Why time-out should be intended for parents, not children

 Many parents believe that time-out is an acceptable way to force a child to calm down, as if such was ever possible to force calm in someone. No, I don't put children in time-out. *I* put myself in time-out as a parent/pedophile. All by myself. In my own room. Please don't go down that route, since most parents don't have to have such sexual needs met. Pro-social excuse (since there are, in fact, sexually entitled stalkers that jump in and intend harm by my victim's perception, by wanting help - airborne). Time-out isn't something you place a child into, but yourself into, and not as a prison.

Parenting is hard, and I get it. I, in fact, am not opposed to parents taking breaks, as long as they do so within Divine Codified Law, meaning it says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to legal damages towards children, and particularly emotional slights or resentments against parents. This doesn't mean never take a break, but take a break in a way that children don't resent, as deemed visibly.

What this means is time AWAY from the child, meaning you flee from the presence of the child when it is safe to leave the child unsupervised, such as when the child is playing with children in another room within earshot, or (with older kids and teenagers) outside alone with a cell-phone.

Sometimes, for some parents, the child they leave to play is attractive, in which case self-stimulatory release of a pedophile is actually a form of time-out of this type. Children should NEVER be told that they are an object of fantasy, no matter how much you like them, because then that would be perceived as abuse by the child. Most pedophiles wouldn't do this...The child would not see you as fantasizing about them, but see you fantasizing. It is recommended to, instead, fantasize about children distant to the parent/pedophile...Matt. 5:27-28 says, however, that forming the mere intent (mens rea) to impose adult sexual entitlement on a child, to the level of unlawful gaze at the slightest (as determined by the child target), going onward, commits fornication (actus reus). The phrase in Matthew does not apply to children, but another verse in Col. 3:5 does, meaning any glance that the child deems offensive, alarming, uncomfortable, or otherwise hateful. Simple thoughts that do not lead to intent are not sin.

Parents need a break. Give us a break, and we'll thank you later.