On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 14:18:51 +0000, Ted Campanelli wrote:

> For instance, they will not eat broccoli at supper. First, no desert or
> snacks. They get the broccoli for breakfast. If they eat it, THEN they
> can have a "normal" breakfast. They don't eat it, back in the fridge
> until lunch and we do it again, and again and again until they do eat
> it. I promise they will eat it by day 3 AND THEY WILL BE NO WORSE FOR
> IT (and they will not starve either). Of course you may be "a little
> worse for wear" with all the yelling and screaming, but that is another
> issue that is best handled in the "woodshed".

And the purpose of this is? Is this for the kid's good or to satisfy your
own warped ego? Is a piece of broccoli really worth 3 days of screaming
and yelling?

What have you achieved? Do you really think this kid will eat broccoli on
their own? They will hate it. They may end up hating you.

I was actually put into that position once as a kid. I forget what the
particular food was; it was so repulsive to me that I kept gagging on it.
I was forced to eat it by methods similar to what you propose and ended up
projectile vomiting all over the table.

Would you then carefully package up the vomit and serve it at the next
meal?

Doesn't it make much more sense to simply follow basic rules of respect?
Present the food, allow the kid to take as much as they want. "You take
what you want, you eat what you take." If the food is new or strange, let
them taste it; if they don't like it, don't punish them for it. Would you
want to try anything new if you had to eat it once it was put in front of
you?

The kind of "tough love" you propose is everything but. It's a great way
to make sure your kids are afraid to try anything new and fear
unreasonable punishment for things that are not their fault.

Food should never be a source of contention. It should be an adventure
that kids get to explore.

--Kamus