The Energon Pub

Shadowman wrote:My parents always had a policy of "If you want it, earn it." Outside of birthdays or Christmas, if I wanted something, a toy, a game, etc. I had to go out of my way to earn it, either by saving up the money, or by doing large amounts of chores. As a result, I'm a lot more appreciative of my things; when you really work for something, it makes it that much nicer.

So, no, it's not wrong to get a kid a huge toy, as long as they've earned it, or it's their birthday or a gift-giving holiday.

My parents did the same.
I have two daughters, one 16 and the other will be 5 in December and I have purchased $50 toys for them at B-day/Christmas. Any other time I make the teen work for it.
The almost 5 year old is happy with a simple barbie so right now $50 toys are not an issue.

Editor wrote:

metaphorge wrote:

wmpyr wrote:But I just can't see myself getting my kid a toy close to $50.

Then you're obviously much too selfish to have children. Get a dog instead.

Obviously we should have high standards for our children, but how are we supposed to expect children to meet high standards if we can't be bothered to provide rewards for meeting those standards?

How the hell does high standards translate into material gains?

My parents had quite high standards when compared to many of the parents on kids my age at the time. And regardless of the family income levels my collection was MUCH smaller from a number of my friends at the time.

Did my parents who both worked hard not love or deserve me and my sister because they felt it was more important for us to be fed, clothed, sleep in a nice home, rather than a number of friends I had growing up in single parent situations where they were showered in toys and got away with tons of stuff I wouldn't dare try because they were compensating lack of family, or time, (or in some cases, just not bothering to try because it was easier to cave in to kids demands).

If you want to claim you have high standard and want to pass those to your offspring, you do it by setting rules, being there for them to support them and nurture them. Setting monitary goals for them to reach does nothing but setting a price for their achivements and your love.

If a kid gets an A on a test, it should be because they want to, because they understand it is important, not because a x-box game is on the line.

A number of the responses here seem to be as if I suggest that material rewards for children should take the place of setting rules, being there for them to support them and nurture them.

I didn't. This isn't an either/or proposition. Of course being an attentive and nurturing parent is vital.

I also didn't suggest that a child's every whim should be catered to.

However, like it or not, we live in a capitalistic society where there are financial and material rewards for achievement and hard work, and I see no reason why instilling this value, along with responsibility and compassion, in our children is a bad thing.

It also seems to me that an adult who buys themselves shiny toys but "can't see spending $50 on a toy" for their children kind of has their priorities in the wrong place; we have enough people who become parents because it's 'what you do' and not enough who truly care about producing healthy, well adjusted, successful, and ambitious offspring. I also wish that more people would decide if they were really financially ready to have children, as it seems abysmally irresponsible to have kids unless you know you can afford to at least provide a four year degree (or equivalent) at a decent school for them (and before someone says "make them work for it" there is negative correlation between having to try and hold many jobs and academic success, especially if it's at a rigorous university).

Shadowman wrote:My parents always had a policy of "If you want it, earn it." Outside of birthdays or Christmas, if I wanted something, a toy, a game, etc. I had to go out of my way to earn it, either by saving up the money, or by doing large amounts of chores. As a result, I'm a lot more appreciative of my things; when you really work for something, it makes it that much nicer.

So, no, it's not wrong to get a kid a huge toy, as long as they've earned it, or it's their birthday or a gift-giving holiday.

This makes perfect sense to me, and was how I was raised as well.

It did occur to me that part of my initial reaction to the topic poster may be based on differences in cost-of-living. I live in the SF Bay Area, where everything is expensive so my viewpoint is quite skewed. $50 is not very much money here... rent on a 2 bedroom house in Oakland (where I live) can be as much as $1700-$2100 a month, and that's dirt cheap compared to how much rents are in San Francisco proper and the Silicon Valley.

Editor wrote:

homelessjunkeon wrote:Is that legal?

I don't really have any experience with this, but I suggest you dedicate at least 20-30% of your budget to a thick water based lubricant. Most adults would have trouble accommodating a "ginormous" toy, I suspect a kid would have an even harder time.

You could try buying them a starter set, something that comes with plenty of lube, and toys in several different sizes, so they can start small and work their way up.

I hope that helps.

Dude, He said Fort Max not Nexus Maximus.

I just looked it up.
Look's like a poor-[wo]man's feeldoe.

metaphorge wrote:

Shadowman wrote:My parents always had a policy of "If you want it, earn it." Outside of birthdays or Christmas, if I wanted something, a toy, a game, etc. I had to go out of my way to earn it, either by saving up the money, or by doing large amounts of chores. As a result, I'm a lot more appreciative of my things; when you really work for something, it makes it that much nicer.

So, no, it's not wrong to get a kid a huge toy, as long as they've earned it, or it's their birthday or a gift-giving holiday.

This makes perfect sense to me, and was how I was raised as well.

It did occur to me that part of my initial reaction to the topic poster may be based on differences in cost-of-living. I live in the SF Bay Area, where everything is expensive so my viewpoint is quite skewed. $50 is not very much money here... rent on a 2 bedroom house in Oakland (where I live) can be as much as $1700-$2100 a month, and that's dirt cheap compared to how much rents are in San Francisco proper and the Silicon Valley.

Bay area cost of living sucks. Its rediculous here.