Littlest Pecan Thief: Priscilla & David Waller's Baby

[Miggy]

I've held my tongue long enough on the potty training thng ... my son trained by himself around 2 1/2 but we couldn't night train him. The body produces a chemical which concentrates the urine overnight so you do need to get up every 2-3 hours to go to the toilet. My son doesn't produce this chemical but he also didn't get the message his bladder was full to wake him up. Doctors said our choices were to put up with wet sheets, wake him ourselves or use an artifical version of the chemical. After reading this discussion I am thinking the Pearls might have offered us different advice; beat him until he stops?

[TeaELSee]

I don't understand the competitive nature of parents and potty training. My oldest son was 4. I always joked that his wife would have to potty train him! That was 20 years ago, he is now in graduate school. It all worked out, relax.

The Pearls are awful.

[fundiemental]

Someone wake me up when we're done comparing potty training experiences.

[VooDooChild]

The Pearls want their followers to use pain to train everything. Read the book, if you haven't already -- hosing down toddlers is the least of it, believe it or not:

quicksilverqueen.com/ttuacbook.html

(site of someone who does not approve of the Pearls, so don't send her hate mail!)

Ugh! I couldn't get past the introduction. I'll have to try later. Thanks for the link.

[thoughtful]

Ugh! I couldn't get past the introduction. I'll have to try later. Thanks for the link.

You're welcome. And I certainly understand your not being able to go on -- Michael Pearl's writing can disgust and anger the most patient person on earth, I think.

I always encourage people to read the whole book. The Pearls and their followers make claims to it being Biblical, actually preventing abuse, :roll: and being chock-full of loving stuff that counterbalances the whipping. So, when people only decry the whipping part, Pearlites claim it was taken out of context, there's more to it than that, etc.

But I feel that the big picture is even worse -- yes, even worse than the truly vicious, gleeful descriptions of hitting children with objects! Taken as a whole, the book paints an even more bizarre and abusive picture. The lovey stuff, the paranoia of the outside world, and the "don't blame us, God says so" crap only makes the whippings even more clearly part of a recipe for a truly sick relationship. And, I'm no expert on Christianity, but I get the impression that it is also very twisted in its theology.

It is badly-written, rambling, disorganized, and contradicts itself. It can be shot down from so many perspectives. The more one knows, the more authoritatively one can condemn it.

I also think it might be an insight into a lot of similar philosophies. Even fundie parents who don't follow the Pearls, per se, may be doing a lot of the same crap -- thinking that, as long as one is calm, acts loving, doesn't yell, and uses God as the excuse for it, whipping children is just fabulous. :cry: :x

I think this kind of household leads to a big part of the "but they seem so nice/gentle/soft-spoken - they couldn't be doing this" problem. Knowing that a gentle facade can be meaningless, is, to me, a big part of what sets FJers apart from people who are taken in by folks like the Duggars.

Which, to get back to the original topic of this thread, makes me fear for Paul Waller. I have no illusions about the possibility that his parents will whip him, as non-Pearlesque as they may appear. Their sweetness could be a facade, but, even if they are gentle people by nature, if they believe it is necessary to save him from Hell, they may feel they have no choice. :cry:

Speaking of the OP, I apologize for the thread hijack. But I feel that pointing folks to really understanding how bad the Pearls are is always worth doing. Heck, I am more than willing to start and maintain a thread for holding people's hands and repeatedly answering with things like "I know! Can you believe these motherfuckers!" as they read TTUAC, if need be!

For anyone who doesn't have time (or the stomach for it) right now, the link to the whole book is always easy to find in FJ's "Who's Who" summaries of snarkees:

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=15988

And I am way overdue for adding a second page to it, with lots of links, but it's on the way!

[Ex 2x2]

Why would you leave a comment like that on his account when you can snark over here?

I agree. He was right to ban you. There was nothing constructive or helpful in your comment.

[Ex 2x2]

Someone wake me up when we're done comparing potty training experiences.

I used to have a group of friends that I did moms night out with. Sometimes it was so much fun, and sometimes it was a lot of the above. That's when I either went home and went to bed or starting throwing back the drinks.

Eta: nothing wrong with those conversations. They just bore me.

[fundiemental]

I used to have a group of friends that I did moms night out with. Sometimes it was so much fun, and sometimes it was a lot of the above. That's when I either went home and went to bed or starting throwing back the drinks.

Eta: nothing wrong with those conversations. They just bore me.

It's natural that threads get off-topic when a subject like this comes up, but yeah. They bore me too. David isn't giving us enough material to work with! I wish Priscilla would write some entries once in a while.

[VooDooChild]

You're welcome. And I certainly understand your not being able to go on -- Michael Pearl's writing can disgust and anger the most patient person on earth, I think.

I always encourage people to read the whole book. The Pearls and their followers make claims to it being Biblical, actually preventing abuse, :roll: and being chock-full of loving stuff that counterbalances the whipping. So, when people only decry the whipping part, Pearlites claim it was taken out of context, there's more to it than that, etc.

But I feel that the big picture is even worse -- yes, even worse than the truly vicious, gleeful descriptions of hitting children with objects! Taken as a whole, the book paints an even more bizarre and abusive picture. The lovey stuff, the paranoia of the outside world, and the "don't blame us, God says so" crap only makes the whippings even more clearly part of a recipe for a truly sick relationship. And, I'm no expert on Christianity, but I get the impression that it is also very twisted in its theology.

It is badly-written, rambling, disorganized, and contradicts itself. It can be shot down from so many perspectives. The more one knows, the more authoritatively one can condemn it.

I also think it might be an insight into a lot of similar philosophies. Even fundie parents who don't follow the Pearls, per se, may be doing a lot of the same crap -- thinking that, as long as one is calm, acts loving, doesn't yell, and uses God as the excuse for it, whipping children is just fabulous. :cry: :x

I think this kind of household leads to a big part of the "but they seem so nice/gentle/soft-spoken - they couldn't be doing this" problem. Knowing that a gentle facade can be meaningless, is, to me, a big part of what sets FJers apart from people who are taken in by folks like the Duggars.

Which, to get back to the original topic of this thread, makes me fear for Paul Waller. I have no illusions about the possibility that his parents will whip him, as non-Pearlesque as they may appear. Their sweetness could be a facade, but, even if they are gentle people by nature, if they believe it is necessary to save him from Hell, they may feel they have no choice. :cry:

Speaking of the OP, I apologize for the thread hijack. But I feel that pointing folks to really understanding how bad the Pearls are is always worth doing. Heck, I am more than willing to start and maintain a thread for holding people's hands and repeatedly answering with things like "I know! Can you believe these motherfuckers!" as they read TTUAC, if need be!

For anyone who doesn't have time (or the stomach for it) right now, the link to the whole book is always easy to find in FJ's "Who's Who" summaries of snarkees:

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=15988

And I am way overdue for adding a second page to it, with lots of links, but it's on the way!

What floors me is that these people think children are born evil! Sin nature? Selfish? Give me a break. Children are egocentric because it is a normal part of human development. It's how they understand the world around them and their relationship to it. It has nothing to do with being inherently evil!!!

Sorry for the thread jack. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[bal maiden]

I wish Priscilla would write some entries once in a while.

LOL, you think Prissy can write?!

I actually think she sounds a lot more normal in the Baby Waller video: when she thanks everybody for their prayers and at another couple of moments, she's speaking fluently and confidently. Then it's like she remembers she has to do baby-voice and script, and reverts to type.

[fundiemental]

LOL, you think Prissy can write?!

I actually think she sounds a lot more normal in the Baby Waller video: when she thanks everybody for their prayers and at another couple of moments, she's speaking fluently and confidently. Then it's like she remembers she has to do baby-voice and script, and reverts to type.

I don't know about her writing capabilities, but I'd like to see something that proves the blog is actually davidlovespriscilla.com, not davidlovesdavid.com.

[bal maiden]

Actually, thinking about the blog name, it seems to me to be a reflection on David's self-centredness anyway... What it suggests is that it's him doing the loving, and that's what is important, not her views/feelings etc. It's not called davidandpriscillainlove.com; it's all about him and his feelings.

[nokidsmom]

I don't know about her writing capabilities, but I'd like to see something that proves the blog is actually davidlovespriscilla.com, not davidlovesdavid.com.

I certainly hope that the voice and manner is coming from her being raised to keep sweet along with SOTDRT education and not any actual developmental issues or delays. I will have to watch the vid.

Regarding the website, yeah, we really don't see anything written by Priscilla, it's all David in the blog entries. Maybe it should be renamed davidlovesdavid.com.

[thoughtful]

Regarding the website, yeah, we really don't see anything written by Priscilla, it's all David in the blog entries. Maybe it should be renamed davidlovesdavid.com.

Or davidelovestotalkabouthowhelovesPriscilla. Or Davidlovesattention.

[badmath]

I thought the Duggars were bad... but these crazies absolutely fascinate me (in a terribly frightening way, of course). Prissy is pretty much the equivalent of a 12 year old... so disturbing.

[Joan of Snarc]

Or davidelovestotalkabouthowhelovesPriscilla. Or Davidlovesattention.

Or DavidloveshisbeardPriscilla.

[Guest]

They have new pictures of the baby up, and some were taken by Thomas Paine. In a couple of the pictures, he looks like Pa Keller's twin... Also there's only one picture with both mom and dad, and Priscilla looks like a 15 year old.

But the baby is cute and some of the pictures are really nice.

Does anyone else find the picture with the cowboy hat over the baby's bum a little strange?

[Guest Anonymous]

Those overly-contrived photo shoots irritate the fuck out of me. Why oh why would someone stick a 3 day old baby in an old suitcase for the sake of a fucking photo?

Babies are beautiful. No accessories needed.

What is wrong with these people?

[Violet]

They have new pictures of the baby up, and some were taken by Thomas Paine. In a couple of the pictures, he looks like Pa Keller's twin... Also there's only one picture with both mom and dad, and Priscilla looks like a 15 year old.

But the baby is cute and some of the pictures are really nice.

Does anyone else find the picture with the cowboy hat over the baby's bum a little strange?

I found most of the photos a little strange! Whatever happened to just taking photos of a baby lying there looking cute???

[Coconut Flan]

The photos seem overly contrived and cutsie to me also. The plain baby is cute and should be the focus not someone's alleged creativity.

Someone asked why a cowboy hat on the rear of the baby. I think they had a size theme going as in the baby fits in a suitcase/violin case, see how big our rings are on the baby, compare the size to the piano keyboard, so see how much baby the hat covers.

[JenniferJuniper]

Those are very odd photos. A hurricane lamp, a globe, a window pane and a violin case? Why? The suitcase one is scary because it looks like someone's about to zip him up in it and why photograph him under the piano like that?

But I suppose any day that Davey gets to channel his inner 13 year old girl is a good one for him:

edited for speling eras

[DefraudedByPlaid]

Actually, thinking about the blog name, it seems to me to be a reflection on David's self-centredness anyway... What it suggests is that it's him doing the loving, and that's what is important, not her views/feelings etc. It's not called davidandpriscillainlove.com; it's all about him and his feelings.

I think this is because in Ephesians 5 (where it tells wives to submit), it tells husbands to love their wives as their own bodies. I know there's a non-Bible book out there (not sure of the exact name) going off this theme and talking about how men are designed to desire respect, and women are designed to desire love.

This female prefers having love and respect simultaneously. But whatevs.

[OkToBeTakei]

I found most of the photos a little strange! Whatever happened to just taking photos of a baby lying there looking cute???

Seems to be a 'thing' at the moment. Not just the fundies. Every time somebody I know has a baby there are endless photos of nekkid baby in a crochet hat, basket, random piece of crochet, random piece of fur, random something. There is ALWAYS a feet photo and or hand photo.

I miss the days when you took a photo of baby wearing a hat on which the pompom absolutely had to be bigger than baby's head :lol:

I have about 5 boxes full of pictures of my child all candid, it seems now though that every event of life has to be artfully photographed. Either that or everybody is a professional photographer in waiting.

There was a recent discussion here about photographing funerals which was a new one on me. Birth to death your life in pictures.

[Guest Anonymous]

Those are very odd photos. A hurricane lamp, a globe, a window pain, and a violin case? Why? The suitcase one is scary because it looks like someone's about to zip him up in it and why photograph him under the piano like that?

But I suppose any day that Davey gets to channel his inner 13 year old girl is a good one for him:

The heart-around-the-disembodied-feet pose is a particularly huge fail. It looks like they are pretending to be chopping them off at the ankles. :?

[thoughtful]

Oy, the props and the fakery and the dangerous positions and the lid of the suitcase actually being down on the kid -- why?

He is a gorgeous baby, and at least there are a few lovely, simple pics in there:

davidlovespriscilla.com/2013/03/23/handsome-fellow/davidlovespriscilla00030-2/

davidlovespriscilla.com/2013/03/23/handsome-fellow/davidlovespriscilla00026-2/

davidlovespriscilla.com/2013/03/23/handsome-fellow/davidlovespriscilla00010-8/