Mom Sells PS2 on eBay as Punishment

The BBQ Pit
61

Right. And this works both ways, you see.

They might have been wrong. They might have been right. I know that I was not allowed to watch hardly any TV when I was a kid. Didn’t have a computer, so that was out. I didn’t own a TV until I was a senior in high school, but had my grades sucked because I was glued to the TV all day, then yeah, I can see my parents taking it away. They certainly kept a tight reign on my TV viewing all through my childhood. It wasn’t a bad thing—I read and drew a lot instead. (Not that kids who have unfettered access to TV don’t read or draw a lot—but I didn’t know that many who did.)

I don’t know if that was the case with you (watching too much TV). If that truly was the case, then maybe they had cause. Maybe they could have handled it better, maybe not. I wasn’t there. But it still remains: you didn’t steal anything and they didn’t take something of yours to recover the cost of the thing you (didn’t) steal. So it really isn’t the same as what is being discussed in the OP.

Don’t complain when I tell you that it is nothing to do with the OP.

Sounds me me that they were dismayed that their kid was so selfish that he’d steal something that didn’t belong to him. Sounds to me that they were damned upset that their kid was a thief and they wanted to teach him a lesson that wouldn’t be so easy to forget. Sounds to me that they were concerned about the future of the kid and were simultaniously furious that he’d swiped something so valuable to them.

62

If mom’s the real thing, I say “Hooray for her, and what took you so long?” This kid didn’t just get this bad overnight. Nobody expects a 13-year-old to be perfect, but this one sounds like a little monster in the making to me.

Throughout my childhood and adolescence, my father had the habit of emptying the change out of his pockets into an ashtray at the end of the day. To me, that fistful of quarters, nickels and dimes looked like a virtual goldmine, but I knew better than to touch a penny of it. It wasn’t mine. Period. If I had needed it, and I asked for it, I most certainly would have gotten it, but it was not up to me to help myself. That doesn’t make my father a miser, a prude or an authoritarian monster with control issues. It just makes him a man who assumed that he had the right to leave his own possessions in his own home with his own children without having to lock them away for fear of having them swiped by a greedy kid with no respect for other people’s things.

I suspect the kid in the OP would have howled in outrage if, say, his mother had rifled through his sock drawer while he was at school and used his birthday money stash to buy something for herself. I would regard that as being no different from what the kid did. It’s amazing how strong a sense of property rights kids have when it is their property at stake.

Also, I seriously doubt that the kid in the OP thought that the fact that beer and champagne were in the fridge put them in the same category as a frosty glass of Sunny Delight.

As far as the trumpet goes, I’m a little ambivalent. Yes, the kid broke it. Yes, he should never have messed with the damned thing. Yes, he tried to cover up his actions, which is wrong, but hardly an unusual thing for a kid to do. One could even argue that the trumpet had probably been around the house for awhile, and the kid saw it as just another household object, not one that needed to be treated as a salable commodity or a piece of personal (as opposed to communal) property. As a lifelong klutz who has been responsible for accidentally breaking more than one thing that my mother valued, I can’t get too crazy about a kid breaking something, depending on the circumstances. But, frankly, I assume that it would take more than just blowing on the mouthpiece to do the kind of damage that the mother describes.

If it weren’t for the totality of the circumstances, I wouldn’t necessarily advocate including the trumpet in the calculation of fuckups that needed redress. But all in all, I think this kid shows a pattern of disregard for his parents that needs to be addressed in a BIG way. He wasn’t where he was supposed to be when his mother came to get him (which would send a lot of mothers into paroxysms of anxiety). He brought a stranger home without permission. He drank, he stole and he lied. I think mom should have sold the games, too; not as a way of balancing out the account books financially, but as a way of showing the kid that some things just don’t fly. If that makes me some kind of Momzilla wannabe, so be it.

For those who think the mother overreacted, I hope you won’t be too surprised if the day comes when you find that your kid charged himself a few things on your credit card because you left it lying around the house.

63

This argument over whose childhood experience is more germane is pointless. I wasn’t punished for the same thing as the eBay kid; you weren’t punished the same way.

OK… so they were dismayed, upset, and furious, and in their fury, they overreacted. But their angry reaction doesn’t make what he did any worse. The punishment still doesn’t fit the crime except in simple monetary value - I see you’re not disputing that.

That’s what I thought… sort of.

The line “this weekend my 13 year old son decided to be destructive, deceptive and disobedient” paints his actions as a random whim. Well, even 13 year olds have reasons for the things they do. Maybe he got his mother’s asshole gene, and thought it’d be fun to play the bugle and drink a cold one without caring that they didn’t belong to him, or maybe he was provoked somehow.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he was already harshly punished for something else, and this was his passive aggressive way of getting back - in other words, that the cycle I predicted had already started some time before.

But of course, that’s only speculation. For all I know, he might be a bad seed who just does horrible things for no reason, and tough love (or an exorcism) is all he needs.

What’s the surprise? Kids do things their parents don’t want them to; that’s a fact of life. I’ll only be surprised if I overreact as the eBay woman did, at which point I will apologize for it and try to keep a level head from then on.

64

I’d be interested to hear what you all think of MY similar anecdote, in which I did something that I didn’t know was wrong. I guess I was about 10 at the time.

One day, my father came home from work, and as he usually did, he took off his jacket and tie and asked me to bring it upstairs and lay it on his bed. I thought it would be cute if I took the jacket and tie and a shirt, and put them together as if someone were wearing them, and lay it out on the bed. I was surprised to find that he didn’t think it was cute at all. I hadn’t done any permanent damage to the clothes, but I had gotten them wrinkled so that they had to be sent to the cleaners. My father made me pay the cleaning bill. It didn’t break me or anything, but it did put a significant dent in my sticker and gum buying budget, and definitely felt like quite the financial hit at the time. (and for what it’s worth, he could have easily afforded to pay for the cleaning bill himself.)

I didn’t steal anything. But I was careless with someone else’s possessions, and I didn’t consider the ramifications of my impromptu display. My father wasn’t angry with me, as he knew that I meant no harm. Nevertheless, I had to pay to fix the damage.

So, does this seem reasonable to you?

65

Oh, come on. You’re dodging. My story isn’t exactly the same as the eBay kid, but it’s a helluva lot closer than your story.

How do you know? How do I know? It doesn’t sound like they necessarily did anything so out of line with what the kid did. He stole something of value, he disobeyed, he was willful and a little shithead, and for that he loses a game to compensate for what he took. A game that he can easily replace when he earns the money. It isn’t like they’re saying he’s forbidden from ever playing a game again. They didn’t send him to the Gulag or subject him to Chinese Water Torture.

Yeah, and parents do things that the kids don’t want them to do: like make the kids pay for what they steal. That’s how it goes.

Green Bean: I don’t think what your dad did was appropriate because you didn’t know that you could cause the “damage” that you did. Unless you were told ahead of time to not do that with the jacket and shirt because it would have to be dry cleaned again, I don’t see how it compares. You also did something with a good-natured, warm-hearted spirit, which wasn’t what I did when I swiped my dad’s stamps, and wasn’t what the eBay kid did. Totally different.

66

No, not at all.

67

This is ridiculous, but if you want to drag it out, so be it:

No, yours is not closer. You cost your dad some money, and to pay him back, you gave him some of your money. He didn’t sell your dollies or junior photographer kit or whatever it was you treasured most.

You lost ten bucks; you did not lose your prized possessions, the things that made you get up early in the morning, look forward to coming home from school, and stay up late at night. You lost ten dollars, and you had a job. How much babysitting does it take to earn ten dollars… five hours? So you earned it back in what, a week? And you think that compares to a $150 video game or a $1000 computer, things that can actually be used, enjoyed, and treasured?

My concern is not that she made the kid pay for what he ruined, but the particular way in which she made him pay.

And of course that’s “how it goes”. The story in the OP, if true, is proof that it “went” that way at least once. I’m not surprised when people do thoughtless, selfish things, whether they’re kids or adults, and I’ll criticize a kid who charges on his parents’ credit cards just as I criticize parents who overreact like this.

Not really. You had no way to know that laying clothes out on the bed would harm them - I’m having trouble believing it myself. :wink: On the other hand, you did presumably go looking through his drawers or closet to get the shirt, and your actions did cost him money. I think he should’ve made you pay for only part of the bill.

68

She paid off what she stole, simple enough. If this kid doesn’t want to have to pay back an exorbitant amount of money, perhaps he shouldn’t swipe a bottle of DOM. This is a great lesson for the little fucker.

69

Assuming the eBay story is true, I wonder if the kid would have been punished for drinking Two-Buck Chuck, rather than Dom Perignon? Is this just a matter of compensation for an expensive gift (that mom didn’t realize she’d already ruined) by way of selling the PS2? Or would he have been deprived of the PS2 for drinking alcohol of any kind?

70

Good question Rilch, I have no idea.

71

Oh, and I forgot to ask about this:

I don’t quite get it. Was that the only jacket your dad owned, so he had to wear it every day? And how did “putting the [items] together as if someone were wearing them” get them so wrinkled they had to be dry cleaned?

72

As Word Eater put it, it was closer to tit for tat. I stole, I had to pay. The eBay kid stole and he had to have something taken away, in order to pay. In order to recover the thing he got taken away, he’ll have to scrape up money. His game was not a one-of-a-kind possession (like, for instance, an autographed baseball or something) that would be difficult to replace. He spends time, earns money, and he gets it back. He’ll only be deprived of the thing for as long as it takes to earn the money. Maybe that will light a fire under him to earn the money fast, instead of being allowed to pay it back in glacially slow dribbles.

You had bad grades and you … had to pay? Well, the reasoning behind why your parents did what they did may have been justified, or not, but the whole premise is completely different. This OP is about a kid stealing and having to pay. You’re trying to make it fit a completely different form of transgression and punishment.

Well, let’s explore that a little. Did your parents sell your “prized” possessions? No. They hid them. Because, apparently, they thought you were spending too much time with them. Hey—maybe they had reason, I don’t know. Maybe they could have handled it better (very likely they could have), but it’s possible that there was a kernel of a good reason behind their actions.

And funny, my parents did something similar with me, by not allowing me to spend time using the TV. No, I didn’t own the TV, no, it wasn’t a “prized possession,” but I sure enjoyed watching it and that was severely restricted. I didn’t like that, but I coped with it. I didn’t have a God-given right to watch TV all day long.

He had to pay. I had to pay. I stole, he stole. You didn’t steal, and your parents didn’t sell anything. Also, we go back to, “he needed to learn how it felt.” He took something of theirs that they valued, now he gets to know how that feels. You didn’t need to know how it felt to have something of yours taken away, in order to understand that you needed to spend more time with your schoolwork. Totally different dynamic.

73

Setting a deadline would’ve done the same thing. “You will pay this amount by this date, or we’ll start selling your things to get the money.” You know, like how it works in the real world.

You’re still ignoring the impact that losing his prized possessions had on this kid. Losing a few bucks, which you can earn back in a week, is nothing at all like losing something you love that will take months to replace. Nothing you’ve said indicates that you understand or have felt that impact.

The effect it had on me was the same regardless of how good their reasoning was.

Once again, what he felt was only comparable to what his mom felt if his mom, in fact, treasured that old bugle, $6 worth of beer, and a ruined bottle of champagne as much as the kid treasured his PS2.

Is it theoretically possible that she did? I suppose so, some people have bizarre priorities. But nothing in the story implies that she did, and that’s all we have to go on.

74

In the real world he’d also be in front of the judge, too, possibly facing jail time, too. He also might get into some trouble for drinking alcohol.

The impact I experienced was equal to the imact that I inflicted. I wasn’t happy that I ended up having to pay far more than the cost of a few stamps, let me tell you. But then again, I didn’t steal something that was worth a great deal, while this kid did. I also didn’t break the law by drinking alcohol, which, whether you want to address it or not, is an additional source of concern for most parents. My theft of stamps did not leave me intoxicated.

You’re still not getting it: YOU DIDN’T STEAL ANYTHING. I had to give up something because I stole. This kid had to give up something because he stole. We both gave up something to physically compensate for what we TOOK. You gave up something when you didn’t take something. You had no expectation of having to compensate for what you (didn’t) take. Everyone knows (in the back of their mind) that they might be expected to give up something when they steal something. But you didn’t have that going on with your situation.

I get the impression that the bottle of champagne was indeed rather treasured. But that’s not the only point, and you keep on refusing to address it: They took his PS2 to show him what it felt like. They felt like he needed to learn that. This technique is often used and is very effective. That’s why your scenario and this kid’s scenario don’t compare: you didn’t need to learn what it felt like to have your stuff swiped. You hadn’t swiped anything.

75

It’s this attitude (that a rather trivial offense automatically makes the kid a “little fucker”) that turns kids into criminals.

Kids will be kids, for fucks sake. You don’t need to get medieval on their asses by taking their most prized treasures away from them and auctioning them off. I’m not saying don’t make them pay it back, I’m just saying make them work to pay it back instead of simply taking stuff.

76

I’d agree if it was irreplaceable, like a one-of-a-kind item, an heirloom, a favorite painting, rare collector’s item, etc., that it would be over the top. But this wasn’t that.

In fact, in the eBay auction, the mom writes: “THAT BOTTLE OF CHAMPAGNE WAS A GIFT THAT WE HAVE BEEN SAVING FOR OVER A YEAR FOR THAT “SPECIAL” OCCASION.” (I love all the caps she uses. ;)) If that is true, it sounds like she felt the champagne was kind of “irreplaceable.” A gift, they’d been saving it for a year, yadda yadda. I daresay it would be easier to replace a PS2 than it would be to replace a gift of champagne that they’d held onto for a year, waiting for just the right moment to drink.

77

A bottle of wine will only give you one night of enjoyment. Possibly it will give you some added “special” enjoyment due to the sentimental value, but you can get just as drunk off of $10 box wine.

A PS2 gives continuing enjoyment for a much longer time frame. It can entertain someone for weeks, months, possibly years.

If you could measure happiness in units (let’s call them “hedons”) then I think the PS2 has much more hedons of value than the wine.

78

Yeah, but (assuming the eBay story is true), then this kid committed multiple offenses.

  1. Messed up the bugle. We know this woman sells a lot of stuff on eBay, so assuming her kid exists, and the bugle exists, and that he messed it up, he interfered with her livelihood. She said it had already been sold. Major fuckup.

  2. Snuck out of where he was supposed to be (ice skating) and went back to his empty house. (That’s where my alarm starts to go off: why did mom let him go ice skating if she was already mad at him about the bugle?) But anyway, he’s not satisfied with this activity: he’d rather sneak out and par-tay. Arrogant.

  3. Brought someone to the house his parents didn’t know. Compounds earlier offense.

  4. Drank beer. Even at 17, this would still be a bad thing, but if a 13 y/o is sneaking beer, that’s a sign of either an alcohol problem, or a kid who doesn’t recognize or doesn’t have limits, or both.

  5. Beer wasn’t enough: now he goes for the Dom. See above.

  6. Lied when asked. Well, that’s typical for 13, but when you consider what he did that he had to lie about…

This kid (if he exists) needs a serious wakeup call. Whether it was Dom Perignon or Two-Buck Chuck, it was alcohol; it was alcohol he took without permission; and it was two different kinds of alcohol. Sounds like the kid just wanted to get good and drunk, for whatever reason. 13 is young enough that this kind of behavior means he’s already out of control, and needs to be squashed immediately.

That said, selling the PS2 is not a solution in itself. But it should get his attention.

On preview: Blalron, the fact that a bottle of wine only gives you one night’s enjoyment is all the more reason it should be saved until the right night.

79

BUT THE KID CAN GET ANOTHER ONE. You seem to act as if they sold the last PS2 on earth. They didn’t.

The champagne was a gift. Now, perhaps it was a gift from someone they didn’t care about, but I doubt it, at that price. For most people (not all) gifts have special significance. Sentimental significance. Not to say that the PS2 couldn’t have, but there is no indication of that—it appears to be significant to the kid because he likes playing with it. And he can play with a PS2 again—as soon as he scrapes up the money.

Then you add into the mix that the kid drank and stole, and the parents want to nip that behavior in the bud. So they wanted him to remember what it felt like to have something of his swiped. So they swiped something that was highly replaceable. He’ll play his beloved PS2 again. And maybe next time he’ll think twice about stealing stuff.

80

So, Blalron, what you’re saying is that kids are going to steal things, and break things, and lie to you about it, and that’s A-Okay? That…that’s just fucked up. Sure kids are going to push their limits. That’s when good parents push back, and sometimes they have to push back hard and fast.

A thirteen year old breaking your shit and lying about, pulling a disappearing act, drinking and lying about that (repeatedly), that’s one of those situations you gotta push back hard and fast. I guess you think it might be better for them to have let the juvenile criminal system deal with it, since the kid’s breaking the law and all.