until they discovered incontrovertible evidence that it had not.

You just seem extraordinarily confident that your methods will achieve the desired results, and I might add that in your conversation here, you seem willing to take the credit for that. Your kids will ultimately succeed or fail on their own. You know that, of course, on an intellectual level, anyway.

 

[Piscivore]

Surely you jest. If I assume that I will be perfect and never lapse for a minute, then my six year old boy could do whatever he willed and I would be there to protect him. Alas, things happen that cause even well meaning parents to fail at the task of keeping their eyes on the kid. This is especially true for parents with more than one kid. If one runs off in one direction and the other runs off in the other, it doesn't matter how good of a parent you are, you can't see both of them.

Which is why, given a typical child's propensity for "running off" and getting distracted, I chose to prepare the kids for what they might encounter, rather than scaring them into staying close. While such fear may be convenient for you in the short-term present, it will become a hinderance in their later life when they need to be exploring outside and reaching beyond the nest. Or did you plan on keeping them dependant on you as adults too?

So, I explain to him why it is so important that he never go where he can't see me in those circumstances. And just in case he doesn't really appreciate the need for the rule, I explain to him that he will be in trouble if he decides not to follow the rule.

So do I... but I don't threaten to be the trouble.

I don't know how to tell you this, but you seem much more of an authoritarian than I am.

Aw, that's precious. Baseless tu quoques are always a solid argument.

For one thing, I don't know whether or not Steve was wrong, and so I will let him do as he will. I certainly would not create laws that would punish him for his choices, and I would limit my disapproval to some kindly advice that he can accept or reject as he sees fit. You don't seem nearly so accepting.

Don't I? perhaps you can quote me where I advocated "creating laws" or "punishing his choices"? I seem to have forgotten them.

I said he was wrong, because in my experience he is. I didn't ever say he wasn't completely free to **** up his kid if he wants to. I did say that our society may disagree at some point (and is trending that way), but if you think I dictate what society thinks or does you are giving me way too much credit.

Insufficient data. If it were my kid, I would try and figure out as much as I could about the real story, and make a decision from there. There are circumstances where I would. There are circumstances where I would not.

in which circumstances would you "punish", what form would that "punishment" take, and what do you think the "punishment" accomplishes?

(In regards to experience of lust and/or passion.)

He's twelve. When it comes to sex, love, grief, or anything else that tends to be associated with strong emotions, no literature in the world can substitute for the real thing,

I made no such claim. I said it would help prepare him. No flight simulator will ever substitute for actually flying a plane, but it can give one an idea what to expect.

and when it comes to lust, I'm confident he hasn't experienced the real thing.

You don't think a twelve year old boy has experienced lust yet?

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to prepare them, but have realistic expectations.

Which expectations you think I have do you feel are not "realistic"?

Good. Congratulations. However, there's only so much you can know about that, isn't there? I have no idea whether or not it has worked so far, but I do know that there are a whole bunch of parents who assumed it had worked so far, until they discovered incontrovertible evidence that it had not.

Is that the best argument you have? "Ah, um... but it might not work, huh"?

I've told you why I made the decisions I have, and what outcomes I expect. Why haven't you? Have you even thought about parenting at all, or are you just doing what everyone before you did, automatically, routinely?

You just seem extraordinarily confident that your methods will achieve the desired results,

It has so far, even better than my hopes and expectations.

and I might add that in your conversation here, you seem willing to take the credit for that.

What's wrong with that? They didn't parent themselves.

Your kids will ultimately succeed or fail on their own. You know that, of course, on an intellectual level, anyway.

Of course I know it. I've said it overtly. That's the entire basis of my parenting- turning them into responsible, independent adults. That means thinking for themselves, making their own decisions, accepting their consequences, and livng the life they choose for themselves.

What are you trying to make of yours- compliant, ignorant, frightened robots?

 

[Meadmaker]

So do I... but I don't threaten to be the trouble.

That is indeed the difference. The trouble they might encounter if they run away (that of rape, murder, that sort of thing) is highly unlikely, and if I managed to explain it successfully would frighten the bejeezus out of them. The problem of an angry father is much easier to understand.

Aw, that's precious. Baseless tu quoques are always a solid argument.

Well, you are calling me an authoritarian. I'm not. And there is no reason to assume that I am based on what I have said. I tend to think of my kid as an individual over whose thoughts I have very close to zero influence. I don't teach him my rules in order that he might experience the wisdom of the ages and emulate an authority figure. It was simple expediency.

Take the example I started with. I told my kid that when I said it was time to go, he had to go, and once in a great while, I reinforced that message with a swat to the butt. Why? I suppose I could come up with some highly justified moral reasoning and blah...blah....blah...blah. In reality, I was tired of playing dinosaur games, wanted to leave the house for some reason and couldn't leave him alone. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. I win, because I'm bigger.

I don't have any pretentions of being the wise old man who lays down the law. I just want to not have an argument every time I want one thing and he wants another.

In most other cases, there are examples where I think it is in his best interest to do something. He sometimes thinks otherwise. In those cases where I am certain it is in his best interest, I try to persuade him, but if I fail to do so, I force him. Later on, he can decide whether I made the right decision.

In the age old argument of "nature vs. nurture", I've become persuaded that nature is far more important. Maybe I'm wrong.

You, on the other hand, strike me as convinced of your own wisdom, which you impart to your children. You think that because you are not literally forcing them to do things, you aren't an authoritarian, but I get the impression that you are constantly forcing your opinions onto a captive audience. They really are a captive audience. You understand that, right? If you want to explain something to them, you don't let them slam the door in your face, do you?

Just because your techniques aren't physical, don't think you are not an authoritarian.

in which circumstances would you "punish", what form would that "punishment" take, and what do you think the "punishment" accomplishes?

In similar circumstances, I recently limited time on video games. I have docked allowances for comparable situations. However, my kid is younger and circumstances are not the same. Twelve year olds aren't teenagers.

You don't think a twelve year old boy has experienced lust yet?

I guess I was a late bloomer. I certainly hadn't. I had a crush on a girl at that age, but it's hardly the same thing. If he has experienced it, he hides it well.

Of course I know it. I've said it overtly. That's the entire basis of my parenting- turning them into responsible, independent adults. That means thinking for themselves, making their own decisions, accepting their consequences, and livng the life they choose for themselves.

And I don't think you can "turn them into" much of anything. Must go back to work now, though.

 

[Piscivore]

That is indeed the difference. The trouble they might encounter if they run away (that of rape, murder, that sort of thing) is highly unlikely, and if I managed to explain it successfully would frighten the bejeezus out of them. The problem of an angry father is much easier to understand.

So your kid is just not smart, is that it?

Well, you are calling me an authoritarian.

Yes.
"au·thor·i·tar·i·an 

–adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent. "

I'm not. And there is no reason to assume that I am based on what I have said.

...I insist that, ultimately, I am the benevolent dictator. If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it....

...he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it."

Sounds like it to me.

I tend to think of my kid as an individual over whose thoughts I have very close to zero influence. I don't teach him my rules in order that he might experience the wisdom of the ages and emulate an authority figure. It was simple expediency.

More "perfect solution" fallacy. If one doesn't have 'the wisdom of the ages' then **** teaching the kid anything, just make sure the little git isn't inconveniencing you too much. Is that it?

Take the example I started with. I told my kid that when I said it was time to go, he had to go, and once in a great while, I reinforced that message with a swat to the butt. Why? I suppose I could come up with some highly justified moral reasoning and blah...blah....blah...blah. In reality, I was tired of playing dinosaur games, wanted to leave the house for some reason and couldn't leave him alone. I wanted one thing. He wanted something else. I win, because I'm bigger.

I don't have any pretentions of being the wise old man who lays down the law. I just want to not have an argument every time I want one thing and he wants another.

Yes, that's why I called it "bullying" and "coercion".

In the age old argument of "nature vs. nurture", I've become persuaded that nature is far more important. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes. Yes you are. They are both important:

...since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, many modern psychologists consider the question naive—representing an outdated state of knowledge.

And you've decided to be 'persuaded" by the option that lets you wash your hands of a large part of your parental responsibility. Funny, that.

You, on the other hand, strike me as convinced of your own wisdom, which you impart to your children.

I do have a certain level of confidence in many of my opinions, because I try to question and examine each one first. I'm completely up front about the possiblity I'm wrong, and I cop to it when I'm shown to be (do not this take more than just bare assertion, however).

You think that because you are not literally forcing them to do things, you aren't an authoritarian,

You read minds? You know what I think?

You really don't have the first clue what I'm all about, do you?

but I get the impression that you are constantly forcing your opinions onto a captive audience. They really are a captive audience. You understand that, right?

A mind reader, and patronising based on "impressions" to boot. You're delightful!

If you want to explain something to them, you don't let them slam the door in your face, do you?

I can't (and wouldn't) stop them from not heeding, so figuratively- yes, yes I do. I'm frequently telling them I don't have all the answers, and even the ones that worked for me might not for them.

Just because your techniques aren't physical, don't think you are not an authoritarian.

Explain what you think my "techniques" are, and how they are secretly "authoritarian". Otherwise, you're still just name-calling.

In similar circumstances, I recently limited time on video games. I have docked allowances for comparable situations. However, my kid is younger and circumstances are not the same. Twelve year olds aren't teenagers.

I wasn't asking for advice. What do you think this "punishment" accomplishes?

I guess I was a late bloomer. I certainly hadn't. I had a crush on a girl at that age, but it's hardly the same thing. If he has experienced it, he hides it well.

He'd have to, wouldn't he? Who knows what kind of threat or restriction you'd put on him.

And I don't think you can "turn them into" much of anything.

That certainly seem to be what you're aiming for. "Not much of anything".

 

[Piscivore]

You, on the other hand, strike me as convinced of your own wisdom...

And yet, I'm asking you questions, while you are telling me what I think.

 

[Meadmaker]

So your kid is just not smart, is that it?


Yes.
"au·thor·i·tar·i·an 

–adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent. "



Sounds like it to me.


More "perfect solution" fallacy. If one doesn't have 'the wisdom of the ages' then **** teaching the kid anything, just make sure the little git isn't inconveniencing you too much. Is that it?


Yes, that's why I called it "bullying" and "coercion".


Yes. Yes you are. They are both important:


And you've decided to be 'persuaded" by the option that lets you wash your hands of a large part of your parental responsibility. Funny, that.


I do have a certain level of confidence in many of my opinions, because I try to question and examine each one first. I'm completely up front about the possiblity I'm wrong, and I cop to it when I'm shown to be (do not this take more than just bare assertion, however).


You read minds? You know what I think?

You really don't have the first clue what I'm all about, do you?


A mind reader, and patronising based on "impressions" to boot. You're delightful!


I can't (and wouldn't) stop them from not heeding, so figuratively- yes, yes I do. I'm frequently telling them I don't have all the answers, and even the ones that worked for me might not for them.


Explain what you think my "techniques" are, and how they are secretly "authoritarian". Otherwise, you're still just name-calling.


I wasn't asking for advice. What do you think this "punishment" accomplishes?


He'd have to, wouldn't he? Who knows what kind of threat or restriction you'd put on him.


That certainly seem to be what you're aiming for. "Not much of anything".

I think the lurkers must be finding this quite tedious. Enjoy.

 

[Piscivore]

I think the lurkers must be finding this quite tedious. Enjoy.

I thought you were somehow trying to make a valid, reasoned argument. I didn't realise you were just playing to an audience.

That just reinforces my opinion that people who go for the "rules is rules" mindset just do so because it's easier than thinking.

 

[Nihilianth]

Another anecdote, and not a second-hand one, either.

When my two boys were around four and seven years old we lived in a residential community which was almost stereotypical. No through streets, 1/4 and 1/2 acre lots, neighbors all knew each other and each other's kids, kids playing ball in the road, trick-or-treating on Halloween, etc., etc.

One day they both came running into the house yelling that I had to come and see the elephant.

That's right. "The elephant".

Further efforts at questioning were not a help. In between the jumping up and down they both insisted there was an elephant in the neighborhood. A real one.

So I walked with them a couple of blocks to their friend's house ... and there it was, along with a pony and a chimp, all in their friend's back yard. It turned out that the friend's father was buddies with the owner of a small circus which happened to be passing through town for the county fair, and this happened to coincide with his son's birthday. So they had loaded up a small trailer and brought over a baby elephant and it's little companions.

What I took away from this (along with some cotton candy for the missus) was that I had good reason to pay attention to my boys, and treat them with the respect they deserved.

If my twin boys were five and came running through the door, insisting there was an elephant in the neighborhood, I would be too amused and mystified to ignore it.

 

[sillyhead]

My advice is to get yourselves into a parenting class asap. They are free in most places, and definitely on base. It will help you communicate, rather than attack, and it sounds like you need to do that before the baby is even born. Your gf too, probably. You say your relationship is a happy one, and that you're going into the military, so I'd say, hell, hurry up and sign those papers, then marry her so she'll have adequate health care. Otherwise, get her in the system so that she can get prenatal care.

That's my anything.

 

[RPG Advocate]

The authoritarian parenting style advocated by SteveHamilton, Nihilianth, and Meadmaker can cause lasting damage. My father's distant and demanding parenting probably exacerbated my communication issues (I'm a high-functioning autistic) and contributed to my depressive tendencies as an adult. Once I graduated college, I gave him an ultimatum: unconditionally apologize and admit the error of his parenting methods, or never see me again. It's now been a decade since I last saw him.

Authoritarianism may be "expedient" as Meadmaker puts it, but doing the expedient thing rather than the right thing too often can lead to a child, or worse, an adult, who hates you more than anyone else in this world.

 

[No Nice Things]

I think the lurkers must be finding this quite tedious. Enjoy.

Actually, while I may not necessarily agree with every single thing he's saying, I'm finding the discussion quite interesting and informative.

 

[Meadmaker]

The authoritarian parenting style advocated by SteveHamilton, Nihilianth, and Meadmaker can cause lasting damage.

I find the characterization of me as "authoritarian" extremely amusing. I hesitate to speak for him, but I suspect Nihilanth feels the same way.

Let me go over my philosophy as a parent, First what attributes make a "good" parent. I can think of three that I think are very important.

Consistency, decisiveness, and believability. If you are inconsistent, the kid never knows what to expect, and lives with anxiety as a result. If you are indecisive, then everything is subject to negotiation, and your home is full of constant strife. By "believability" I mean that if you say something is going to happen, good or bad, you have to go through with it. This is more important for "good" things, but if you say there will be trouble, and there isn't, that's also bad. As with consistency, the kid doesn't know what to expect if he can't trust you, and that creates stress.

Second, what's the goal of a good parent? Piscivore said he wants to "turn them into" responsible adults. It sounds a bit manipulative to me, but that's just me. At any rate, that's not my goal. My goal is to keep him alive and safe, and educate him so that when he becomes an adult, he'll have the tools he needs.

Of those two, which sounds more authoritarian?

But....but...but...Piscivore says I'm an authoritarian. What's up with that? He even quoted my own words to prove it. Here's what he quoted:

...I insist that, ultimately, I am the benevolent dictator. If my son doesn't agree with me, or does not understand the reason for a rule, he still has to follow it....

...he still responded with "Why?" and then I said, in a very patient, kind, voice, "Because I am much larger and stronger than you, and the law allows me to hurt you if I feel like it."

What's lacking from the above is any indication of how often this happens. In my case, it's rare. There isn't much need for it. When there is, though, I don't back down. If I did, that would be the "indecisive" that I said was associated with being what I consider to be a bad parent. My kid and I could argue all day long about whether or not we ought to do something that I think was a bad idea. What would we accomplish? A lot of time wasted, and a lot of stress, and probably some hurt feelings, because most people when they argue like that end up saying hurtful things when they try to make a point. (They use words like "horrific" and "pathetic" and all sorts of negative characterisations.) So, in my house, we don't do that.

I don't get all holier than thou on him and try to persuade him of my correctness. Why bother? I tell him, but if I've run out of time or have explained things sufficiently, and he still isn't buying it, I have to use my own judgement instead of trying to explain my reasoning until a twelve year old gets it. (Or four, or eight, or seventeen, and of course the exact details of the conversation will vary at each of the ages.) When it's all said and done, I inform him that it really doesn't matter who is right. We can't both get our way, so I'll get mine. He gets that, and it cuts short the argument.

Is it working? Piscivore seems to think that I'm doing something wrong, and it seems I am aiming for "not much of anything". I suppose we could play dueling accomplishments, but that's not really my style. I'm satisfied, and it seems we both have children that have impressed a fair number of people in a fair number of ways. I'm sure we both have trophy shelves and report card drawers and medals and certificates to show off to grandparents. He thinks he had a lot to do with that. I think I'm mostly along for the ride.

Again, which one is more authoritarian?

Oh, and what about the spanking and the belts or the timeouts? What about beating your kids or boring them to death? Surely, that's what determines whether someone is authoritarian or not, isn't it?

I don't think so. If you are arbitrary and coercive, that's pretty authoritarian, regardless of the techniques. Compared to the three traits I mentioned before. I don't think the specific techniques mean as much as a hill of beans. I will agree that if you are incosistent and indecisive, it's even worse if you have a tendency to smack people with a belt. So, my approach to Steve was to assure him that he had a very difficult time ahead of him and he had to follow his own path, but that the path he was talking about had been used for centuries and really couldn't be all that bad. Had the conversation gone on longer, I might have encouraged him to make sure he thought about things and perhaps reconsider some decisions, but above all, "To thine own self be true", just be consistent about it.

Piscivore was more into the, "You're doing it wrong and should stop." mode of things. Sounds vaguely authoritarian to me.