"Pillow Angel" AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGHGHGH

The BBQ Pit
81

Actually, these aren’t my experiences at all, but I do have enough ability to put together others’ observations plus my own, then equate them to something that would be a horrible way to spend one’s life. I don’t think it would be difficult to fathom having a sexual self in a body incapable of doing anything about it. As in the case of Ashley, that’s hugely different (as a six month old) versus a (even growing) person.

Plenty of folks here, as well as her parents, have brought a plethora of arguments to the table on why it seems this was the most prudent choice for Ashley. As to the opinion you’ve expressed, it came across (to more than just me, apparently) that what you feel is their reasoning is actually anything but evidence “that they consider her a plaything; an emotional trophy.” And if one can’t separate someone’s emotional need for a maudlin affectation, then I can’t possibly explain it. Especially considering the circumstances behind the choice.

First off, I’m sure they’d be thrilled to hear what you are and aren’t fine with regarding the care of their daughter. Second, if I were in such a limited capacity as a parent (which, thank Og I’ll never be), I’d be even more happy to know that the criminal justice system can sort out any damage done to her after the fact. Certainly when we’re talking about something that will never change (her mental abilities) and an uncertainty of outcome once I’m gone. Yep. That would definitely be good enough for me.

Absolutely one hundred percent correct. But if any poster in the Pit has learned, you typically will draw a comment or four on very hard-line statements, all the while still being encouraged to do as you wish / think / feel. However, I’d posit that some of the items from you, like the ones I’ve listed below, via your first post (# 74)…

[ul][li]That the parent’s feel her bodily functions are “inconvenient.” I haven’t seen them proclaim this.[/li][li][Paragraph 4]“Overdoing the cutting-up-our-daughter bit so she looks like a child…” is mere supposition that’s what they are doing, at least from what I’ve read. Can you please show me where you specifically found this at? [/li][li][P4]"…for the rest of her unnatural life while also calling her a ‘Pillow Angel,’ as though she actually were just a little emotional accessory instead of a human being who…" is using two derogatory terms of your own making. You are the only one who has called Ashley’s life “unnatural” or has deemed the actions of her parents as that of making her “a little emotional accessory.” Is this required to support your stance or make your point? [/li][li][P4]"…if it weren’t for the misfortunes of genetics and neurochemistry, would be a fully-functioning human with lots of thoughts and hopes of her own…" is sadly accurate. Unfortunately, no one can help the vagaries of either genetics or neurochemistry, as you say. But to follow that up, for the people faced with something like this, they must deal with those consequences and occasionally make very difficult and unpopular decisions. Which translates to working with reality instead of the fantasy of a child who would have been a “fully-functioning human” to any degree. “Lots of thoughts and hopes of her own” doesn’t play a part because you can only assume they are positive. What if her “thoughts and hopes” are of death? That’s an equally valid supposition.[/li][li][Paragraph 5]“As others have pointed out, there is no reason to remove her breasts. If ‘desexualizing her will protect her!’ is a reason, then, hell, why don’t we support some crazy personality cult who want to ‘desexualize’ their kids to everyone except their true leader cuz that’s how he likes 'em?” I’d guess the answer to this would be no because those children will become adults and not forever remain in infancy. [/li][li]In your next to the last paragraph, you once more offer a rationale for why this family has done as they have. Why do you come to the conclusions you do? I can understand being uncomfortable or unsettled by what’s gone on, but I’d never dream of then projecting what I theorized onto anyone else’s actual motives. I just can’t fathom the need. They’re either who they purport or not. Labeling them as devious doesn’t make it so.[/li][li]Why do you think they (Ashley’s parents) believe that she (Ashley) is “theirs to toy with…?” Even considering logic you’ve professed (IE: objectification), does this mean that you honestly think the goal is to toy with her??[/ul][/li]
…leave folks not certain if everyone has been clear of the others’ concept. That usually invites requests for clarifications, or when you fear an intentional reading comprehension / mis-characterization issue is involved, a bit of (sometimes) heated debate. Still doesn’t mean you’re not welcome to share with us. We just have the same token to share back. :o

I’m sorry that her mentality level means nothing to you. In my humble opinion, that’s the entire crux of why this is being discussed. What isn’t though, is where anyone else might be with their life, whether comatose or not, because unless they’ve fared an almost similar fate (for example: will never begin to have the chance to be much more than vegetative) it isn’t comparable. Not an adult whose been altered in such a way. Not a mentally handicapped individual that is able to live even remotely cognitively. But a baby.

And finally, I still can’t wrap my mind around the insistence that this is for aesthetics of whatever sort. I’d be willing to bet everything that Ashley’s loved ones feel this is the least “pretty” position you could ever find anyone in.

Oh, and welcome to the boards. We’re glad to have you and even the hotter forums are still pretty cool. :slight_smile:

82

I’m just amazed that Robin thinks that the criminal justice system has been successful with incest victims. Fuckwit.

Haven’t you been reading this thread? Annedoctal as it may be, health care workers who describe STDs in these kinds of people is enough to even imagine the possibility.

This child should’ve been euthanised after birth.

83

Oh, forgot to add…

Why not do all that stuff that creeps Robin out? Make their kid into a fucking doll, a virtual plaything? Christ. Why not make her into an angel in order to forget the living hell that is their lives? With thousands of children dying of preventable disease and malnutrition throughout the world, why not make their daughter into a being worthy of their love? Or, well fuck it, just go ahead, with nothing else to lose, smother her with a pillow? Then donate the tens, or hundreds, of thousands of dollars to Doctors Without Borders or to those groups that help the fucked up kids with facial deformities?

Robin, get some fucking perspective. Ya’know, like read a book, or a magazine article. Or something, you stupid twat.

84

And I simply can’t agree that having a growing body without a growing mind can warrant extreme changes to a person’s biochemistry in ways for which there’s no precedent of treatment. Maybe I’m not as afraid of asexuality as I should be, but I feel strongly that, even if I were only dimly aware of the world around me, I would want my body to grow and adapt as usual so that I could at least feel that small portion of normalcy.

And, obviously, I haven’t been moved by any of them. There are, I imagine, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of bedridden individuals in the U.S. right now, probably roughly half of them female. Why aren’t we enacting mastectomies, or introducing extreme hormone therapy so they don’t develop those inconvenient fat bags since, heck, they won’t get to use them anyway?

First off, I’m sure they’ll potentially be thrilled to hear what the justice system is and isn’t fine with regarding the care of their daughter. But I guess I’m one of the few on this board who thinks nonconsensual desexualization surgery is akin to well-performed female gential mutilation on a body-wide scale.

Second, I can see why you feel that way with regards to the safety of a hypoethetical disabled child after your departure. That still doesn’t justify radically altering her body chemistry and physical state to prevent her reaching an inconvenient shape.

I’m aware that I used a lot of inflammatory language in my first post - this is the Pit, after all :wink: My second response was flailingly defensive, because I felt the need to respond, but I was also dealing with pressure from external sources while writing it. Further, I didn’t actually see any requests for clarification: I saw a couple of posts brashly insulting my moral logic while once again proclaiming the exact same arguments I’ve heard multiple times in this thread and the linked blog.

To clarify a few of the points from the bulleted list:

I’m using my own spin on the “inconvenient,” “cutting-up,” and “emotional accessory” parts of my argument. Consider it reading between the lines. Unfair? Maybe - but given what I see of the situation, it’s not uncalled for. I don’t have to stick strictly to the terminology used by Ashley’s parents and doctors, because - guess what? - they’re using their own spin, too. It’s just how language is.

The optimism of Ashley’s sadly-lost thoughts isn’t really at stake, in my opinion. What matters is the fact that her form is still that of a human, and unless there is strong evidence to the contrary (i.e. evidence or immediate danger of discomfort or pain), she should be left to grow on her own without intervention, unless there’s some evidence that she wants to stay child-like.

“Forever remain in infancy” is an extremely sketchy term - I highly doubt that all psychologists would agree with it as medical fact that this is the upshot of cerebral palsy. Thus, I’m not giving the parents and doctors a pass on radically altering her body just because “mental infant” is easy to say. And I still don’t see the reason for using surgery to desexualize Ashley, regardless of her mental state. Again, there are thousands of people whose minds and bodies do not coincide. Should we start contacting their next of kin for advice on where to begin fixing this?

I don’t believe I’m labelling Ashely’s parents as devious - it’s more likely that they’re simply misguided, have agreed to a surgery they don’t fully understand or feel comfortable with and are now coping with the cognitive dissonance inherant in such a strong decision by appealing to God and Ashley’s continuing safety rather than actual medical reasoning. And their goal isn’t to toy with her - it just so happens that that’s the end result, from the perspective of someone with my views on consent.

Again, see my comment on the absolution of statements like this. Unless you are Ashley (in which case, hi!), it seems difficult to know for sure what she is or isn’t aware of, and most vitally, what she does or does not want.

In the end, even if there’s no other situations to possibly compare this one to, their actions are still not justified for the moral standards of those like myself, who believe medical emergency the only good reason to enact nonsensual surger upon someone. It doesn’t matter that she’s mentally a child - she didn’t choose that. She shouldn’t have to give up the right to whether her body grows or stays child-like simply based on the preferences of her parents.

And I believe strongly that it’s still an aesthetic choice for the reasons I’ve mentioned, chief among them the decision to remove her breast buds as well as begin hormone treatments. Sure, maybe it is coincidence that all these helpful surgeries just happened to also preserve Ashley’s childlike appearance, which doubly reinforces the term ‘Pillow Angel.’ But I’m betting it’s not. Why is this angle difficult to visualize?

Why thanks! And yeah - I’ve been a fan of GD for years, but maybe I should stay out of there until I can figure out how to rationalize without so many appeals to emotion :wink:

85

Eh, nevermind. Here I thought there was some intelligence shining in the Pit.

Please continue vilifying shit I never said. Maybe someday you’ll hit on an actual point.

ETA: fuck shit damn hell ass bitch buggery.

86

Great argument. Nonsensical expletives. You are either an idiot or a fucking troll.

You refuse to understand that this is a question of logistics, not sexuality. This kid is an infant. Should’ve been drowned at birth. There is no question regarding sexuality. Only a troll or perv would believe otherwise. She’s not going to miss her tits or her twat. You stupid fuck. She can’t even say mama. Take your undergraduate mental masturbation elsewhere.

87

Robin,

You are not this infant. This infant, is, well, an infant. Understand? All the arguments you make regard functional human beings. Please tell me you can recognize the difference?

ps. This kid doesn’t feel anything approximating anything human beings experience, you dope. Abuse doesn’t count. That’s why the surgeries, etc. have been completed.

88

You know, Robin, I can understand the discomfort with this. However…

…most of these individuals would be quite distraught with that kind of alterations to their bodies without their permission. In Ashley’s case, the mental impact just isn’t there. Whatever else you may think, these alterations will prevent her from suffering all kinds of discomfort that she simply is not capable of understanding.

As I said before, I don’t know that their actions were either right or wrong. I do believe, however, that they were motivated by love for their daughter who will never grow up in any meaningful way. I think that’s a horrible fate for any parent to have to deal with.

89

Actually, as Cazzle pointed out to me, there were several good reasons for removing here breasts, besides desexualization or comfort. These included family histories of breast cancer and fibrocystic growths. Removing the breast buds now is a much simpler surgery than operating on her breasts once they’re fully developed. And those reasons are mentioned in the blog, if you read down far enough. (It’s under the heading “Preventing Breast Growth by Removing the Early Breast Buds.” The blog is so poorly organized, though, it’s easy to miss information.)

I don’t understand why you’re comparing the cost of hormone treatments to the cost of a breast reduction at adulthood. The purpose of the hormone treatments she’s receiving is to stunt her growth; the prevention of breast growth was completed surgically. Removing the breast buds removes most of the tissue that eventually form the breasts. (Elsewhere in the blog, Ashley’s parents refer to “limiting growth of the breasts by removing the early breast buds” rather than eliminating breast growth completely.)

I totally understand that; I think it weirds most people out. I know it does me. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean that it’s the wrong thing to do. After all, would it be more appropriate to concentrate on it once her body has matured? She would still have the mind of a six-month-old, and by then it would be too late for some of the treatments. Of course society shouldn’t sexualize children, but the fact is that children eventually do become sexual adults, and acknowledging and dealing with that fact isn’t the same as encouraging pederasty.

90

Or pillow angel.

91

Whoosh, much? Come back when you can use that pretty li’l brain for something other than bathroom-level insults. You’re the one posting from a guest account while apparently not having the mental fortitude to make a point without twitching out a curse word every other sentence. I don’t even have to call you a troll - it’s bloody obvious.

Yeah, I ran across that, as well. I searched all of the blog for “breast,” in the hope of finding something that would make this part of their surgical decision make sense. I’m sure I’d feel different if I knew someone who had survived or was suffering from breast cancer or cysts, but I don’t - I disregarded those reasonings because, honestly, it seems like Ashley’s parents are a lot more likely to be trying to make their decision look respectable from a medical standpoint. Again, maybe I just get that feeling from their aesthetic choices (preventing maturation while calling her a ‘pillow angel’), but it’s such a strong feeling that I can’t really shake it off.

Okay, excuse my ignorance, then! I know that estrogen doses can induce greater breast growth, so I kinda figured the special dose was to swing the pendulum and prevent those and other approaching-puberty features.

However, stunting the growth of Ashley’s body still disturbs me quite a bit, as there’s no safety or medical justification - it’s just messing with what would otherwise be a normal part of humanity. And again, I know some really cool people with really twisted minds - if someone wants to stunt their own growth for fun, more power to 'em - but enacting this sort of extreme measure on someone when there’s no emergency or discomfort just seems irresponsible medically and ambiguous morally.

True enough - I’m willing to say that, individually and from a purely practical standpoint, the surgeries and hormone treatment make sense for Ashely’s continued well-being. It’s when the effect of the surgeries overall mesh with the parents’ continued pride about how Ashley’s not going to grow and is their perpetual little angel that I start to get worried. It seems they hide behind religious charms far too often for me to be really sure that what they’re doing to their child is justifiable.
As for the difference between Ashley and a fully-functioning person… Yes, I’m aware of that, too. That doesn’t, for even a second, change the fact that a boundary was crossed here that medical practice should never cross without the strictest of scrutiny and critique. Surgery is an invasive practice done for emergency reasons, health reasons, to eliminate known threats… or for various other reasons only by being opted-in by informed and consenting adults. The surgeries performed and the attitude Ashley’s parents have repeatedly taken lead me to believe that this nonconsensual invasion was partially, if not mostly, aesthetic. That’s what gets me up in arms. It wouldn’t matter if her body was a hollowed-out shell filled with jello - it’s still a human body, and no one has the right to go futzing with it so it looks all Precious Moments for a longer period of time.
(If you’re TingleMe, please reread post while throwing low-grade insults after every sentence. I hope we can continue this meaningful dialogue <3 )

92

Interesting. Stunting Ashley’s growth is the part of the “treatment” I find least disturbing, because it has the greatest impact on the ability of her parents to care for her day-to-day. If she reached normal adult weight, her parents would almost certainly lose the physical ability to care for her and would have to institutionalize her. That wouldn’t just affect the quality of Ashley’s care, but her emotional well-being as well. Something I didn’t realize until I read the blog is that she’s aware of her surroundings and recognizes her family.

93

Wait, the acceptability of a procedure to prevent a serious medical condition doesn’t have anything to do with the statistical probability of that condition arising, but is instead entirely dependent on wether you, personally, know someone who has had that condition? Jesus, what kind of cracked-out reasoning is that?

94

I think this is one area where you and the rest of us in this thread will have to agree to disagree. You think it was done for mainly aesthetic reasons, while most of the rest of us believe it was done mainly for the future comfort of the girl. (Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if my own uterus would up and vanish for my own comfort. Damn menstrual cramps…) That’s the fundamental difference between the arguments, and I can’t blame you for feeling the way you do about the procedure, given what you think was the prime motivation for it.

95

I don’t get all the bile about the whole “pillow angels” name, or the precious moments imagery.

These people are doing an incredibly difficult job, have faced some horrific choices and there is no rosy future to look forward to. It’s not imagery that would please me or a title “pillow angel” that I would use, but so what?

Really, that’s what you’re upset about? I say if it makes their path a little easier for them, call her pumpkin head if you like. I’m not walking in your shoes, do what you need to do.

Oh, and ignore the pendants who think it’s too this or that and others who would judge you having no idea what it must be like to be walk your path.

96

Yeah, when I shared my opinion I didn’t exactly expect this to be a pile-on - thought I’d have at least a few devil’s advocates pretending to like me! :stuck_out_tongue: But yeah, I think I read most of the same facts as everyone else - the cards just didn’t stack the same way, in my mind.

For the umpteenth time, that by itself isn’t what I’m upset about. It’s that plus some coincidental optional surgeries that end up pushing the boundaries of medical ethics while also being rather creepy.

And what makes anyone think that I believe Ashley’s parents give a damn about my opinion? If I met these people I’d probably offer them a hug. They got dealt a shit hand. That doesn’t make their reaction to that hand justified, to me, especially since I’ve never heard of this “treatment” being considered before by medical professionals. I’ll have to see a good few hundred more psychological breakthroughs before I consider “stunting the physical growth of a mentally undeveloping person” something worth feeling good about. Doesn’t mean I don’t feel for the people whose decisions I’m criticizing, here.

I didn’t fully consider that, but I’m not sure it really helps. For example, this:

just sounds to me like, “she’s more portable! We can take care of something baby-sized easier than something person-sized!” I dunno, maybe I’m the twisted one.

I’m beginning to believe that one of my time-tested methods of coping with the unfairness of the universe is that those with disabled or damaged minds and consciousnesses still age the same and look the same as the rest of us; thus, you can’t judge anyone by their appearance. The physically handicapped can be among the quickest minds; the mentally handicapped can have perfectly normal bodies. I’m not so naïve as to think that it always balances out, but it can, because that’s nature. Screwing with that potential balance without an urgent medical reason raises my hackles and, along with the major consent issue, colors my perception of all the reasoning these parents and doctors are offering.

Oh, come now, Miller - I know for a fact you can read better than that. I’ve posted constantly that I’m explaining where I’m coming from with my opposition of Ashley’s surgeries, not that mastectomy is wrong cuz I haven’t had a breast cancer death in the family, FFS. My reasoning there was in direct response to the idea that Ashley’s breasts were removed because of the family history of cancer and cysts - my opinion, again, is that, while seeing someone suffer from cancer really sucks, I can’t, from my perspective, see radically and prematurely altering a body’s growth like that as justified. Thus, my apparently unique impressions about the deeper reason behind that particular surgery.

And no, until you can actually give me some statistical probabilities on the likelihood of one of the conditions forming in Ashley, it’d be very difficult to rationalize performing preemptive anti-cancer surgery.

To ride my slippery slope again, maybe they could just chop her legs off, since she’s not using those either? Nyah, take that, cancer! Now there’s less body tissue for you to mutate into! :eek:

97

Worst VCO3 thread ever.

98

As I mentioned before in this thread, this is one of the many reasons why I don’t see myself having kids.

If I got saddled with a living tragedy like this poor girl, I would not only have to babysit a 6-month-old without any hope of raising her into a normal human being, but I would have to deal with zealous ignorant do-gooders like Robin Goodfellow who think they have the fucking right to an opinion on what will make my life, and my child’s, a bit less tragic.

Because nothing is more fun in life than debating horrifically difficult choices with someone who has never faced them.

99

You know, if this were a single procedure done by itself, I’d probably agree with you. I think part of the reason for it was a kind of “Well, since we’re here anyway…” Doing it now is a much simpler and safer procedure than doing it after her body has fully matured, and since she was having surgery anyways she only had to go through one recovery period. With the family history of cancer and her future comfort in mind, this was probably the most humane option.

While I don’t think this had much if anything to do with the procedure, for those around her a younger-looking body is probably easier to deal with on an emotional level. When you see an adult body, you instinctively want to deal with the person on an adult level–this will never be possible with her. Having a child’s mind in an adult body, however functional, is all kinds of messed up in my opinion.

100

Thank you, Jayn. I’d been thinking the same thing, but I couldn’t find a good way to put it into words.