Letters in issue 17

Attachment parenting does not spoil children

Just reading your Letters section in the Dec – Feb (Vol 16) issue and came across Candace’s email. If only people realised that children naturally become more independent with age if they are securely attached (which holding, carrying, breastfeeding, co-sleeping etc. does). Candace could end up with a child that is either avoidantly attached or ambivalently attached if she continues down this path of teaching the child ‘independence’. Most likely Candace’s mother treated her this way too, as we are hard-wired to behave in the same way unless we become aware of ourselves. Her husband isn’t the way he is from his mother’s early actions but rather his mother’s actions later in his life — probably not getting him involved with chores etc, treating him differently to his sisters.

Kim Baird
email


Thanks, Kali, for another inspiring and thought-provoking issue. I especially enjoyed the letters from Candace and Carly, whose questions explore important dimensions of modern parenting. Both readers ask, in different ways, does attachment-style parenting mean that we allow our children to do whatever they like, and never say no? And, equally importantly, will our children, raised with these ‘new’ methods, be irresponsible and/or require therapy as adults because of such parenting methods?

First, for a wider look at the ‘new’ parenting, I recommend Robin Grille’s article in byronchild Sept–Nov 05, which catalogues the history of childhood. According to Grille, and the reputable sources he quotes, we are currently moving from a ‘socialising mode’ of parenting, where we use various methods of control to produce ‘good’ children, to ‘helping mode’, where we foster ‘autonomy, self-regulation and creativity’ in our offspring. As Grille highlights, this style of parenting is new in the history of humanity, so it is not surprising that we find it confusing.

The focus on autonomy means that we allow our children the freedom to do things for themselves, but we also balance this with increased responsibility. For example, I allow my 15-year-old daughter the freedom to do her school work whenever she likes, but also give her the responsibility if she is late with it. This is in contrast to a socialising mode, where parents may feel responsible for their children’s schooling and outcomes.

This style of parenting also allows children more emotional expression, and flows most smoothly when parents are also open and genuine with their emotions. The emphasis is more on authenticity than on external ‘shoulds’. This is a very important point: this style of parenting is not sustainable if we are not genuine in our responses, and especially if we have the idea that we should be nice to our children and not say ‘no’ (which many of us may want to avoid because we felt overly controlled under our socialising-mode upbringing).

However, ‘no’ is one of the most useful and necessary tools in this style of parenting. My interpretation of Parent Effectiveness Training (PET), which has been my bible for 13 years, is that I need to be genuine with my children, even if it means sometimes saying ‘no’ when I usually say ‘yes’ or breaking previous agreements, if I am tired or very busy, for example. For me, PET is about treating my children with respect, but also teaching them to respect my needs as well.

‘No’ is also important, as Aletha Solter (author of Tears and Tantrums) tells us, because it can precipitate emotional release (ie a tantrum) and so help our children to restore their emotional equilibrium. If we try to avoid saying ‘no’, we can end up with an out-of-balance family, with the parents walking on egg-shells to avoid their children’s anger and tears, and the children becoming whining, demanding and irresponsible: certainly a recipe for adult neurosis and poor relationships.

For more about this approach, which flows most easily from gentle birth and ‘attachment parenting’ in the early years, see my writing on gentle discipline and other matters in my book, Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering: The wisdom and science of gentle choices in pregnancy, birth, and parenting.

On a personal note, I have raised my four children, currently aged five to 15, with this philosophy, and my children (so far) are responsible, creative, successful and happy, and relate easily to others. And although it is a bit early to tell, my 12 year-old tells me that she doesn’t think she will need therapy as an adult!

Dr Sarah J Buckley
GP/family physician, mother, author
QLD
Gaining cooperation before school


I enjoyed the article on helping children get ready in the morning [Good Morning! by Michele Dennis, Dec – Feb 2006 issue], and would like to add a few suggestions. If your children are not meeting your need for cooperation, or are reluctant to go to school in the morning, there may be other reasons: they are needing more connection with you; they have upset feelings which need to be expressed and heard; or they are worried about something at school that day.

To help meet those needs, and for more harmony and ease on school mornings, I suggest addressing these issues in the afternoons and evenings after school, and at weekends. To ensure connection, aim to spend some one-on-one time with each child each day after school — even if it is only 10 minutes.  Ask them about their day, what they enjoyed and didn’t enjoy. This small chunk of time will probably be enough to fill their need for connection. 

Each day at school, children can experience many hurtful events — being talked to in a way they don’t enjoy by teachers or other children, having a toy pulled away from them, not being included in a game, friendships being lost, not having choices about what they do, etc. Children need to release these stresses and hurts otherwise they accumulate. Children with accumulated stress do not sleep well, and children who are tired are less able to repress upset feelings, leading to behaviours such as not listening, not cooperating, whining, etc. 

There are several ways you can help your child heal from these hurts. The first is listening. Then there is play — for example you roleplay the child and they play the teacher. You pretend in mock voices to be scared or powerless. The more a child laughs during these power reversal games, the more they are releasing the feelings of powerlessness and fear that have built up. With older children, you could also role-play different responses and strategies that they could use if the event occurs again. In this way they can also explore what the other person might have been feeling and needing.

Children of all ages also release hurts and frustrations through crying and raging.  These feelings might come out when you are role-playing or after you have had some one-on-one time, when they are sure you are listening. Or they might be released after some wrestling and running around before bed. Or they might be stimulated by something you say which reminds the child of a hurtful event, or by a limit that you set. Instead of fixing, rewarding, punishing, or ignoring, just be present with your child as she cries and rages, for as long as it takes. Her siblings might even join in too. Welcome this, knowing that once they have cried all they need to, they will be calm and refreshed, ready for a restful sleep that night and a new day at school.

Marion Badenoch Rose
NSW


Intimate healing

Our whole family likes your magazine. Thank you for the good service you do for families.
This letter is in response to the Karezza (for lack of a better term) articles in your last issue of byronchild. [Editor’s note: Karezza, Italian for caress, is the practice of sex without orgasm for spiritual ends.] I think that the articles are very well done and the ramifications of this information are far reaching. [See Peace Between the Sheets by Marnia Robinson and The Power of Two by Kali Wendorf, in the Dec – Feb 2006 edition.]

I have a few comments and questions.

• Prostate health: What is the optimal approach to sexuality for the male in terms of prostate health? I have definitely felt times of prostate discomfort after non-ejaculatory sex. It could be related to overdoing it and getting too close to ejaculating too often, but at any rate, I would recommend that folks practising this mode pay attention to not putting too much stress on the prostate. I think that the practitioners of sexual yoga utilise visualisations, breathing exercises, and asanas as a way to move the very hot energy so that it does not stagnate, especially from the prostate. I have recently read about a medical study where men who exercised more were less likely to die of prostate cancer. (However, they seemed to have about the same incidence rate.)

• Ejaculation/ orgasm/ semen loss: I am interested in the fact that some men seem to have orgasms without ejaculation and what this means to Karezza practice. The articles suggest semen loss is not the primary factor in the loss of interest in the sexual partner and perhaps this is the case. I do know that loss of semen does have a major energetic effect especially now that I am older.

• Karezza and Tantra: Since life wants us to reproduce very strongly, we are highly rewarded for sex, very notably, as mentioned in the articles, with juicy neurochemicals.  As we choose to experiment with this powerful force, we can learn a great deal about ourselves. Our actions are often much more affected by our sexuality than we care to realise.
Perhaps we can see how this understanding can be used in a few different ways. In Karezza, we primarily want to do something with sexual energy without getting too carried away. So our approach is slow, gentle and loving.
Tantra is actually a very highly advanced form of yoga where a person is able to work/play with many different types of experience, including very high energy levels.  Awareness, however, is something else. Because sexuality is so charged, we tend to go automatic very easily. To the extent that we can stay awake and aware while doing this whole mating ritual, we can bring a very high level of presence into all of our life.  This is my favourite way of understanding spiritual sexuality. 

• Birth control/natural family planning: Within the larger context of heterosexuality and relationship is the issue of conception or not.  It definitely affects how we approach and feel about our lovemaking. My partner for 25 years and I watched and noticed (in our case anyway) that barrier methods of birth control also subtly acted as barriers in other ways too, so we chose to use only natural methods of family planning.

Also related to intimate relationships and not too far afield, I would like to add a couple more examples that I think have strong effects but are not always considered. We all know that sexual abuse can have a profound effect on our mature sexuality, but some folks do not recognise circumcision as sexual abuse. In many cases it is where sexuality and violence first meet. I think it has a good deal to do with male violence and sexual difficulties between partners.

Secondly, we have found that the quality of both birth and birthing strongly affects a woman’s and a couple’s approach to sexuality.  A juicy, bonding birth is much more likely to have the couple enjoying subsequent sexuality than is a memory of trauma.

Rico Baker
Oregon, USA (edited for length)



Response from Marnia Robinson, author of Peace Between the Sheets

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond to Rico’s rich, insightful letter. You have asked me to focus particularly on the important issue of prostate health and non-orgasmic sex.

Mantak Chia (Taoist Secrets of Love) points out that the Taoists, with thousands of years of experience, did not experience prostate trouble from this practice. (Tantra, by contrast, often pushes practitioners towards passion and the ‘edge’ of orgasm, which can more easily stress the prostate. As Rico points out, exercises for releasing pressure on the prostate are a good idea.)

I know of no Western research on the practice of sex without orgasm, although there is some research tracking varying rates of orgasmic sex. That research concluded that there is no link between frequency of sex and incidence of prostate cancer. However, in one of the studies, a few of the participants with very high rates of orgasm had slightly lower rates of prostate disease, which led some researchers to surmise that ejaculation may expel toxins, thereby protecting against prostate cancer. That would be a chilling concept for women making love without barrier contraceptives.

I subscribe to an earlier theory, put forth when it was discovered that priests have more prostate problems than the general populace. Researchers surmised that lack of blood flow to the prostate region is the culprit in prostate disease. Making love — which exercises the prostate region — is better than not making love. However, making love frequently with gentler (non-orgasmic) lovemaking seems a good way to exercise the prostate  — without the drawbacks of riding the emotional roller-coaster of conventional sex with orgasm. If one is going to stick with orgasmic sex, more may prove to be better for the prostate gland than less. More, however, may also lead to greater emotional separation and susceptibility to addiction and depression.

I predict that science will one day confirm that harmonious union and inner composure are better predictors of good health than any particular rate of ejaculation. Given the many benefits that accompany higher levels of oxytocin (improved immunity, protection against depression and addiction), this makes perfect sense. In my view, the lower rates of illness and longer lives of people who manage to stay married in relative harmony are proof of the benefits of intimacy.
There are also surprising health benefits from a parallel technique for inner balance: meditation. Of course, meditation cannot furnish the many gains from close loving contact with a mate. Nor can it ward off the hangover from conventional sex. However, inner stillness clearly benefits us on many levels. The practice of Karezza combines the best of intimacy and meditation, making it possible for us to work out our life lessons in an emotionally-safe container.

As Rico points out, sex without orgasm is not a panacea. It is nevertheless a universal blessing. By balancing the reward centre and making deep union more attractive, it increases overall wellbeing. Best of all, it goes right to the essence of our deepest spiritual blind spot by easing our tendency towards defensive separation.

Marnia Robison
USA



Deep downshifting

I’m writing in response to Kali Wendorf’s invitation to hear of other personal experiences in downshifting.

First, Pauline (my wife) and I really enjoyed the Deep Downshifting article [Sept – Nov. 2005 editorial].  It was balanced and informative, but most of all, it was personalised with Kali’s family’s own pilgrimage. The author’s family practised (and practise) what they preach. Congrats and well done. I especially liked the idea of bringing one’s own lifestyle (including, by definition, one’s vocation) into line behind one’s ethic in order to experience higher degrees of fulfilment and health. It reminded me of our view that, whilst we cannot change the world, we can change ourselves. 

For me, this came to mean that I will only contribute my heartbeats to people, projects and businesses that practise or foster ecological sustainability — that is, I would no longer work for corporates and governments focused on fiscal short-termism with little or no regard for the environment (which, of course, is virtually all of them). Whilst this meant a dip in income, the personal satisfaction from working on multi-generational, environment-preserving solutions, is immense.

An important stepping stone in my personal pilgrimage in Deep Downshifting was reading Clive Hamilton’s Growth Fetish. I really appreciated how Clive ‘turned the tables’ on me, by opening with what’s wrong with greedy Western society but closing with the role of our personal insecurity in all of that (ie what really belied rampant consumerism). Pauline and I took this to heart with the original consumerism, ie eating and drinking. It didn’t take us long to work out that nearly all processed foods were convenient ‘value-adds’ to nature’s contribution, supplying us with lots of the wrong sugars, fats, starches, salts, colourings, preservatives, etc. That is, my food and drink consumerism took the money my heartbeats earned, then repaid me with poorer nutrition and health (eg a compromised immune system). 

So, one of our Deep Downshifting discoveries is this: we now spend slightly more of our time preparing the most unprocessed and nutritious foods we can, so we can work on sustainability issues longer.

There is much more we can say about leading by example towards a sustainable world for the sake of our children’s children’s children. But I’ll stop here by saying, I thank you people for putting Deep Downshifting into practice too.

John Polglase
email



Concern about vaccine awareness

I have read with interest the recent articles and correspondence in byronchild on childhood vaccination for infectious diseases. It appears that most of these are opposed to vaccination, or at least give your readers the impression that vaccination is unnecessary or should be avoided.

In my opinion the articles do not provide your readership with balanced information, for example, the citations in Thompson’s article (June–August 2005) are taken from the less-scientific fringes of the available literature. Such literature is excessively negative and its writers seem to be trying to create unnecessary fear. Your readers may do well to consider other, more balanced and more accurate, sources of knowledge before deciding for or against vaccinating their children.

I acknowledge that one should be aware of the commercial and political complexities of the vaccine market, and also that the information that we are exposed to may be filtered by people that may not have our best interests at heart. However, I believe that in making decisions on whether or not to vaccinate our children, it is most important not to lose sight of the biology behind infectious diseases and immunisation. To this end, as a scientist who has studied infectious diseases for most of my working life — and with no vested interest in any vaccine companies — I would like to make the following points.

• Infectious diseases have always caused a significant proportion of childhood disease, disability and death. Such diseases are largely controlled in the more affluent societies but are still very significant in poorer countries.

• In recent years some diseases (notably smallpox and polio) have been significantly controlled or eradicated from human populations, through a combination of control methods including mass vaccination, surveillance, quarantine and, in some cases, change of lifestyle.

• A child may become resistant to specific diseases by becoming immune to the causative pathogens. There are only two ways to become immune to pathogens: the natural way through infection and (hopefully) recovery or the artificial way, through vaccination. Newborns may be temporarily protected by the mother’s immunity.

• Infectious diseases can only survive over the long term if they can infect a continuous chain of susceptible (non-immune) individuals. If a large percent (60–90% depending on the particular disease and its situation) of the population is immune then the disease cannot establish or maintain itself. Because disease prevalence is low and population immunity is high (through vaccination), it is less risky to choose not to vaccinate in Australia than it would be in another country where disease prevalence is higher.

• Infectious diseases are maintained by contact between humans: these disease agents take advantage of the close contact that human societies live under. Unless one chooses to isolate one’s children from the rest of humanity, it would be impossible not to have some degree of contact with infectious diseases.

• There are several reasons for giving vaccinations: to prevent infection by specific disease pathogens, to minimise the severity of a disease infection, and to reduce the prevalence of a disease pathogen within a community. Vaccines not only protect the individual, they also help to break the chain of transmission within the community. The decision on whether to vaccinate impacts not only on our children, but on the community as a whole.

• All vaccines have advantages and disadvantages. Live vaccines usually generate very good immunity because they set up (usually mild) infections within the body, but they may become more pathogenic than originally intended, particularly in people with impaired immune systems.

Killed vaccines are safe (from the point of view of being unable to revert to higher virulence), but often they do not cause good stimulation of the immune system. In order to improve killed vaccine function they are mixed with adjuvants — compounds that enhance the recognition by immune cells. Some vaccines contain preservatives that prevent spoilage. It is these additives that are thought to cause many of the side-effects of vaccines. The recognised side-effects include local pain and mild fever. To date there is no firm scientific evidence that modern vaccines cause serious disorders, although it is very difficult to prove causation for conditions such as autism. There are many other social, nutritional, environmental and commercial changes in our society that are also associated with, and may be the cause of, the epidemic of autism.

My wife and I have chosen to vaccinate our baby daughter. We consider that the risk of infection, both to herself and to the people with whom she will interact, is considerably higher than the possible adverse effects of the vaccines.

John Bingham (PhD)
email


Editor’s response

Thank you very much for your email and for your expressed concern and interest for our readers specifically, and parents and their children in general. I always enjoy receiving correspondence such as yours as it invites us all to hang out in that uncomfortable region that resides well outside of the dogmas outlined in any stand – be it ‘for’ or ‘against’. This is the place where real insight and wisdom is gained.

Balance is an interesting concept in journalism. Often, it is referred to in relation to finding balance within one article, or one magazine. But more often it is about creating balance within a public topic, if there is imbalance in how much information is available to people on a particular subject.

In the case of vaccination, the scales weigh very heavily towards all the benefits of vaccination, but there is very little debate allowed (or funded) on its risks, in the public arena. Vaccination is not a balanced public debate. As we see with such issues as depleted uranium, the war on terrorism and global warming, ‘balanced’ is not necessarily ‘accurate’. As an editor, I have deliberately chosen to feature articles concerning the risks of vaccination for this reason. I am extremely concerned about the skyrocketing rates of autism, now also a part of the Australian fabric as much as it is the United States, (a ten-fold increase in diagnoses in the past decade in Australia) directly reflected in the increased number of vaccines on the schedule. And after reading for myself the Institute of Medicine’s Vaccine Safety meeting transcript from 2001, where the issue of ‘safety’ was never intended to be reviewed, I am highly suspect of how intellectual integrity and diversity is being manipulated.

And, of course, the same applies for agendas that serve the other side as well. More importantly, I think we can acknowledge that we both meet on one very crucial point, and that is we both feel it is important that the public is as educated as possible about the choices that they have, and how their choices affect not only themselves personally, but also their community. It is that crucial point, that we can gently and respectfully nudge each other into undiscovered territory. 

I trust the intelligence of our readers, and that they will, between the two stances (which both present their own risks), find their way.


Say no to advertising formula

I am writing for a couple of reasons, the first is to congratulate you on a fine magazine, one that I find validating, informative and varied. I enjoy the wide range of subjects you cover; your team is obviously committed to a quality progressive publication.

I am also writing to let you know I was surprised and disappointed to see the full-page colour advertisement for toddler formula in the latest edition. Infant formula companies began manufacturing and marketing ‘follow-on’ or toddler formula in response to the introduction of the article in the World Health Organisation Code that prohibits the advertising of breast milk substitutes. Many companies argue that follow-on formulas are not breast milk substitutes but complementary foods, and claim they are not covered. However, bottle-fed complementary foods are explicitly listed as within the scope of the Code.

Article 2 of the Code states:
‘The Code applies to the marketing, and practices related thereto, of the following products: breast milk substitutes, including infant formula; other milk products, foods and beverages, including bottle-fed complementary foods, when marketed or otherwise represented to be suitable, with or without modification, for use as a partial or total replacement of breast milk; feeding bottles and teats. It also applies to their quality and availability, and to information concerning their use.’
The marketing of toddler formulas works for the makers by getting the brand name into the market place, into consumers’ homes and minds. It is an insidious form of advertising that undermines breastfeeding.

The other more obvious concern with toddler formula is related to the current recommendation of the WHO that babies are breastfed into the second year of life. Follow-on formulas replace this milk and add to the current cultural idea that breastfeeding is not necessary or useful after the first year.

Kali: I know you and your team are committed to breastfeeding and the optimum health and quality of relationship it can provide. It is with this in mind that I write to you; please reconsider this form of advertising in your magazine.

Katrina FloraBreastfeeding Counsellor, Australian Breastfeeding Association
Student Midwife


Editor’s response

I appreciate being invited into the labyrinth of murky dilemmas and paradoxes residing within the areas of marketing and ethics  because there lies the opportunity to discover greater integrity. For this I am most grateful because you have facilitated byronchild to look deeper into an issue that required increased understanding.

Your points are well made and important. In fact, as a result of your letter byronchild will not accept advertising that is in violation of the WHO Code. We previously had self-imposed advertising guidelines that prevented us from accepting advertisements, such as infant formula, bottles, cots, etc, that are not in alignment with our vision. Yet, our guidelines up until now did not specifically apply to ‘toddler milk drinks’. While byronchild recognises that there is a legitimate market for formula and complementary foods — especially healthy chemical-free versions of the product — they should not be marketed in ways that may interfere with the protection and promotion of breastfeeding (hence the rationale behind the WHO Code).

byronchild strongly endorses full-term breastfeeding for 2.5 years (and beyond). It is even written in our manifesto that is featured in every magazine. In fact, we are the only Australian magazine to make such a clear public statement on breastfeeding — as it is the cornerstone to optimal development. Optimal development is part of what drives the ethics behind byronchild, and our ethics sometimes, as you can see, affect our bottom line.

Thank you, Katrina, for your important communication with us and for the amazing opportunity you have provided for byronchild and for our readers.

Making this decision [to not run such advertising] actually reconfirmed in me that which inspired the creation of byronchild in the first place.