How about some damn ANSWERS.

[Nihilanthic]

Getting people to disclose and divulge helps establish a dominant - submissive kind of relationship. Same for threats and coersion. "Knowing your place" come to mind?

Withholding support and affection until they fall in line is another way to enforce that kind of power hierarchy.

I'm sure the moral fundys here are gonna complain (like I care... :roll:) but here goes. I found out about this 'issue' just a little after a friend first revealed the whole BDSM subculture to me.

It took a while to 'get it' as being a good thing  and not torture, but the same methods are *OBVIOUSLY* able to be misued to screw with people, and kids. But it seems the only things done with all of this is slave-training in the nonsexual sense, though sometimes accusations come out that indicate some people take it all the way through to sexual submission.

If the person enjoys it and consents its fun for adults, but forcing it on anyone, ESPECIALLY a child, is complete misery.

The parents enjoy it because:

1. in the seminars the stress, and then the release after it and the euphoria at the end is quite a rush. That can get addictive.

2. they get programmed into their dominant role over the household and enjoy having control and blaming everything on the kid. Whats better than being in control?

3. they get what they want!

As far as the children in there go, they can either be defiant and face further torment, act submissive and if they pull it off get out, or totally submit to the program by choice or by being broken.

Thats not therapeutic! If thats therapy, then I could go kidnap some cute girl and give her 'tough love' and then charge her for it... but it doesnt work that way, does it?

Once you get broken or willingly submit to the whole mindfuck you'll find yourself enjoying being the submissive and doing as told and be blissful in completing your tasks and dumping all your shit on other people. Dominantion is another rush all together - but thats what the parents, coaches, people who work in the programs, or higher-level students get to do.

And just incase anyone was wondering, I'm dom, not sub. So yeah I know how this works in your mind.

The BIG difference between me and them is that they can stop anytime they want, they're really getting what they want and nothing they dont, and its a game, not a new reality or life-change, when they play with me, vs unconsentual abduction and training in  a program.

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn?t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
--Protestant minister Martin Neimoller

[Anonymous]

***Getting people to disclose and divulge helps establish a dominant - submissive kind of relationship. Same for threats and coersion. "Knowing your place" come to mind?

Sometimes. Doesn't have to. But appears to be a basic MO in the industry/seminars.

Withholding support and affection until they fall in line is another way to enforce that kind of power hierarchy.

Always. I think people who do this are a tad sadistic and haven't a clue how to cooperate or communicate, forget honest communication.

[Anonymous]

Where in the HELL do you get the idea that parents or staff withhold love and support until the teen "falls into line?"  The love and support is what's constant.  Are there parents that fall into withholding love and support as punishment?  I'm sure there are, but if they've gone to any of the seminars, they know that doesn't work. Parents have the right to be parents and make decisions for their child, until they are an adult.  Don't like it, sorry. Those decisions, for the most part, do NOT include withholding love or support.  

As far as sharing stuff in or out of a program:

I wouldn't share with my pool playing, dart shooting co-worker about my great yoga class, nor would a person in therapy share that with anyone other than a good friend or family member.

People can usually sense who would be open or not either before they start talking or within seconds of talking.

[Antigen]

On 2005-01-06 18:42:00, Anonymous wrote:

Parents have the right to be parents and make decisions for their child, until they are an adult. Don't like it, sorry. Those decisions, for the most part, do NOT include withholding love or support.

Except during the first couple months in the program, thereafter if the kid is on restriction, during the parent/child seminars if the parent hasn't complied so far and in any situation where parents are encouraged to call in to staff or other Program parents for advice because they don't know what to do next. Then, of course, there are those situations when TOUGHLOVE dogma dicates severing financial support, evicting the kid from the family home or returning them to the program.

Except for those situation, sure, right, WWASP and other coercive rehabs thoroughly respect a parent's right to be a parent, whatever.

As far as sharing stuff in or out of a program:

I wouldn't share with my pool playing, dart shooting co-worker about my great yoga class, nor would a person in therapy share that with anyone other than a good friend or family member.

People can usually sense who would be open or not either before they start talking or within seconds of talking.

LOL, sure YOU have that prerogative (except for during seminars and maybe a few other occasions). But your kid's alternatives to divulging all their innermost secrets may well be either making shit up and hoping against hope they don't get busted or facing various kinds of punishment, including denial of contact with you. I've been there and listened to others who have too. You can't make this shit up!

Don't laugh when you leave this courtroom, thinking you have beat the system because you have looked these things up yourself. We are going to get you down the road.
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

[Deborah]

Pretty standard for parents to relinquish control(abdicate responsibility) to the program.
In my son's program, and many I've read about, you either 'work the program' or you're forced to withdrawn your child- labled 'advarsarial'.

In one case, the parent was 'asked' to withdraw her child, then was denied a refund of pre-paid tuition because he was 'withdrawn'. That's some pretty lame-ass manipulation, straight from the pros at it.

Working the program does not allow for asking 'too many' questions, or challenging any decision they make. You're either their ally in torturing your kid or you walk. No independent thinkers wanted.

As we've heard here, if a W parent refuses to attend the seminars they are not allowed physical visits with their child. That anyone would tolerate being manipulated by this goes beyond my sense of reason.

[Anonymous]

The parents, at least most of them, are not being manipulated into going to the first seminar.  Yes, it is a requirement to go to the Parent/Child workshops.  The purpose?  To have learned some valuable communication and honesty "tools" that opened up a good place for all of us.  No one is told they have to attend the subsequent seminars including the Keys to Success seminars: Understanding Addiction, Relationships, Effective Communication, Living in Abundance, etc.  All of them are valuable.  

Nothing in the beginning of my son's process stopped me from loving him or withholding my support.  I'm sorry if other program's do this.

If a kid turns 18, chooses to leave, then some parents are giving their child a clear message that since they are now an adult, they will no longer be responsible for their financial welfare.  Don't confuse that with withholding their love.  It's not a water faucet.  The love and emotional support are there.  The child is no longer a child, but an adult making their own life choices and wouldn't leave the program unless they know they can make it without their parent's money.  Money does not equal love and support. They just need to trust themselves enough to know they don't need the money and they can make it on their own.  It is used as a control issue with some parents desparate to see their child graduate and to complete this powerful program.  They can see what completion has created for the graduates and what choosing out has for others. I don't agree with the control.  I do agree with the ultimate purpose.

You can't control your parents, only yourself and your choices.

[Anonymous]

Deborah, forgot to address your statement about parents not being allowed physical visits with their child if they don't attend the seminars. Not true.  THey just won't be invited to attend the parent/child workshops if they haven't completed the first one.  Visits are not a part of that.

[Nihilanthic]

Not manipulated into the seminar... but not told about whats really going on before hand.

Total lack of informed consent.

Also, being totally cut off from you and locked up in some facility after being tricked there or kidnapped there is stopping love and support. I dont consider captivity a good thing.

Furthermore, your excuse for leaving the program = not being supported when you turn 18 and have *NO* way to get a decent job of supporting yourself after being STUCK IN A PROGRAM FOR MONTHS TO YEARS *TERRIBLY* amusing.

From the moment you walk into or are taken into a program your life is on HOLD. A kid not stuck in one might very well be able to support themself at 18.

Having had a shitty or nonexistant education, no job experience, and no experience in the REAL world, only in the program's universe, makes them utterly dependant on the program or their parents.

Considering it would be hard as hell for them to be able to manage getting a job and a roomie in the wake of that "powerful" program experience, I find your excuse about totally cutting off support if they decide they want out of that dog and pony show as them "deciding they can make it on their own" a real hoot.

No, sorry. Its bullshit. If you hadn't kept them locked up for years, it would be different. But, well, no, you TOTALLY cut them off from loved ones, friends, the chance to network and meet people, having a real job, school, etc, so yeah, they're basically stuck with you and that awful program.

This little tidbit out of you is particularly interesting: "They can see what completion has created for the graduates and what choosing out has for others. I don't agree with the control. I do agree with the ultimate purpose. "

How amusing EVERYONE says the same thing, just in different words... if they're involved in the programs? So they have to complete to be well off, and 'choosing out' is bad? Thats the same old "deadorinjail"/can only be saved through the program dogma in new packaging.

"You can't control your parents, only yourself and your choices." <- couldn't have said it better myself. Maybe it would be a lot harder to start off with *NOTHING* having had those essential years of their lives stolen away from them, and then the almost essential parental support after 18 that most kids get, but they'd be away from the environment of being forced to submit, the pain and punishments, the seminars, and their parents.

You programmies are broken records.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.
-- Anonymous

[Perrigaud]

I disagree about the whole being in a program and having no "real life experience" = dependancy on the program and/or parents. When I came home I didn't choose to follow my "home contract". My parents gave me an "exit plan" which basically was "you're on your own, good luck, we'll be here to talk but not to give any money." I ended up getting hired at a job that paid $15 an hour, paying my own rent, my own insurance, and so on. It's all on case by case basis. Some kids probably would have a hard time. I was in the program since I was 16 and left at the age of 18. I believe that everyone needs to relieve their stress somehow and someway. I used to beat it out. [ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-01-07 00:47 ]

[Anonymous]

Niles - you just don't get it.  You read it, but you ignore it.  If you're lumping all programs into this, cutting a kid off from "real life" may be true.  I'm specifically talking about Cross Creek.  From the middle of their process, they go into town, play sports, go hiking or other activities. They come home a few times before graduation.  Their on campus workshops include life skills like keeping a checkbook, job interviewing, and many things that help them that even the public schools here don't provide.  No shitty education there.  In fact it was much better.  THey have to maintain an A or B to pass.  All credits transfer to their home school.  

"Programmies" are a broken record? Read all your past posts - not only broken, but warped.  Like I said way back in the beginning, you don't listen.

 :wink:

[Deborah]

The damn frustrating thing about program parents is the 'all or nothing' mentality. My way or the highway. No middle ground. That's the MO of people who live in fear.

So, you say W parents are required to take the first seminar. We have agreement. And the consequence if they opt out? There are certainly those who claim that they weren't allowed contact and were harrangued to attend.

I imagine this will sound rude as hell. But, I don't hear 'honesty' when I read posts by program parents. I read confusion of terms, fear (that their kid will die without the program), more fear (that the parent will end up with a financially dependent kid), and the most covert forms of manipulation known to humans.

It's 2005 on planet Earth. Most parents expect to help their young adult offspring get started. At the very least, their door is open if their kid is homeless or hungry. In terms of financial aid for college the feds consider them dependents until their 24, as I recently learned. What I hear is the parents inability to set boundaries, even after lengthy time in the program. There is a difference between allowing someone to be dependent and providing support and guidance. Perhaps you can't define the difference and therefore must take such a staunch stance in order to avoid being 'used'.

BTW, Perri, where did you land a job for $15/hr, just out of a BM facility? That is certainly the exception, not the rule. Do you pay your own medical/dental expenses, etc? Your parents help you with nothing? What might happen if you had a med/dental emergency you couldn't pay for? At the very least, a loving and supportive parents would guide- inform their child of where to seek social services. It's a big world out here. There are adults who don't know how to access the basic of services when in need.

The economy pretty much demands two incomes to survive. It takes a little time to get set up with a job and a roomie. Giving them a bus ticket and $30 to some remote and unfamiliar city, is not support in that situation. It is manipulation in the Nth degree, and damn near sadistic. And also seems to fly in the face of the program Fear Mantra, used to justify the austere placement- s/he would be dead. And to close your door, severing contact, to that child is not loving or supportive. As Nih so aptly stated, they come out ill prepared for the real world.

Depending on how deep you are into the 'tough' aspect of tough love, the least you could do is direct your child to homeless shelters and soup kitchens, free public clinics, and other social services. To put them on the streets with nothing is absolutely NOT love and support, in my dictionary anyway.

Again, we are working from polar opposite philosophies and definitions of love and support. It is very necessary for the program to redefine words and behaviors to support their purpose. Many would definitely consider allowing the program to sever, limit, or monitor phone contact with parents, and to deny contact with siblings and other family members to be excessively cruel and unnecessary. Most states have regulations stating that to do so one must show that the relationship is damaging, and not by program definition. That policy appears to most benefit the program's purpose- to establish their role as authority in the child's life. And those letters, "We're on vacation in Hawaii... having a blast without you." What can you say, just uncalled for and unnecessarily cruel. No way in hell that can be construed to mean love and support, by any definition.

[Deborah]

To add to this, and further elaborate on the program's own manipulation of teen and parent:

My son's program told parents they would have a short off campus visit with their child at 4 months and a home visit after 8 months. They also put a disclaimer in there, "provided the 'student' isn't on restriction OR behind in school work".

This gives the program 4 months to redefine common words and condition the parents and establish authority with the teen.

Well sure enough, 8 months rolled around and my son was denied his home visit. I was livid. I requested of the headmaster (does that mean they are in charge of the toilet?  :lol:) to know how many of the teens in their care actually go home for their 8 month visit. Oh course, he didn't respond. I would bet money that the majority do not.

You folks are so damned worried about being manipulated by your kids that you can't see the obvious- the program plays you like a fiddle. And all to their gain. If you think for a moment that the program owners or staff have any vested interest in your child, you are sorely mistaken... or is it the other M word... manipulated.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-01-07 07:09:00, Anonymous wrote:

"THey have to maintain an A or B to pass."

They have to take the same test until they get an A or B.  It doesn't matter if they understand the subject matter.  Not what I call education.

[Anonymous]

Any "exit plan" that doesn't include the deposit and first month's rent on an efficiency apartment or roommate situation (affordable on an entry-level income), in a city with good public transit on the bus/subway line, help transporting the kid's personal effects including a full week's worth of casual clothes in good repair, a transit card for a month for the bus line, a month's medication for any chronic illnesses the kid has, and the first month's grocery money is *grossly* inadequate.

Maybe the kid *will* go blow his grocery money on drugs, maybe not.

But if you love your child--or even if you don't love your child, just if you're a human being and not an irresponsible monster, that's the absolute *minimum* you will provide your child with before cutting off contact and support.

And I would have *zero* problem with that support being required by law, delivered in a lump, on or before the kid's 18th birthday.  If delivered before, in order for it to count the parents must allow/help the kid to use it to move out.

The reason we as a society mostly get along okay without it being required by law is because *most* parents are not selfish, control-freak bastards and generally love their children.

Any parent who kicks a kid out with less is a dirty rotten bastard.  I say that as a 37 year old parent with the normal experience of a more-or-less typical middle aged adult in growing up and supporting myself.

Dirty rotten bastards who have (and neglect) children get away with kicking a kid out with less once the kid is barely legally adult, or when the kid is fresh out of a tightly controlled situation like a program or a program-parent's home, because we haven't passed a law making the negligence of those dirty rotten bastards a crime.

What they're doing is legal, but a lot of really horrible and evil things are legal.

Most people in this world are basically good people who would treat their kids and neighbors fairly well even without laws.

We as a society pass laws so that when one of the people who *isn't* basically good, but is instead a dirty rotten bastard, does something really awful we have a fair, formalized procedure for punishing him/her.

Obviously, we *either* need another law to fix this problem, *or*, if we decide such a law would be difficult to enforce, we need a program to provide any child who claims them with a one-time emancipation aid benefit at age 18 or immediately upon high school graduation or when kicked out---kid's choice.

Probably the best way to implement it is to use public service announcements, and announcements in school, to make kids aware of it, and then have it available as emergency aid from the local welfare office--having the bureaucrats contact the parents and try to arrange the aid *voluntarily* through them---and if the parents won't comply voluntarily, then the welfare agency sets up the minimum at government expense and bills the parents for reimbursement----and collects it the same way they collect if you don't pay your taxes.

Sure, if the parents are dirt poor, you can't get blood out of turnip---but *most* of these $30, cheap-ass, control-freak, exit-plan, program parents can afford it, they're just dirty rotten bastards.

For the sake of the *rest* of us in society and the future cost in social services to the rest of us if a new adult doesn't get at least a fighting chance to start out self-supporting, we have the right and apparently the need to establish this rule.

It also would be *one* helpful reform of the teen RTC industry, because it would take one of the abusive levers they use for abusive over-control right out of their hands.

Timoclea

[Nihilanthic]

No, anon, you dont get it.

What I was told by people in some programs is they were more or less stuck in there the whole time. I've never heard of them going out to do fun shit.

And these visits seem to be little more than spending a little time with the parent (but still under the total domination of program dogma, go read up on that gum punishment thread sometime)and showing that their kid is alive, healthy and 'improving' or whatever.

Skills like keeping a checkbook, job interviewing, etc? Ok, show it! All I've seen that the programs do is day to day domination, seminars whenever, and punishments when you dont do as told.

Yeah, I have heard you, Anon, I just dont believe you. I've yet to see evidence of them doing any of that!

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
--Francois Marie Arouet "Voltaire", French author and playwright