[ SECRET POST #2215 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2215 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


There is a moving gif in this post.


01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Rose McGowan]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Puella Magi Madoka Magica]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Fringe]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Touhou Project / Axis Powers Hetalia: Romaheta / Kuroshitsuji / Homestuck]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Being Human UK]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Three Kingdoms 2010]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Legend]


__________________________________________________



11. http://i.imgur.com/fO4RU.jpg
[linked for kind of porny/suggestive postures of possibly underage character]


__________________________________________________



12. http://i.imgur.com/T28p7.jpg
[linked for illustrated porny x 2 (clothed, but that doesnt do much)]


__________________________________________________



13.
[Downton Abbey]


__________________________________________________



14.
[Xia Junsu/Tarantellera]


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________















[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]














16. [SPOILERS for Downton Abbey]



__________________________________________________



17. [SPOILERS for Homestuck]



__________________________________________________

















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]















18. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



19. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



20. [WARNING for incest]



__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Late day at work, sorry.

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #316.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - template ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

But breaking their TV or laptop for being disobedient is non-abusive and non-harmful.

What the all-holy fuck is wrong with you. I hope you never have children, and I hope the ones you do have realize you're a shitty person and hate you the rest of your life. You're far too fucking vile to be in charge of another human being.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

lol you are so ANGRY

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Why yes, how dare someone be angry when told that abuse is okay as long as the kid was being bad.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

NO SHIT SHERLOCK

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Gee anon, I can't think why people are angry at you for suggesting that some forms of threatening actions or outright destruction from a parent aimed at children is OK

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Don't know why you would assume that anon was me. I have yet to respond with anyone but a serious rebuttal, Miss Catie Clever.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Can you point out why it is harmful? Without coming up with some sort of bullshit like them setting their shit on fire and making them watch, or violently smashing open the television set in front of them? Because I already clearly said that IS abusive, on the side of threatening them and intimidating them.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

So if I were to say come into your home and throw all your books out it wouldn't be harmful to you?

Don't breed. Ever.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

If you were to come into my house and order me to stand in the corner or into time out, I would be pretty fucking pissed. If you forced me to do so, it would also be pretty traumatic. Because you're a fucking stranger forcing me to do shit for some arbitrary reason.

Please, try to find an example that fits into your analogy that WOULDN'T be harmful.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

DA

If we correct for the "wtf is this stranger doing in my home" weirdness, I'm pretty sure the fact that the parent is someone who is close to the child, has power over them and is supposed to love them brings some problems of its own.

Kids learn from their parents how you should treat someone you care about (I'd cite sources, but it's 4:30 am here right now). I really don't think "When someone you love won't do as you say, it's okay to do hurtful things to them, such as breaking valuable things of theirs" is a good lesson.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Not for nothing, but people bring this up a lot and I've just been giving them the same response, so I'm gonna make a copypasta version to the following arguments:

1. This punishment is a harsh one, and therefore should only be meted out in appropriate situations. It is a permanent punishment.
2. A parent has a position and right of authority and control over their children. It is not synonymous with the relationship held with peers. Taking away phone privilege's is a normal punishment for your child, but abusive in the context of your spouse. Similarly, the destruction of your child's belonging does not equate with the destruction of your spouse's.
3. It is not inherently a bad punishment. Like all punishments, it can be used to an abusive degree. For instance, a very, very severe punishment like juvenile detention or jailtime is only reserved when a child "misbehaves" in a very extreme way. This does not mean the punishment itself is abusive, even though it most situations would not call for it.
4. People have been abused with this method of control and punishment. This does not mean it is always used in this way.
5. The action is most likely pretty wasteful, I would not specifically do so myself, but I would not disagree with a parent who did use it appropriately.
6. Punishment is about teaching the lesson of consequences. As this is a permanent, extreme consequence, only like disobedience should be used for it.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

What exactly is the big damn difference between telling them you're breaking it and just taking it away? At least if they think it's broken, they won't whine for it back (if you intend on taking it away completely and never returning it, at least).

And don't worry, I'm not breeding. I just don't see the damn problem.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

i don't see why childfree have to insert themselves in a topic about parenting. it never ends well

(frozen comment)

[nomorenoodles.livejournal.com]

Because breaking a TV or laptop is destroying something the child cares about. It's like breaking something of your friend's just because he/she did something a bit crappy to you. I bet you wouldn't want your parents to break something precious of yours. I can understand getting rid of their TV/laptop/whatever privileges for a while, but BREAK it? The child would probably find it very hard to trust people, act out later in life, or feel extremely unloved. I can't imagine any good parent wanting to inflict those kinds of consequences on a child.

Parenting isn't a power struggle between parent and child. It's meant to be about love.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for actually giving me a reason besides "It would make them upset" or "You wouldn't like it if someone did it to you" or "It's abusive.".

Yes, it's destroying something they care about, but this is only relevant insomuch as that thing is important to them. If it's their safety blanket, that's fucked up. If they possess a really strong (and probably unhealthy) attachment to the TV, that's also a bad idea. But breaking their phone because they've been caught sneaking out and drinking does not equate to them being unable to trust people later in life. It is an object, and it was one only being used with privileges in most houses.

If I say to my child "You've broken my trust and my rules, so I am breaking this phone", and break the phone (again, not violently--this isn't about a show a violence), this is not abusive.

I've already said I understand there are ways that a punishment can be abusive--but they ALL can be. This one is not inherently abusive, like slapping or hitting or insulting is.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

(again, not violently--this isn't about a show a violence)

The act is inherantly violent. It is an act of permanent destruction of something that matters to them. It doesn't matter how showy or not showy the destruction is, you've still broken something that belongs to them. That is an act of violence.

If you confiscate the phone for a specified period of time, that's punishment. You're removing privileges until such a time as you consider the fault rectified. If you break the phone, then there is no returning it. Depending on the financial circumstances, there may not be another phone to replace it, either.

Willful destruction of other people's property is an act of violence towards them. If someone deliberately throws a stone through your window, you've grounds to call the police. It is a threat, and an act of violence. The fact that in this circumstance (the phone) the person doing the breaking is a family member does not actually take away the fact that such an act is a threat and an act of violence.

Which is why it is abusive.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

It's not though. It seems like it is, because the idea of intentionally breaking something is generally done in rage. But it's not.

If a child has disobeyed badly enough, then the permanent punishment of phone privileges might be in order.

Willful destruction of other people's property is an act of violence towards them. If someone deliberately throws a stone through your window, you've grounds to call the police.

If someone takes my phone away until I stop texting my boyfriend, this is a willful act of robbery, but you have already accepted a parent can do such a thing, so it does completely make a difference. This analogy has been used to twice now, and both times it is a poor and inappropriate one. A stranger's random act of violence does not equate with a parent's deliberate act of punishment.

It is not an act of violence, or at least not in the way I think most people mean. If your kid is clicking together two sticks in an effort to annoy you, and you reach over and snap them, that's technically an act of violence, as it was the use of force to break something. But I don't think that is how you are you using the term.

(frozen comment)

[lunabee34]

This is a good comment, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

As a parent, if I can't find another way to discipline my child beyond breaking her belongings, then something seriously wrong with my parenting.

Think about this in other contexts. It's not okay to break your friends' belongings or the belongings of your SO even if they have behaved badly towards you. I can't imagine not according my own child the same basic level of respect I extend towards strangers. I can find ways to discipline my child that are still respectful of her, if that makes sense.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

When I was a severely depressed teen, the internet was my only outlet. When my grades started slipping, my parents limited my computer time.

If they had completely destroyed it, leaving me with no means of contact to the community that was helping me learn how to deal with my problems? I don't know if I'd be alive right now.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

If you had been using said computer to meet with older strangers? If they had warned you and you had not listened? Would it be inappropriate then, no matter how attached you were to your PC?

In any case, I have made several exceptions for objects that the child is very attached to, like a safety blanket.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

How would destroying the computer help? If I'd been doing something dangerous the computer wouldn't have been the cause of that, just a tool I was using. Take away the tools, the kid will just find another way to do what they were doing. Failing to treat the root cause of the problem? That's neglect right there.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

new anon

I used to meet with older near-strangers when I was in my mid-teens, thanks, and I never even had a home internet connection. It was getting to be part of a community on the internet that helped me get over that attention-starved and reckless mentality I had when it came to older men. I was never going to stop acting out that way in response to a punishment, because I wasn't doing it 'on purpose' to begin with - I was fulfilling a need for validation, and I only stopped doing it once that need was being met elsewhere.

A computer isn't merely an object. It's a communication channel, and a means of accessing help, support and social contact. The reason I - and I can't speak for anyone but myself here - am reacting badly to your suggestion that it's okay to destroy a kid's computer is that you're assuming total authority over their ability to contact other people for help if they need it. And they might not need help for anything major. Maybe they just need something they don't want to ask you for, like contraceptive advice. Or maybe you're using that total authority you've been wielding to be a abusive piece of shit and they desperately need help.

Point is, some of us are not in a position to trust our parents, and saying that it's okay for a parent to have total control over who their child can make contact with is terrifying to me. Flat-out terrifying. That kind of deliberate isolating is so often used as a cover for abuse that I have to see it in that light, because I've zero reason to believe you're actually a good parent who's using that 'punishment' appropriately.

(frozen comment)

[truxillogical]

A parent threatening and intimidating a child is harmful. Respect is healthy. Fear is not. If your child fears you, something has gone seriously wrong.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

But a child might feel fear for any number of punishments. That's bad, but sometimes it can't be helped. Kids usually are afraid of getting chewed out...in fact, fear is pretty normal in most situations. Most people obey rules because they fear breaking them. You might want to skip school, but you're scared your parents are going to punish you. Fearing what they will do is the same, for the most part, as fearing them. It just doesn't need to be constant--it's contextual fear.

In any case:

1. This punishment is a harsh one, and therefore should only be meted out in appropriate situations. It is a permanent punishment.
2. A parent has a position and right of authority and control over their children. It is not synonymous with the relationship held with peers. Taking away phone privilege's is a normal punishment for your child, but abusive in the context of your spouse. Similarly, the destruction of your child's belonging does not equate with the destruction of your spouse's.
3. It is not inherently a bad punishment. Like all punishments, it can be used to an abusive degree. For instance, a very, very severe punishment like juvenile detention or jailtime is only reserved when a child "misbehaves" in a very extreme way. This does not mean the punishment itself is abusive, even though it most situations would not call for it.
4. People have been abused with this method of control and punishment. This does not mean it is always used in this way.
5. The action is most likely pretty wasteful, I would not specifically do so myself, but I would not disagree with a parent who did use it appropriately.
6. Punishment is about teaching the lesson of consequences. As this is a permanent, extreme consequence, only like disobedience should be used for it.

(frozen comment)

[truxillogical]

No. Being afraid of being chewed out isn't the same as being unable to trust your parent. EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD HAD EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU--destruction is an inherently violent action. It's destruction. It shows that you have nothing and anything can be taken from you and that your parents, the people you love and rely on for your continued existence, will be the ones to take that from you. There was something important to you and your parent destroyed it because they could.

A parent does not mete out jail time--the state does that. A child has to be able to trust their parent, and this action, even once, even for something "horrible" destroys that trust. Something happens once, it can happen again.

Punishment is about teaching a lesson of consequence. It does not require destruction. There is literally no example you've been able to give that justifies what you suggest. All it does is teach a kid that now they have to fear that whatever they have can be taken away.

You're kind of a creep.