Tedious, Complicated, and Particular: Erika Shupe, Part 8

[Loveday]

4 minutes ago, December said:

My parents did a similar thing with me... they bought me underpants with my favorite character on them, and I was so afraid of ruining them I was potty trained perfectly within a week! They didn't think they were geniuses for doing this... they simply realized giving their kid a real incentive to achieve the goal would be more helpful to everyone involved than trying to micromanage me. 

Then there's this bit from the laundry post: 

I'm really disturbed by the mentality that a young child, who's so little they aren't even the ones dressing/undressing themselves, needs to worry about modesty at all -- much less in their own home, surrounded by family members. 

It's also disturbing that Erika feels it necessary to even say that. 

[JillyO]

11 minutes ago, December said:

I'm really disturbed by the mentality that a young child, who's so little they aren't even the ones dressing/undressing themselves, needs to worry about modesty at all -- much less in their own home, surrounded by family members. 

And that's coming from the same woman who posts pictures of those same children only in underpants while toilet-training.

[princessmahina]

1 hour ago, JillyO said:

And that's coming from the same woman who posts pictures of those same children only in underpants while toilet-training.

I find that so confusing. Why is it unacceptable that your siblings see you partially undressed for a moment, but it's okay for the internet to see you just about naked for eternity? One of these is modest, the other is not. Erika doesn't seem to understand what's okay and what it isn't. 

[Foudeb]

I suspect her modesty is only for girls... unless there are pictures of them in their underwear too, I'm not that much of an expert on her blog posts.

[mango_fandango]

29 minutes ago, Foudeb said:

I suspect her modesty is only for girls... unless there are pictures of them in their underwear too, I'm not that much of an expert on her blog posts.

There are. In the Potty Training Twins post (not sure if it was deleted or not) both of them are depicted in just underwear. 

[Foudeb]

My mistake then, apologies. Erika is an equal opportunity nutjob.

[August]

On 26 May 2016 at 5:05 PM, Eternalbluepearl said:

To know God the way Adam knew Eve? Spirit skin to spirit skin? 

May the child of god grow in you

[Eternalbluepearl]

I wonder if Erika and Bob ever think that their children may not want to be the subject of a public blog. Their house even has an online tour. It would be weird if my childhood bedroom and potty training stories were made public under the guise of my parents teaching others how to parent. 

[mango_fandango]

13 minutes ago, Eternalbluepearl said:

I wonder if Erika and Bob ever think that their children may not want to be the subject of a public blog. Their house even has an online tour. It would be weird if my childhood bedroom and potty training stories were made public under the guise of my parents teaching others how to parent. 

Yep, the story of Karen being scared when she pooped in the toilet the first time is so damn inappropriate. 

Someone does actually ask Erika why she posted the photos, and Erika said this:

 The kids are so little, and I was careful to never get the front of his bottom in the photo of course or anything. In fact, I tried to always get a face shot of him, not even his whole back side. But this is how we train, I do not feel there is anything wrong with it in our own home, and desire to let people in to our home to really see how we do it. =) In our opinion, both mine and Bob's, these photos were fine. Maybe Anna Marie should have a shirt on...but again, she's so little.

For someone so big on modesty, it makes no sense whatsoever. If you think it's fine to post these photos, why then is it not fine for the little girls to wear shorts?? Covering the crotch to protect their brothers in Christ... and then she goes and posts photos of Anna Marie in just her undies. "Maybe Anna Marie should have a shirt on... but again, she's so little". Photos on a blog are just as public as going outside. So why do you make the girls wear skirts? You CANNOT go from saying "we wear long skirts to protect our brothers in Christ" in one post to "it doesn't matter that she's wearing undies in the photo cos she's so little!!" in another photo. Does. Not. Compute.

[Eternalbluepearl]

15 minutes ago, mango_fandango said:

You CANNOT go from saying "we wear long skirts to protect our brothers in Christ" in one post to "it doesn't matter that she's wearing undies in the photo cos she's so little!!" in another photo. Does. Not. Compute.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's like there is that human side of Erika that gets that children aren't defrauding anyone, but then the robot for Christ side kicks in and it's modesty central.

I will say, it's not super appropriate to post half-naked pics of your kids publicly just because they're "so little." They won't always be little and when they are more self-aware, they may not be happy about it.  

[princessmahina]

Erika and the "front bottom." As if "genitals" is immodest or something. 

[Hisey]

3 hours ago, Eternalbluepearl said:

I wholeheartedly agree. It's like there is that human side of Erika that gets that children aren't defrauding anyone, but then the robot for Christ side kicks in and it's modesty central.

I will say, it's not super appropriate to post half-naked pics of your kids publicly just because they're "so little." They won't always be little and when they are more self-aware, they may not be happy about it.  

Actually, I think there's a lazy side of Erika that doesn't want to take a little girl to the bathroom just because the kid spilled food on her shirt. 

I guess I've got my own lazy side. When my youngest was about 2, we were in the mall and she spilled food all over her shirt. Luckily, I had just bought her a new shirt and it was in the bag I was carrying. I sat her on a bench and took off the dirty shirt and reached into the bag for the clean one. My oldest, who was five, quickly reached over with her two hands to cover her little sister's chest and said, "Cover those up!" We were not fundie, and I never had discussed modesty with such little kids. She was just a funny, intense child who decided her little sister was being embarrassed.

[19 cats and counting]

3 hours ago, princessmahina said:

Erika and the "front bottom." As if "genitals" is immodest or something. 

I think that's a good way of explaining to very young children.  BUt they should know proper names for genitals (not slang terms) by the time they're in kindergarten.

[Pammy]

I used to think the Duggars were off-the-wall for keeping their little daughters "modest" in the presence of their male siblings. My thoughts were along the lines that 'little children aren't defrauding anyone'. But itty-bitty modesty seems a bit more like a reasonable and sensible precaution: given that in fact that some male older siblings actually are craving a peep. It seems like little girls do deserve some privacy at home with family -- whether they know it yet or not.

For a while my thought were, "What are you protecting your little girls from? Do you think their dad or their brothers are pedophiles?" Well, aparently one was. So that's taught me a lesson.

[Loveday]

28 minutes ago, Pammy said:

I used to think the Duggars were off-the-wall for keeping their little daughters "modest" in the presence of their male siblings. My thoughts were along the lines that 'little children aren't defrauding anyone'. But itty-bitty modesty seems a bit more like a reasonable and sensible precaution: given that in fact that some male older siblings actually are craving a peep. It seems like little girls do deserve some privacy at home with family -- whether they know it yet or not.

For a while my thought were, "What are you protecting your little girls from? Do you think their dad or their brothers are pedophiles?" Well, aparently one was. So that's taught me a lesson.

You know, sadly, that's a good point. 

[Tim-Tom Biblethumper]

35 minutes ago, Pammy said:

But itty-bitty modesty seems a bit more like a reasonable and sensible precaution: given that in fact that some male older siblings actually are craving a peep.

Seems more reasonable and sensible to address the problem though (the peeping-perv) than to put restrictions on the itty-bitties.  Then again, nothing is fair or rational in a patriarchy.

[iheartchacos]

I have a friend like this. She has 5yo B/G twins are is so strict about them not seeing each other. They think my kid is immodest because he leaves the door open when he uses the bathroom. Once our kids were changing out of swim ware and I knew she'd never go for just letting all three change right there...i offered to help the boys change together in one...that would be a no.

[Antimony]

2 hours ago, 19 cats and counting said:

I think that's a good way of explaining to very young children.  BUt they should know proper names for genitals (not slang terms) by the time they're in kindergarten.

As a small child, I used the word "buttgina" liberally. 

[CrazyCatLady]

Do you think Erika has ever said the word "penis"? 😂

[princessmahina]

5 hours ago, 19 cats and counting said:

I think that's a good way of explaining to very young children.  BUt they should know proper names for genitals (not slang terms) by the time they're in kindergarten.

Fine for kids, but I don't see a reason to use it on her blog. She could easily say something less weird to her (presumably adult) readers. It just seems so...strange.  

[lauraloralara]

13 hours ago, princessmahina said:

Fine for kids, but I don't see a reason to use it on her blog. She could easily say something less weird to her (presumably adult) readers. It just seems so...strange.  

Or at least in quotes. Not JRod quotes, which defy all reason or logic as to why they're included in the sentence, but "We talked about his 'front bottom' with him." I will say I've never heard anyone (that I can remember) use that phrase, and I was actually confused when reading it.

[Eternalbluepearl]

16 minutes ago, lauraloralara said:

Or at least in quotes. Not JRod quotes, which defy all reason or logic as to why they're included in the sentence, but "We talked about his 'front bottom' with him." I will say I've never heard anyone (that I can remember) use that phrase, and I was actually confused when reading it.

I was confused by front bottom too. My mom just taught us penis and vagina when we were learning body parts. I don't see what the big deal is. I am a twin and we are fraternal twins who took baths together as toddlers. Your brother has a penis and you have a vagina. The end. It's funny how proper body part words are likely immodest in the Shupe home, but pictures of your kids in underwear on the internet isn't...

[Hisey]

On 5/31/2016 at 11:12 AM, mango_fandango said:

I think there was a story behind the kid still in diapers at 4.5. Erika briefly mentioned that he originally took to the method, then abandoned it for some reason (Erika just goes 'long story') then a while ago she posted on FB that whoever it was (I think Tyler) had finally embraced potty training and they were at Just Peachy the frozen yoghurt place to celebrate.

I think this is the story: The little boy, at 2, did what his mother asked for the first few days. Then his underlying anger at her controlling ways took over, and he realized he could get her really upset by peeing in his pants. That was so satisfying it overrode any natural desire to grow up and keep clean.

The little guy was probably a bit angrier than his sibs, perhaps he was more independent or less compliant? Or maybe his sibs find other ways to push Erika's buttons. 

That's the story. I've heard similar "success-then-failure" stories from other really controlling moms.

[princessmahina]

1 hour ago, lauraloralara said:

Or at least in quotes. Not JRod quotes, which defy all reason or logic as to why they're included in the sentence, but "We talked about his 'front bottom' with him." I will say I've never heard anyone (that I can remember) use that phrase, and I was actually confused when reading it.

Me too! I had to re-read it a couple times because I had never heard that phrase before. 

[Chocolatedefrauded]

I just love Robot for Christ....cause God wants followers who don't think or sympathize with others. Just rigid, legalistic robots.