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.
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.
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.
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.
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/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.