Jump to content
IGNORED

Christian Domestic Discipline


calimojo

Recommended Posts

Lori's children were happy because they had a primary caregiver who doted on them, gave her life to them and likely never laid a finger on them. They knew they were safe and loved by her. Children are resilient. It only takes ONE loving connection for most kids to be able to endure horrific abuse and still turn out healthy and normal. Lori just deliberately ignored that she was NOT that loving primary caregiver who taught her children they were safe. The nanny was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect a LOT of convenient memories where Lori is concerned. Ken and even her daughters have given very different accounts from things that she has blogged.

Lori didn't read the Pearls until much later. She hadn't read To Train Up a Child when her babies were infants.

I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that it's even possible (let alone moral) to give a swat or 2 to a 5 or 6 mo. old infant (and yes, they are still infants at that stage), and never experience that behavior again.

Let me use Girl 2 as an example, since she was the most challenging at the crawling/toddler stage.

Girl 2 was extremely curious, and really wanted to explore. She was frustrated by the fact that she was a baby.

She really liked to crawl into the cabinet under the bathroom sink. She'd crawl in, bump her head, crawl out. Then, she'd do exactly the same thing - bumping her head each time - another 27 times.

One morning, we heard a thump and a cry. She had climbed onto the kitchen table and jumped off, giving herself a bump on her forehead.

The next morning, the same thing happened again. She climbed on the couch, jumped, and got another bump.

I'm pretty sure those bumps must have been more painful than anything a reasonably sane parent could do to a child. That pain didn't deter her. [Girl 2 turned out fine, btw. No lasting damage, no ongoing reckless behavior. She's just unusually intelligent and determined, and wasn't going to let a bump on the head stop her from doing anything.]

I also fail to understand the wiggling during diaper change example. That's not a matter of right or wrong - it's a slightly inconvenient thing that older babies do. The problem solves itself once the child is toilet trained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's dangerous to suggest anything about this has to do with a sexual kink. If you are manipulating someone and making them feel scared, isolated, inferior or physically intimidated in their everyday life, that's not a kink, and I agree that it's really important to keep a kink and abuse in totally separate, very distant categories. When you're submissive in consensual sex, you are essentially just roleplaying submission, because YOU as the submissive person are supposed to set the boundaries of what crosses the line as not OK. And you can "turn it off" when you need to. Obviously, you can't turn off your husband thinking God has given him the authority to treat his wife as roughly the equivalent of a piece of cattle.

And holy sht. I know nothing should shock me anymore...but the idea that someone could think you need to "discipline" a baby for wiggling. :pink-shock: What does it say about you as an adult when you're so incompetent that you would EVER need to hurt a baby? Why would you possibly need to discipline a child for something like WIGGLING? JFC, you gave birth to a human being. And no, Lori, babies aren't "very smart." They are not smart at all yet, and they DO NOT UNDERSTAND why the person who is biologically intended to nurture them is hurting them for something they didn't even realize they were doing.

Lori is an abused shell of a woman. She has gone to great lengths to convince herself that she is happy, and she has achieved an almost mind-boggling degree of ignorance and delusion along the way. I want to feel bad for her, but it's just so infuriating to hear anyone attempt to make an excuse for hurting a child. Not only that she did it to her own children, but that she is encouraging other people to do the same. Uhg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abuse and kink SHOULD be entirely separate categories, but the disturbing thing about CDD is that they get blended together.

I'm sure that these husband get turned on by dominating and punishing their wives. These wives may get a bit of a thrill from it too. It's their personal kink which leads them to emphasize these religious teachings in the first place (and no Ken, the Bible says nothing about husbands disciplining wives).

The issue of consent, however, gets extremely muddled for these folks. It's not an episode, it's how they live their lives 24/7. They advocate removing the ability to withdraw consent in the moment, so that a wife may be genuinely crying and begging for it to stop while the husband continues, and there is no safe word. Invoking this as something that God wants as opposed to a personal fetish makes it far harder to stop, or to refuse consent in the first place. It ceases to be a personal quirk, and starts to be what they believe should be the norm for society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I thought I had a basic understanding of what the Pearls' advocated in "To Train Up A Child" (not sure if title is 100% correct), and what Michelle Duggar did to her children. But. OMFG. This. CDD. Lori's idea that babies are being disobedient or bad by wiggling, etc. For a ranter and rambler, I am speechless. I am heartbroken for these women and children. No. No. No. They are not unscathed. Their scars run deep. I'm sure they do not even know how to name the hurt or shame they feel with the limited frame of reference they were raised with. To think that for these children, these women - that this is normal, expected, a measure of 'love'...is reprehensible. I am truly without words. without full comprehension. i want to read more to understand but i fear it will make me sick to my stomach. I'm not sure about the sexual component. Perhaps for some. I'm sure not for all. I'm dumbfounded. That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abuse and kink SHOULD be entirely separate categories, but the disturbing thing about CDD is that they get blended together.

I'm sure that these husband get turned on by dominating and punishing their wives. These wives may get a bit of a thrill from it too. It's their personal kink which leads them to emphasize these religious teachings in the first place (and no Ken, the Bible says nothing about husbands disciplining wives).

The issue of consent, however, gets extremely muddled for these folks. It's not an episode, it's how they live their lives 24/7. They advocate removing the ability to withdraw consent in the moment, so that a wife may be genuinely crying and begging for it to stop while the husband continues, and there is no safe word. Invoking this as something that God wants as opposed to a personal fetish makes it far harder to stop, or to refuse consent in the first place. It ceases to be a personal quirk, and starts to be what they believe should be the norm for society.

So disturbing. And to further think a man who does this and is sexually aroused then goes and spanks his daughter. How long til that arouses him as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I thought I had a basic understanding of what the Pearls' advocated in "To Train Up A Child" (not sure if title is 100% correct), and what Michelle Duggar did to her children. But. OMFG. This. CDD. Lori's idea that babies are being disobedient or bad by wiggling, etc. For a ranter and rambler, I am speechless. I am heartbroken for these women and children. No. No. No. They are not unscathed. Their scars run deep. I'm sure they do not even know how to name the hurt or shame they feel with the limited frame of reference they were raised with. To think that for these children, these women - that this is normal, expected, a measure of 'love'...is reprehensible. I am truly without words. without full comprehension. i want to read more to understand but i fear it will make me sick to my stomach. I'm not sure about the sexual component. Perhaps for some. I'm sure not for all. I'm dumbfounded. That is all.

As disturbing as Lori is, remember she is but a disciple of Pearl. His actual writings are much worse. He really seems to get a great deal of pleasure out of torturing others and he's especially happy when children brought up under his system move on to abuse their toys (heartbreaking image of a little girl switching her doll for being disobedient). He's a perverted old man. She's a miserable old bag but her kids are marginally less screwed up than Pearl's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lori had her babies when she was in her mid-20's.

I think of her, back then, and I am amazed she felt the need to hit a beautiful baby for something as harmless as wiggling. Most mothers *rejoice* in the signs that their baby is healthy, strong and active. Most mothers *laugh* and say, "Oh, do you like to wiggle??" or something like that. Maybe a very stressed mother might get annoyed, but what did Lori have to stress her?

She has a loving supportive family--two sisters, for goodness sake, and parents who love her. She had a decent income (provided by Ken)--it never seemed like they were starving. She was healthy back then, and actually quite attractive. She was fortunate enough to have four healthy, lovely babies.

Young, healthy, loved, financially stable, attractive, fertile, educated--she had so much. Why was she so angry that she felt like hitting her six-month old son for wiggling? I mean, people with a lot less are able to love and enjoy their babies in a normal way.

Same with breastfeeding. I've never done it, but isn't it supposed to be a very special, close bonding time? Why would a new mother spoil it by flicking the cheek of her infant? Isn't that just damaging one of life's most beautiful moments and making it into an ugly power contest?

My own father was much the same--he had so much but was so angry. He was handsome, successful, healthy, etc. but nothing and no one could make him happy. It makes you wonder.

edited to add a thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lori had her babies when she was in her mid-20's.

I think of her, back then, and I am amazed she felt the need to hit a beautiful baby for something as harmless as wiggling. Most mothers *rejoice* in the signs that their baby is healthy, strong and active. Most mothers *laugh* and say, "Oh, do you like to wiggle??" or something like that. Maybe a very stressed mother might get annoyed, but what did Lori have to stress her?

She has a loving supportive family--two sisters, for goodness sake, and parents who love her. She had a decent income (provided by Ken)--it never seemed like they were starving. She was healthy back then, and actually quite attractive. She was fortunate enough to have four healthy, lovely babies.

Young, healthy, loved, financially stable, attractive, fertile, educated--she had so much. Why was she so angry that she felt like hitting her six-month old son for wiggling? I mean, people with a lot less are able to love and enjoy their babies in a normal way.

Same with breastfeeding. I've never done it, but isn't it supposed to be a very special, close bonding time? Why would a new mother spoil it by flicking the cheek of her infant? Isn't that just damaging one of life's most beautiful moments and making it into an ugly power contest?

My own father was much the same--he had so much but was so angry. He was handsome, successful, healthy, etc. but nothing and no one could make him happy. It makes you wonder.

edited to add a thought

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that she popped her baby for wiggling during diaper change or biting during breastfeeding because she's angry.

It's far more likely that she did those things because she thought that was the Godly and right thing to do. I am a little confused as to why she thought that if this was pre-Pearls.

She comes across to me as a very unhappy person these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that she popped her baby for wiggling during diaper change or biting during breastfeeding because she's angry.

It's far more likely that she did those things because she thought that was the Godly and right thing to do. I am a little confused as to why she thought that if this was pre-Pearls.

She comes across to me as a very unhappy person these days.

I'm gonna be as all-out judgy as my girl Lori and say it straight: Lori is a bad person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Train Up a Child was released in 1994. Lori's kids were older by then (her youngest is 25).

She was always a control freak with her kids. Remember the 2 hour epic battles to get them to finish their salads?

She was also somewhat lazy. She wasn't really interested in maximum bonding. She wanted her babies to sleep through the night at 3 weeks even if they were crying at night, and she also ordered them to go to their rooms to read for 2 hours every afternoon when she was homeschooling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids were wiggly when they got their diapers changed...I think they just loved the feeling of being naked. I'll admit that sometimes changing a lively toddler felt more like a WWE match than a diaper change...my grandson would roll over and crawl away in a heartbeat. But, there are better ways of handling it...toys, talking to them, singing...

At 5-6 months old...babies wiggle...its what they do. At that age, if you're nursing, they bite...I don't remember what I did when my babies bit at that age, it's been way too long...but they did bite. It didn't stop me from nursing, I nursed them all for quite a while. My youngest was probably somewhere near 2 when I stopped nursing him.

Lori is a Monster,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My oldest was a bad biter, but I still managed to breastfeed until she was two. I just kept a pinkie handy next to her cheek, and slipped it between her gums when I felt her begin to chomp down. No pain for either of us, and she eventually grew out of it.

What I didn't know then is that she has Asperger's, and mouthing remains a self-soothing behavior to this day. I can only imagine what kind of hell her Asperger's would be now if I had listened to the Ezzos and TTUAC instead of following my gut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what bothers me so much about the CDD and the Pearl method, is that it is the WOMEN of these groups that become the strongest supporters of it. It is like some sort of Stockholm syndrome on steroids, or something. The blogs that I read of these women who are being spanked were full of glowing praise for how wonderful it was to submit and for having a husband who loves them enough to discipline them.

The depth of that into their soul just made me so sad. And the women who would promote and follow the Pearl methods on their own, just amazes me. I know the spank or not to spank a child ( not an infant, mind you) is a debate that has raged for many years and I don't want to get into that, but I just can't imagine anyone who has enough gray matter to read a book, would read one advocating spanking or inflicting pain on a 5 month old and not be disgusted.

In my mind, someone who consciously plans to hit someone is far worse than someone who just loses it and hits out of frustration. I think if we were all completely honest, we would admit to having reached frustration points in our life and having extreme urges to strike out. But to decide to hit a baby, in cold blood basically, is far more disturbing. To plan out training sessions where you plan to strike the baby if they move off of a blanket is monstrous.

When I first heard about blanket training, I thought it was just putting a kid on a blanket and telling them to stay there, and then if they moved, just moving them back onto the blanket. I could see the practicality of having the kid understand that there may be times where they need to stay on the blanket for their own safety. But I had no idea at that point that it was far more malicious and more malignant than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what bothers me so much about the CDD and the Pearl method, is that it is the WOMEN of these groups that become the strongest supporters of it. It is like some sort of Stockholm syndrome on steroids, or something. The blogs that I read of these women who are being spanked were full of glowing praise for how wonderful it was to submit and for having a husband who loves them enough to discipline them.

The depth of that into their soul just made me so sad. And the women who would promote and follow the Pearl methods on their own, just amazes me. I know the spank or not to spank a child ( not an infant, mind you) is a debate that has raged for many years and I don't want to get into that, but I just can't imagine anyone who has enough gray matter to read a book, would read one advocating spanking or inflicting pain on a 5 month old and not be disgusted.

In my mind, someone who consciously plans to hit someone is far worse than someone who just loses it and hits out of frustration. I think if we were all completely honest, we would admit to having reached frustration points in our life and having extreme urges to strike out. But to decide to hit a baby, in cold blood basically, is far more disturbing. To plan out training sessions where you plan to strike the baby if they move off of a blanket is monstrous.

When I first heard about blanket training, I thought it was just putting a kid on a blanket and telling them to stay there, and then if they moved, just moving them back onto the blanket. I could see the practicality of having the kid understand that there may be times where they need to stay on the blanket for their own safety. But I had no idea at that point that it was far more malicious and more malignant than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.