The Pearls And Children's Privacy

[kb2]

I'm not sure why only the girls eventually had locks on their doors. Why wouldn't the boys want an equal amount of privacy? Seems like another way to say, "Protect your precious lady-parts, even against your own family! But man-parts, whatever."

[sassycupcake]

I'm not sure why only the girls eventually had locks on their doors. Why wouldn't the boys want an equal amount of privacy? Seems like another way to say, "Protect your precious lady-parts, even against your own family! But man-parts, whatever."

It's probably because only boys are in danger of having a sexual drive/masturbation. With the girls, you only have to worry about them keeping secrets in their heart, and having a lock on the door is a small price to pay to keep them from accidentally defrauding Daddy or a brother.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

People, even many non-fundies, can get really crazy about children's privacy. I believe that it was over on GOMI last week that I read an account of yet another parent who punished their kids with Facebook - the daughter, age 12, took a picture of herself holding a bottle of vodka with the caption "I wish I could drink this." Her mom found it and made her take a picture holding a sign saying she was no longer allowed online, and then posted it to her FB.* In her tirade about why this was good parenting, she made the remark that she was not violating her kid's privacy, because only she and her husband had any right to privacy, and her kids could have it when they moved out. This made me SOOOO angry. I don't advocate letting a kid sit on the computer with the door closed all day, but by age 12 a kid should be given some privacy - not only because you have to respect your kid's individuality, but also because it's a good way of teaching boundaries, not only for oneself but for others.

Of course, fundies WANT kids with no boundaries because they are training them in absolute submission - but not all parents who refuse to give their kids privacy are fundies, and it seems counterproductive. But in general, I hate people who love to brag about strict they are with their kids, and who assume that everyone secretly "knows" that they are correct. Don't tell me all proudly how often you hit, yell at, and humiliate your kid - I am the opposite of impressed.

*I was a little on the fence when I first heard the story, because I though the kid had gotten drunk and posted photos of it, which is definitely not ok. But this just seems harmless - wouldn't it have been better just to have a conversation about appropriate usage of social media. Maybe it's because I'm Russian and I don't see alcohol as a huge gigantic fucking deal, but I don't see this kid's offense being so grave.

[SpeakNow]

This is the reason they claim, but taken in context, I'm not inclined to believe them. If it were just about getting ready, why the sink? Why not just use mirrors on the wall? I don't get ready in my bathroom, and I don't have a sink anywhere else (except the kitchen). And I don't spend very much time in the bathroom in spite of having a sink there.

Not trying to be a Duggar leghumper but...

My uncle has a lot of children (7) and 3 of the girls share one bedroom with a bathroom that connects to another bedroom (I think it's called a jack-and-jill bath) that the other 3 girls share. He put the sinks outside the bathroom so the girls would have more room when brushing their teeth and washing their faces in the morning. He thought it would be a bit crowded with so many people in the bathroom all at once. Sinks in the bedroom give people more elbow room. I actually do think that's why the Duggars did that as well.

[Kitty]

Don't the boys also have a sink or two in their bedroom? My dorm at Governor's School had a sink in it; it beat trying to find room at the communal bathrooms to brush one's teeth. With 9 girls sharing one bedroom, I don't blame the Duggars for putting a sink in the bedroom. Of course, I question their wisdom putting 9 girls, ages 2 to 22, in one bedroom. All those extra rooms in the house- the offices, the sewing room, the guest room- could be used as extra bedrooms for both guys and girls.

Not trying to be a Duggar leghumper but...

My uncle has a lot of children (7) and 3 of the girls share one bedroom with a bathroom that connects to another bedroom (I think it's called a jack-and-jill bath) that the other 3 girls share. He put the sinks outside the bathroom so the girls would have more room when brushing their teeth and washing their faces in the morning. He thought it would be a bit crowded with so many people in the bathroom all at once. Sinks in the bedroom give people more elbow room. I actually do think that's why the Duggars did that as well.

[Elle]

This is the reason they claim, but taken in context, I'm not inclined to believe them. If it were just about getting ready, why the sink? Why not just use mirrors on the wall? I don't get ready in my bathroom, and I don't have a sink anywhere else (except the kitchen). And I don't spend very much time in the bathroom in spite of having a sink there.

When I get ready, I'll use the sink. Sometimes I'll smudge my makeup and need a little water to wipe it off, or a little water on a brush to help smooth part of my hair.

My grandparents' house had three bathrooms, and one of them had the sinks and mirrors (it had two) outside the sliding door that had the toilet and tub. There was another door that closed it all off to the hallway. At my house, my parents' bathroom setup was similar, toilet and shower inside the door, with the wink and mirror right outside. It worked well! No having to wait for someone to finish using the toilet to have to go stand in the fumes to use some water from the sink to fix your hair of makeup.

I see no problem at all with the sinks being right outside. None.

Also something else to think about, when you have so many kids, it takes a while to brush teeth. One person using the toilet can hold everyone up just to brush their teeth. One sink closed in with the toilet just isn't practical. But sinks outside means they can get through those things quicker. Try get 9 or 10 kids in each dorm to do their teeth one at a time while hoping no one needs to go to the bathroom, and it can take have an hour just go get through that.

[Elle]

People, even many non-fundies, can get really crazy about children's privacy. I believe that it was over on GOMI last week that I read an account of yet another parent who punished their kids with Facebook - the daughter, age 12, took a picture of herself holding a bottle of vodka with the caption "I wish I could drink this." Her mom found it and made her take a picture holding a sign saying she was no longer allowed online, and then posted it to her FB.* In her tirade about why this was good parenting, she made the remark that she was not violating her kid's privacy, because only she and her husband had any right to privacy, and her kids could have it when they moved out. This made me SOOOO angry. I don't advocate letting a kid sit on the computer with the door closed all day, but by age 12 a kid should be given some privacy - not only because you have to respect your kid's individuality, but also because it's a good way of teaching boundaries, not only for oneself but for others.

The tricky thing is that parents are still on the hook for whatever their kids do. So how do you balance privacy with knowing enough to make sure they're not going to get you in trouble? Some parents take allowing privacy to an extreme (the Columbine shooters' parents reported hearing unusual sounds behind those closed doors, and sure enough...), but by taking it to the other, by denying it altogether, you're going to have kids learning better ways to keep bigger secrets.

My parents respected our journals no matter what. That was the one thing off limits no matter what. But our rooms were different. IF they had reason to believe we were doing something dangerous, IF they had reason, then they could search. But not just because. This seems to be a good balance. As long as we weren't having with druggies or gang members, then there wasn't really reason to think we were up to no good. My parents searched my brother's room once, when word got back to them he was smoking cigarettes. And sure enough, they found some. Of course what's hypocritical is they were smokers. But they didn't want us to do the same. Otherwise, no searching. And journals still remained off limits.

But online social media brings into play a whole new problem. Personally I think it's a good idea for the family to share each other's passwords and have mutual respect with them. My husband and I know each other's passwords, but mutually respect each other and trust the other to not snoop. With teens, the concern is that there are some pure assholes out there, adults even, who try to hurt kids. I would want my daughter's passwords because, if something happened and she disappeared, we could look for clues. But a lot of parents would probably snoop.

Access isn't a bad thing as long as it's not abused and privacy is respected unless there's a damned good reason to cross the line (kid goes missing, there's reason to think drug use is going on, etc.).

But the Pearls, Duggars, etc., straight up have policies where no privacy in any way is to be allowed, even their private thoughts, and that's awful.

[Beammeup]

Not that I'm defending the Duggars, but a lot of hotel rooms have the sinks/mirror combo outside of the toilet/shower area, so one person can do their hair or brush their teeth while someone else showers. I've lived in dorms with this set up as well.

However the utter lack of privacy given to the children shows that they can't trust the children not to sin, they must force them not to.

[JaChelle Sugar]

I thought Rebekah had married Gabe Anast but the article say's it's written by Rebekah and Gabe Anast and she mentioned 'my brother Gabe'.

[debrand]

I thought Rebekah had married Gabe Anast but the article say's it's written by Rebekah and Gabe Anast and she mentioned 'my brother Gabe'.

Unlike the names John or Michael, Gabriel isn't a very common name for a boy. So, it seems unlikely that Rebekah would have a brother and a husband named Gabe and yet, she does. Gabe Anast and Gabe Pearl are two different people

[Mela99]

We've discussed this on the old Free Jinger Forum but I thought it would be interesting for newbies to read.

http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/safegu ... -children/

Thank about it. Their father would barge into their room if it took them more then five minutes to dress. That must have been humiliating.

The article also includes a description of Michael not helping a woman who was being beaten because he wanted to give his children a lesson about 'pimps' and 'prostitutes'

You can't be serious... Any woman who is being beaten must be a hooker?

::rubs eyes:: Doing nothing should be a crime... no matter what.

[Elle]

You can't be serious... Any woman who is being beaten must be a hooker?

::rubs eyes:: Doing nothing should be a crime... no matter what.

It's nauseating that either a woman who is being beaten must be a hooker or that a hooker being beaten doesn't deserve help. In both situations, what is being said is a woman must be doing wrong, so deserves having the hell beaten out of her.

Also a lot of hookers hook because they can't make ends meet otherwise. Some hookers do it because they like to (when I was getting married, I was on some wedding forums, and one woman was a hooker who didn't want to give it up, even though her fiancé made more than enough to support them both, and so wasn't going to, but I know this is rare), but the vast majority feel backed into a corner. Rather than condemning these women, what should be done is the question asked is there something that could have been done to help prevent that from having happened. Was an ability to stay in school not possible? Were there enough jobs in the area she lives that would pay the bills? A REAL man, or anyone with a heart at all, wouldn't have thought of that as a moment to "teach" a kid about that's what happens if you do evil (the evil was from the one beating, not the victim). Anyone with a heart would have stepped in if it was safe to do so (smaller or weaker people probably would have been hurt, but a big strapping man probably could have done so), or have at least run for help or to call 911.

There is a petition going around right now. Safeway has put someone on unpaid leave because he intervened when a man was beating his pregnant girlfriend, and the employee got between them and saved her. Safeway's stance is he shouldn't have done anything more than called security and wait for someone else to get there. That man who stepped in did the right thing. He didn't judge, he protected someone who wasn't capable of defending herself against someone who was hurting her. The petition is to reinstate his job and to pay him the month's wages he's lost.

[JaChelle Sugar]

Unlike the names John or Michael, Gabriel isn't a very common name for a boy. So, it seems unlikely that Rebekah would have a brother and a husband named Gabe and yet, she does. Gabe Anast and Gabe Pearl are two different people

Thanks debrand. Guess I suppressed the memory forgot the details of the Pearl's poor kid's names.

[debrand]

Once during a trip to Memphis with our family, I recalled seeing on a downtown street a half-dressed woman being jerked around and slapped by a man in a pink suit.

“She’s a prostitute,†Dad told us. “He’s a pimp. She works for him, selling her body to lascivious men who will burn in hell, so that she can continue to buy drugs to satisfy her addiction. God hates prostitution and pornography, kids. It destroys lives and families.†We kids stared in horror at the man and woman who were now stumbling into a building with neon signs and blacked out windows.

“Do you know what pornography is?†Dad persisted. We stared at him, still shaken by what we had just seen. “It is photographs of naked men and women… and other things I won’t even tell you about.â€

Instead of helping or calling the police, Michael used the woman's suffering to teach his children about porn. Prostitutes do not deserve to be beaten. However, she might have been a rape victim or a abused wife. Michael had no idea who she was.

I've often wondered how he knew the use of that particular building. It wouldn't surprise me if Michael had some weird perversions that he kept hidden. And why did he have his children in a bad part of town?

[Mommy22alyns]

The Pearls are among the most vile people on the planet.

[moreorlessnu]

Someone can take away your physical privacy, but they can't take away your emotional privacy. I wonder if the reaction to not having personal privacy is to maintain an emotional privacy. I wonder how this factors into having a happy marriage when one of the elements of the partnership is choosing to share physical and emotional privacy w/ another person.

[Beammeup]

They sure try to invade their emotional privacy if they are reading their children's prayer journals and have taught their children that they should not even have private thoughts, that to do so is a sin and rebellion.

[bananacat]

Well apparently no one knows how to read, or else everyone is intentionally ignoring what I wrote. I don't think that sinks outside the bathroom are necessarily bad, but in the context of everything else, it definitely seems like an attempt to reduce privacy in the Duggar household.

I know that some hotels have sinks outside the bathrooms and I think it's gross. I have to touch the bathroom door handle before I can wash my hands? That's a disgusting set-up and I usually just leave the bathroom door open if I'm the only one in the room when I have to stay in a cheap hotel like that. I also don't understand why people need sinks to brush their hair. I could never do make-up in my bathroom because my stuff would constantly fall in the sink while I'm doing it. Also, I prefer to sit while doing it instead of standing in front of a mirror.

[JaChelle Sugar]

or if your sharing a hotel room how you have to brush your teeth in front of your mate. Ewww.

[Beammeup]

I recently stayed at a very expensive hotel. The suite was set up this way. Several very expensive suites I've stayed in have had a separate toilet closet where the sink is outside in the bathroom proper area. Really isn't a reason to get defensive.

Men might like a sink and mirror combo to shave, and women might want a sink and mirror combo to do their hair because they use water to style their hair, or they want to wash the product they put into their hair off their hands.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

The tricky thing is that parents are still on the hook for whatever their kids do. So how do you balance privacy with knowing enough to make sure they're not going to get you in trouble? Some parents take allowing privacy to an extreme (the Columbine shooters' parents reported hearing unusual sounds behind those closed doors, and sure enough...), but by taking it to the other, by denying it altogether, you're going to have kids learning better ways to keep bigger secrets.

My parents respected our journals no matter what. That was the one thing off limits no matter what. But our rooms were different. IF they had reason to believe we were doing something dangerous, IF they had reason, then they could search. But not just because. This seems to be a good balance. As long as we weren't having with druggies or gang members, then there wasn't really reason to think we were up to no good. My parents searched my brother's room once, when word got back to them he was smoking cigarettes. And sure enough, they found some. Of course what's hypocritical is they were smokers. But they didn't want us to do the same. Otherwise, no searching. And journals still remained off limits.

But online social media brings into play a whole new problem. Personally I think it's a good idea for the family to share each other's passwords and have mutual respect with them. My husband and I know each other's passwords, but mutually respect each other and trust the other to not snoop. With teens, the concern is that there are some pure assholes out there, adults even, who try to hurt kids. I would want my daughter's passwords because, if something happened and she disappeared, we could look for clues. But a lot of parents would probably snoop.

Access isn't a bad thing as long as it's not abused and privacy is respected unless there's a damned good reason to cross the line (kid goes missing, there's reason to think drug use is going on, etc.).

But the Pearls, Duggars, etc., straight up have policies where no privacy in any way is to be allowed, even their private thoughts, and that's awful.

I think that having SOMETHING that is the child's own and only their own is necessary - so the journals are a good example of that. I doubt that any of the Duggar kids, let alone the Maxwells, are allowed to have private journals. Same thing with rooms - it's one thing to know that your parents will look if they suspect that you have drugs, and another to always have to have your door open and be prepared for random spot checks.

It seems that some of the parents that we see using Facebook and other social media to "punish" their kids are the type I mentioned before - obsessed with controlling, belittling, and punishing, and so freaked out that they can't control every move their kid makes online that they find a way to assert themselves into the kid's online world in this incredibly humiliating and dictatorial manner. I just think that there has to be a middle ground between monitoring online activity (which is definitely necessary) and being that parent.

Personally, I got into a lot of shenanigans as a result of the (still young) Internet as a teen, and while nothing bad happened, I did put myself into some dangerous situations - so I think maybe my mom respected my privacy just a bit too much.

[Evilbad]

My son is just getting to the age where he wants privacy, and has been closing his door. I couldn't imagine taking that away from him, as much as I know it means my baby is growing up and changing, itis his right to privacy. Now, online presence is another beast altogether, and I have no qualms about monitoring what he does. I have had to work with investigators on more than one child porn case, and it's horrifying knowing the types of predators that are out there.

My mom was pretty whacked and would read my diary and then punish me for what I wrote, so I stopped keeping one. She had zero boundaries and I despised it. My son deserves dignity and privacy and whatever things he wants to do behind closed doors. Frankly, it's a lot less traumatizing for all of us if we don't know about it :lol

I keep thinking about the scene in transformers "Sams special time" or "Sams happy time" if I need a reminder :lol

[DarkAnts]

My son is just getting to the age where he wants privacy, and has been closing his door. I couldn't imagine taking that away from him, as much as I know it means my baby is growing up and changing, itis his right to privacy. Now, online presence is another beast altogether, and I have no qualms about monitoring what he does. I have had to work with investigators on more than one child porn case, and it's horrifying knowing the types of predators that are out there.

I think its important for parents to monitor their children's internet use. There are lots of dangerous sites and people on the internet. Keep an eye on the sites they visit and the people they talk to. You can do this will giving them some privacy. My parents would not let us send emails or chat with strangers (I was the only kid in my third grade class that had internet aol 2.0 baby!)). But, we could send emails to friends and family. We were limited on the types of sites we could visit until we were teens. Even then, I am sure there were limits.

I do get annoyed with parents who expect me to act a certain way on the internet because their special snowflake might be on the site that I am on. I follow the TOU for each site that I visit, but I wont censer myself just because parents are too lazy to monitor their children's internet. If you object to the material on a site then put it on the block list for your kids. The other annoyance is when a parent is viewing a site that snarks on stuff and sometimes contains phallic images and words. They know it may contain stuff and yet, they are still viewing the site while their children are in the room. The parent asks everyone to stop posting things that they dont want their kids to see. The parent then gets upset when we all tell them to stop viewing the site if their children are in the room. They try to make excuses for why they have to be on the site. In the end, their only excuse is being a bad parent. The site would be there when the children are down for a nap or asleep at night. No need to view it when children are present.

[bananacat]

If I had a kid, I would never use social networking sites to punish or humiliate them. If they broke the rules, then they wouldn't be allowed to use that site, or maybe not the internet at all (except for school) if it was bad enough. It's as simple as that. There's no need to make a big public display of their punishment and the strikes more as revenge than actual punishment.

[Olivia]

I've been reading a fantastic book about introversion, Quiet, and it finally clicked for me part of what seems so awful about these fundie families. From the lack of privacy to the concept of "tomato-staking", it might not be so awful for the extroverted child, but it'd be pure psychological misery for an introvert. As a kid, I already needed a lot of alone time, just as I do now as an adult. One of the things discussed in the book is how introversion is often treated as a character fault or essentially punished in certain cultural settings, even though introverts have a great set of strengths themselves, and that seems very true in the fundie community.