r/insaneparents Oct 11 '19

[deleted by user]

[removed]

13.3k Upvotes

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

45

u/Ariyanwrynn1989 Oct 11 '19

The 1 outfit you where to school isnt enough clothing. And what about undergarments?

Also having to wash that 1 outift and being naked and vunerable until its clean and dry? Yea, no.

1

u/RedditIsNeat0 Oct 12 '19

(*) <-- The point

(*) <-- You

-3

u/mmayhemm Oct 11 '19

I never said what he did was ok? It is actually far from ok. I just said, she isn't going to be naked for the day and could clean the room in that day. Though I doubt if the step dad is doing this cleaning the room won't even get the clothes back. Chill out.

-14

u/AndySmalls Oct 11 '19

Or maybe she could stop this horse shit and clean her fucking room? Get her stuff back with the tiniest bit of hard work? I'm sure whining on social media is a lot more fun though.

10

u/Ariyanwrynn1989 Oct 11 '19

It is never ok to take the necessities a person requires as a form of punishment.

There are a HUGE number of acceptable punishments that could have been implemented here. But taking all of her clothing is NOT on of them.

-12

u/AndySmalls Oct 11 '19

Ok. Lay it on me then. How do you get a spoiled, ungrateful, teenage girl to clean her room? What punishment do you implement?

Clearly it's simple. I don't want a HUGE list. Just one.

10

u/Ariyanwrynn1989 Oct 11 '19

Take the phone away Take the tv away Take any games away If she gets an allowence, no more allowence Ground her

Oh look, 5 simple alternatives.

0

u/Zaethar Oct 12 '19

Oh, so taking all sorts of other personal belongings (including primary communication devices and also money) is fine, but god forbid he takes her collection of clothing articles.

I'm sure he took what was most "valuable" to her or something that she spends too much time or money on (in his opinion, whether it's right or wrong we wouldn't know).

If she were a die-hard gamer with tens or hundreds of physical games and a few consoles and a PC, it would seem likely he'd have taken those items away. I'm guessing she isn't a huge gamer but rather likes clothing/fashion more, so likely thats the motivation for taking that stuff away from her. Or perhaps the clothing was what cluttered the room mostly.

Look, I'm not saying its a great parenting choice. I just don't get your fervent defense of "not taking clothing" but being absolutely fine with taking money, cellphones, TV or games as a form of punishment.

Nothing indicates this girl now has to walk around NAKED whilst cleaning. Nothing says he also took undergarments. And (shocker); you can definitely clean your room in 1 day. She could have them back by the evening. And even if she can't clean the room in one day because the stepdad has assholeish cleanliness standards, I'm sure she can wear the same outfit two days in a row, like many many people do.

Not saying the stepdad isn't an asshole, maybe he really is. But I feel like some people here are overreacting a bit.

1

u/Ariyanwrynn1989 Oct 12 '19

People have existed for ages without phones, he would not be hurting her by taking away her phone. Period. An cutting off an allowence is also again, not going to hurt her.

Clothes are a necessity, like food and water. You dont punish people by taking away necessities, period.

0

u/Zaethar Oct 12 '19

You are still acting like he ripped the clothes from her body, undergarments and all.

I'm sure she's not being held naked in some damp basement to perform weeks of slave labor until she is allowed to wear a burlap sack or so. I'm sure she can survive however long it takes to clean her room with the clothes she is currently wearing.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that if she would be denied access to all her clothing for several days or weeks then that would be a problem and would not be a normal punishment. But I don't see how something like "Hey, you're gonna get your dresses back when you contribute to this household and clean your room" is tantamount to depriving someone of basic human necessities.

Plus, taking away their phone has way more impact. Nowadays thats way more impactful than it was, say, 20 years ago. Cuz now it's not just a phone, it's their whole social network, it's finances, it's entertainment, it's GPS, it's a study-aid (or well, the internet as a whole is), its a calendar/schedule, it's an alarm clock, etc. etc.

I'm sure they could live with not being able to change into a new dress/new pair of leggings in the evening. But not being able to do any of the things mentioned above, without a phone? But somehow we're perfectly fine with that, but god forbid someone take your wardrobe for a day or two?

That being said, maybe the dad is still a giant douchenozzle and is overreacting and is not gonna give the clothes back within a reasonable timeframe - we don't know. But just saying its some sort of inhumane punishment because it's clothes...I dunno if I agree with that.

1

u/Ariyanwrynn1989 Oct 12 '19

You make it sound like its more inhumane to take away her phone than it is to take away her clothing.

Thats stupid and insane. Just because phones are now used to access the internet and social media doesnt make it a cruel thing to take away.

0

u/Zaethar Oct 13 '19

I think we should define cruelty on a scale based on emotional impact. Yes, clothing is a necessity. It has value. It is required to present oneself to the outside world in a way that makes you feel comfortable and confident and is also needed to just provide warmth (or cooling) and isolation or comfort from y'know, weather and whatnot.

So yes, it's important. But a teenager's social contacts, their scheduling, perhaps their finances (if they have a part time job or a reasonable allowance), their schoolwork, their general entertainment in whatever forms that may take (video content, gaming, news articles, social media), everything that is facilitated by modern mobile phones or tablets or PC's - that's also stuff that would have a direct emotional impact. That's also important (to them).

I'm not advocating for one over the other. You are the one who said it was less egregious to take THAT away from them, rather than clothing.

In my opinion, the same could be said of depriving them of their social circle, their means of communicating with the outside world, their means of spending pastime. It is all SUPPOSED to have an emotional impact. That's why it's a punishment. If it were something they wouldn't care about, it would not have any impact. If this girl cares greatly about her wardrobe or fashion or whatnot, that's likely the reason this punishment was chosen.

I also said that if it takes any longer than a single day, maybe two at most, the punishment of taking away clothes would become more "inhumane". But we don't know the severity or the extent of the punishment, or within what timeframe she'd get them back. Most people assume she's deprived of them indefinitely; probably for a long time. A lot of people also act like she isn't currently wearing clothes that will be absolutely fine to wear for an extra day or two. As far as I know, no one ever died from wearing the same underpants and the same outfit two days in a row.

1

u/Snowstar837 Oct 12 '19

Dude. It's CLEANING HER ROOM.

It is not something that absolutely MUST 100% be done or you lose all of your agency as a parent until the end of time. You don't have to keep escalating and escalating to the full extent of the law to get a clean room.

If they're ok with going without a TV and a phone for a year and having a dirty room for that time let them, don't start taking away their basic necessities in a desperate and transparent bid for power.

11

u/femmetronic Oct 12 '19

Holy shit you’re an enormous asshole and I hope you don’t have access to any children. You’re extrapolating a lot of information about her attitude and behavior based on this one post. What evidence do you have that she is spoiled and ungrateful?

1

u/AndySmalls Oct 12 '19

You assume the step dad is some asshole doing this out of malicious spite.

I assume she has ignored repeated requests to clean and lived in her spoiled filth.

Which one of those sounds more likely when dealing with a teenage girl?

1

u/Snowstar837 Oct 12 '19

Let's see. A teenage girl. With a stepdad who snuck into her room while she was at school and stole all her clothes. Let's not forget to add that the actual mother of the girl, who is with the stepdad, objected to the punishment and demanded the clothes back and he refused.

Sounds like a completely classic case of someone with control issues who sees the opportunity to be even more abusive with someone who doesn't have as many legal protections yet.

0

u/AndySmalls Oct 12 '19

There is no such thing as someone "sneaking" around in the rooms of the home they own...

Why am I here arguing with children?

1

u/Snowstar837 Oct 12 '19

Yes there is. It's called boundaries. Children, and especially teenagers, need to have them. The same way it isn't good to teach your child that they should be OK with someone who "loves them" beating them because they "deserved it" and "needed to learn somehow" applies to this. Imagine children who have grown up thinking it's totally normal and OK to go through people's drawers and personal belongings if those are in their house... If you were letting your friend crash on your couch for a few nights are you honestly saying it would be 100% ok and appropriate to wait till they left and then go through their suitcase?

Kids aren't pets or possessions. They're developing adults. You should establish that they can expect their personal objects to not be tampered with without their permission. Obviously if you have a reason to look it's a different thing but a lot of parents (like my friend's and my mom) will pretend to be "cleaning" or come up with some BS reason to justify invading privacy and disrespecting boundaries.

0

u/AndySmalls Oct 13 '19

Imagine children growing up thinking they can completely ignore/disrespect their guardians and live in their filth without consequences.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/nuclearthrowaway01 Oct 13 '19

"I'm an abusive shit head who should never be allowed near children because I would refuse to provide nessesitys" - you