Tori Bates Courtship- Part 2

[Palimpsest]

7 minutes ago, Casserole said:

Agreed. However, while I wish these kids being forced on TV could hear what Jacob is saying, their circumstances are so different. Did Jacob risk his relationship with his family/money/stability/home? Yes, and he's very brave. But I'm willing to bet he didn't also have to be fearful of being beaten into submission whether he was an "adult" or not. Jacob is also a member of the "real world." He's not afraid to go out and live on his own, get a job, go to school, grocery shop alone, etc. etc. What would a Bates kid do in his situation? I'd be fearful for what would happen to a still-at-home Bates kid refusing to do the show and defying Daddy.

You would think the now married-with-kids Bates' would get it and keep their kids away, but Daddy said the tv show was a blessing and they can't go against that 

I was using Jacob as an example of not being bound by a contract signed by his parents.  True, the minor children have no choice.  My point is that the older children, once they turn 18, do have a choice.   They are not bound by a contract Daddy signed in their names.  Can you imagine the lawsuit if UPTV tried to hold them too that!

They can also leave home - even without marriage.  Why are the Bates children treated as such special incompetent little snowflakes?   They are not the only people who have been subjected to IBLP methods of child-rearing.  They can go against Daddy - if they want to badly enough.

The girls might have a harder time, but see Cynthia Jeub, Alicia Faith Pennington and many others.  As for the boys:  Lawson and Nathan could certainly support themselves if they went out on their own - they've been contributing to the family coffers for years.  Daddy doesn't need their support for his family any more because he should be banking the money from the show.  Zach, Chad, and John all have jobs outside the show.

Yes, they do risk being cut off from their family but if the Bates parental units actually cut off an adult child because they refused to appear on the show or left home - that really would be showing their true colors.

[nelliebelle1197]

1 minute ago, Palimpsest said:

I was using Jacob as an example of not being bound by a contract signed by his parents.  True, the minor children have no choice.  My point is that the older children, once they turn 18, do have a choice.   They are not bound by a contract Daddy signed in their names.  Can you imagine the lawsuit if UPTV tried to hold them too that!

They can also leave home - even without marriage.  Why are the Bates children treated as such special incompetent little snowflakes?   They are not the only people who have been subjected to IBLP methods of child-rearing.  They can go against Daddy - if they want to badly enough.

The girls might have a harder time, but see Cynthia Jeub, Alicia Faith Pennington and many others.  As for the boys:  Lawson and Nathan could certainly support themselves if they went out on their own - they've been contributing to the family coffers for years.  Daddy doesn't need their support for his family any more because he should be banking the money from the show.  Zach, Chad, and John all have jobs outside the show.

Yes, they do risk being cut off from their family but if the Bates parental units actually cut off an adult child because they refused to appear on the show or left home - that really would be showing their true colors.

And the Pennington kid had a much harder row to hoe than the Batessesssssses kids ever did....

[formergothardite]

The married Bates adults could get out easily compared to most people raised in IBLP. They are choosing to stay associated with the cult and with helping normalize the evil lifestyle. 

[QuiverDance]

4 hours ago, backyard sylph said:

Nuances in my own writing are not that difficult to read. I have stated very clearly, more than once, that I agree with this, when it is needed, and, to add to that, in a positive communal spirit. That's all. I have nothing more to say on it, and will continue to speak with lateral reason on other topics.

 

You didn't say anything you shouldn't have.  Nobody on this board is working with a full set of facts.  

[Casserole]

4 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

I was using Jacob as an example of not being bound by a contract signed by his parents.  True, the minor children have no choice.  My point is that the older children, once they turn 18, do have a choice.   They are not bound by a contract Daddy signed in their names.  Can you imagine the lawsuit if UPTV tried to hold them too that!

They can also leave home - even without marriage.  Why are the Bates children treated as such special incompetent little snowflakes?   They are not the only people who have been subjected to IBLP methods of child-rearing.  They can go against Daddy - if they want to badly enough.

The girls might have a harder time, but see Cynthia Jeub, Alicia Faith Pennington and many others.  As for the boys:  Lawson and Nathan could certainly support themselves if they went out on their own - they've been contributing to the family coffers for years.  Daddy doesn't need their support for his family any more because he should be banking the money from the show.  Zach, Chad, and John all have jobs outside the show.

Yes, they do risk being cut off from their family but if the Bates parental units actually cut off an adult child because they refused to appear on the show or left home - that really would be showing their true colors.

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said; my post was more speaking to "adults" trying to opt out of the show when they still live under Gil's roof. No way he'd let it happen and they'd end up with a beating for even asking. 

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, Casserole said:

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said; my post was more speaking to "adults" trying to opt out of the show when they still live under Gil's roof. No way he'd let it happen and they'd end up with a beating for even asking. 

Oh, I see.  You really mean that literally?

Eager as I am to point out Gil Bates's ugly beliefs I think that is a. going much too far and b. very unlikely.

While the Bateses used to recommend TTUAC I'm fairly sure Gil wouldn't beat up adults.  He's 50 and both Lawson and Nathan could take him easily.  Probably Trace too.  Beating them up would bruise the girls and that wouldn't look good on TV.  Beating them would give them extra incentives to walk out the door. In addition, contracts or consent forms signed under duress are not valid and that would count as assault and battery.  Many possibilities for very juicy lawsuits.

No, I think emotional blackmail and bribery are far more likely than physical violence to keep the adult children filming.  

 

[RosyDaisy]

Given the fact that Gil helped cover up sexual abuse and harassment, I'm willing to believe he would beat the shit out the unmarried kids if they tried to opt out of the show.

[OrchidBlossom]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Oh, I see.  You really mean that literally?

Eager as I am to point out Gil Bates's ugly beliefs I think that is a. going much too far and b. very unlikely.

While the Bateses used to recommend TTUAC I'm fairly sure Gil wouldn't beat up adults.  He's 50 and both Lawson and Nathan could take him easily.  Probably Trace too.  Beating them up would bruise the girls and that wouldn't look good on TV.  Beating them would give them extra incentives to walk out the door. In addition, contracts or consent forms signed under duress are not valid and that would count as assault and battery.  Many possibilities for very juicy lawsuits.

No, I think emotional blackmail and bribery are far more likely than physical violence to keep the adult children filming.  

 

Just chiming in to add that I agree that at this point physical abuse would be unnecessary if not detrimental (as applied to the older children). Also, physical violence when children are young can help to create an environment of fear and unquestioning behavior that may render continued physical violence unnecessary. I mean the book is called Train Up for a reason. If you instill a certain amount of fear and subconscious obedience in a small child, by the time they are old enough to question, it's a lot harder for them to do so.

I'm certainly not saying that fundies would be opposed to hitting their older children or that some fundies (especially those not in the spotlight) may not continue to hit older children (I mean abuse happens in all cultures and certain can and does happen to adults all the time, so obviously I am sure it happens to fundies as well), but that as children are "trained up" in unquestioning obedience it may become less useful than intimidation, manipulation, and fear. Especially when Gil would have a lot to lose if physical violence against his adult children was exposed (or his minor children, but they're less likely to speak out and there is a lot more social leeway for "disciplining" small children), but society has an awful lot more difficulty recognizing and condemning emotional abuse.

[Bye Bye Birdie]

2 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

snip

No, I think emotional blackmail and bribery are far more likely than physical violence to keep the adult children filming.  

 

THIS! Gil is a master manipulator, and it's much easier to manipulate someone you've had power over their whole life. The pressure they're under is incredible! Let me be clear- they are all still in the cult, very much so! But not all want to be on TV (and not because they don't want to be associated with IBPL, but just because they don't want to be on the damn TV!)... but they have NO say in it. The show is about a family with 19 kids, if 7 of them didn't pariticipate it'd be stupid. Plus, the weddings and babies are what gets the big numbers, and Gil knows it. So he needs kidults to be on the show, and he will use all the tricks he has to get them to do it. Ugh, I really do despise that man! 

[Palimpsest]

19 minutes ago, Bye Bye Birdie said:

THIS! Gil is a master manipulator, and it's much easier to manipulate someone you've had power over their whole life. The pressure they're under is incredible! Let me be clear- they are all still in the cult, very much so! But not all want to be on TV (and not because they don't want to be associated with IBPL, but just because they don't want to be on the damn TV!)... but they have NO say in it. The show is about a family with 19 kids, if 7 of them didn't pariticipate it'd be stupid. Plus, the weddings and babies are what gets the big numbers, and Gil knows it. So he needs kidults to be on the show, and he will use all the tricks he has to get them to do it. Ugh, I really do despise that man! 

Yes.  And let us not take emotional abuse lightly.  To misquote the old rhyme:  Sticks and stones may break my bones - but words can ALWAYS hurt me.

Emotional abuse and manipulation are incredibly destructive.

[nelliebelle1197]

On July 13, 2016 at 9:02 AM, VelociRapture said:

I feel strongly convicted about asking you for the story behind this. 

Send me candy and I will tell you, little lamb.

[Palimpsest]

36 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Send me candy and I will tell you, little lamb.

@VelociRapture No, don't send her candy.  It is bad for her and increases her aggressive tendencies.  Send me chocolate and I will spill the real beans  make something really scandalous up that will satisfy your curiosity.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Send me candy and I will tell you, little lamb.

@VelociRapture, this ones on me...

spill, NB!  And btw you win for creepiest sentence ever!  I simultaneously laughed out loud and had a desperate impulse to fling myself in front of VR to protect her.  

Spoiler

 

[nelliebelle1197]

I want the blue one! Charms!

Not a good story- Someone in another thread called Alyssa a superficial twit and I was attracted to that phrase like a squirrel to a slutty bird feeder. 

I added the hashtag in honor of her formerly active social media life. Then I begged and pleaded with powerful people to gimme it! Forever!

 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

14 hours ago, Casserole said:

Agreed. However, while I wish these kids being forced on TV could hear what Jacob is saying, their circumstances are so different. Did Jacob risk his relationship with his family/money/stability/home? Yes, and he's very brave. But I'm willing to bet he didn't also have to be fearful of being beaten into submission whether he was an "adult" or not. Jacob is also a member of the "real world." He's not afraid to go out and live on his own, get a job, go to school, grocery shop alone, etc. etc. What would a Bates kid do in his situation? I'd be fearful for what would happen to a still-at-home Bates kid refusing to do the show and defying Daddy.

You would think the now married-with-kids Bates' would get it and keep their kids away, but Daddy said the tv show was a blessing and they can't go against that 

If a kid refused to do the show in defiance of Gil, he'd be the one afraid...of the bad press.

if you honestly believe that he would physically harm an adult kid who had already showed defiance, when word of that getting out would tarnish their shiny facade fast and kill their cash cow....then you have less faith in Gil's grifting ability and the PR department of UP than I do.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

23 minutes ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I want the blue one! Charms!

Not a good story- Someone in another thread called Alyssa a superficial twit and I was attracted to that phrase like a squirrel to a slutty bird feeder. 

I added the hashtag in honor of her formerly active social media life. Then I begged and pleaded with powerful people to gimme it! Forever!

 

 

Now I'm just trying to figure out if the bird feeder him or herself is slutty, like bird feeder is a job title...or if it's an inanimate bird feeder that attracts slutty birds.

[JillyO]

6 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Now I'm just trying to figure out if the bird feeder him or herself is slutty, like bird feeder is a job title...or if it's an inanimate bird feeder that attracts slutty birds.

I think it's an inanimate bird feeder that's slutty because it gives it up for squirrels rather than just birds. But I may be wrong, so please correct me @nelliebelle1197. Either way, I will try to use this expression in every conversation from now on. Let's see how my day at work goes, shall we?

[Palimpsest]

Why did I just Google slutty bird feeders?  Send ferrets!

[VelociRapture]

13 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

Send me candy and I will tell you, little lamb.

Momma always said don't take candy from strangers. She said nothing about giving them candy though. Here's a totally not photoshopped picture of my actual non-googled van:

I have candy inside Nellie!!!!! Come join me in my totally not creepy in anyway at all white van!!! 

12 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

@VelociRapture No, don't send her candy.  It is bad for her and increases her aggressive tendencies.  Send me chocolate and I will spill the real beans  make something really scandalous up that will satisfy your curiosity.

Here you go!

I hope you don't have allergies. There may be some nuts in there. 

@HerNameIsBuffyYour efforts were valiant and appreciated. I think Nellie may actually need your protection more than I do though. 

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

I hope you don't have allergies. There may be some nuts in there. 

That is the very best kind of chocolate!  Puppiees!  Lots of Puppieees!

Are you going to hold me to my promise to make up a scandalous story?

 

[VelociRapture]

31 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

That is the very best kind of chocolate!  Puppiees!  Lots of Puppieees!

Are you going to hold me to my promise to make up a scandalous story?

 

Depends. You got anything entertaining?

[Palimpsest]

12 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Depends. You got anything entertaining?

Hmm.  I was thinking of exposing @nelliebelle1197's deepest darkest scandalous secret.

Spoiler

She's actually a really nice person! 

#superficial twit.

[VelociRapture]

9 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Hmm.  I was thinking of exposing @nelliebelle1197's deepest darkest scandalous secret.

  Hide contents

She's actually a really nice person! 

#superficial twit.

I absolutely refuse to believe this to be true. 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

13 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Now I'm just trying to figure out if the bird feeder him or herself is slutty, like bird feeder is a job title...or if it's an inanimate bird feeder that attracts slutty birds.

I have a slutty bird feeder.

It accommodates 24/7.

It is non-discriminating - it is open to anyone.

The squirrels take it from the top, the doves from the bottom, and some of the birds prefer it sideways.

It's always needing to be filled.

The only good thing I can say is - except for the small ones - it works best one at a time . . . . 

[Mela99]

Can I add myself to the list of people willing to spill for candy? I'm a judgmental cow, I could tell stories.