Corporal Punishment

[PreachersWife2004]

Here's the logic, Q.

Parents who spank are abusers, pedophiles, (insert choice name here).

I spank, so therefore you (whoever considers spanking as the above) consider me an abuser, a pedophile, or whatever random adjective.

So yes, this thread is about me because I do spank my children. So those of you who believe those things about spanking and about parents who spank obviously believe them about me, because I spank.

See, that's not a leap of logic. If I said all atheists abuse their children, I would expect some atheists to get up in arms about it, and to take it personally.

I don't feel the need to defend myself, or other people who spank against ridiculous claims that we are as bad as rapists, that we abuse our children or that we're psychopaths. And these are all terms that have been used in this thread to describe either the act of spanking or those who spank themselves. And yet...those of us who spank aren't supposed to think it's about us?

Yeah, I don't understand that all. So, that's why I'm and taking my leave. I know what my personal experiences with spanking have been.

So have a great day and I hope you have the courage to tell someone in real life about all of us abusers and near-rapists. We really are awful and horrible to our children and I just don't understand why if that's truly the case, our children aren't just taken away from us and given to foster parents, who I'm sure have much BETTER ways to discipline children!

*shakes head

 

[Zebra1552]

You don't feel the need to defend the possibly harmful actions you take with your kids. That's very interesting.

 

[Risen Tree]

Because it's not the goal. The goal is to teach a lesson. Spanking, when done correctly, causes minimum and momentary pain, like slapping a child's hand away from an open flame.

But how do pro-spanking parents know for a fact that their spankings cause "minimum and momentary pain"? Have they done research on where the more painful places to strike are, and what locations on the body are less likely to make the victim feel sexually violated when struck? Have they had their spouse practice on them so they know what the different sensations will feel like, and what they can expect their children to feel while getting spanked? How do they know how far to rear back and how hard to strike that will create the sensation desired? How many parents honestly go through all this, PW, to make sure they are doing it "right"?

And even if they do all that, I have grave concerns with your claim that spankings cause "minimum and momentary pain." If the goal of a spanking is indeed not to hurt a child, then I honestly think we are talking about two different things here. I have never heard of a spanking which was not intentionally designed to hurt its victim. Can you give me a counterexample?

Here's the logic, Q.

Parents who spank are abusers, pedophiles, (insert choice name here).

I spank, so therefore you (whoever considers spanking as the above) consider me an abuser, a pedophile, or whatever random adjective.

So yes, this thread is about me because I do spank my children. So those of you who believe those things about spanking and about parents who spank obviously believe them about me, because I spank.

See, that's not a leap of logic. If I said all atheists abuse their children, I would expect some atheists to get up in arms about it, and to take it personally.

I don't feel the need to defend myself, or other people who spank against ridiculous claims that we are as bad as rapists, that we abuse our children or that we're psychopaths. And these are all terms that have been used in this thread to describe either the act of spanking or those who spank themselves. And yet...those of us who spank aren't supposed to think it's about us?

Yeah, I don't understand that all. So, that's why I'm and taking my leave. I know what my personal experiences with spanking have been.

So have a great day and I hope you have the courage to tell someone in real life about all of us abusers and near-rapists. We really are awful and horrible to our children and I just don't understand why if that's truly the case, our children aren't just taken away from us and given to foster parents, who I'm sure have much BETTER ways to discipline children!

*shakes head

Here's the problem, PW: If I were to admit that I drive in a manner that has the potential to seriously hurt people, then I should expect to be forced to defend my behavior. If a parent were to admit that they control their children in a manner that has the potential to seriously hurt them, then they should expect to be forced to defend their behavior. Whether or not we're "attacking" you is solely a matter of your perception of our questioning what you're doing.

 

[quatona]

Here's the logic, Q.

Parents who spank are abusers, pedophiles, (insert choice name here).

I spank, so therefore you (whoever considers spanking as the above) consider me an abuser, a pedophile, or whatever random adjective.

Quite apparently you don´t even read my posts. You don´t deal with what I say, but rather try your best to fabricate arguments for me that allow you to take offense.

Anyways, how would considering you an abuser, a pedophile or whatever be irreconcilable with the way to "teach lessons" that have been proposed in the previous post?

So yes, this thread is about me because I do spank my children. So those of you who believe those things about spanking and about parents who spank obviously believe them about me, because I spank.

We have been there. By your logic it is impossible to discuss an ethical question in the presence of someone engaging in this behaviour without him/her taking personal offense. That´s not how discussions work, and that´s how discussions can´t work.

See, that's not a leap of logic. If I said all atheists abuse their children, I would expect some atheists to get up in arms about it, and to take it personally.

Sure, because that would be an inaccurate generalisation of atheists. Had someone said that all Christians abuse their children I would understand why you´d be in arms about it, as well. But that´s not a claim that has been made.

I don't feel the need to defend myself, or other people who spank against ridiculous claims that we are as bad as rapists, that we abuse our children or that we're psychopaths. And these are all terms that have been used in this thread to describe either the act of spanking or those who spank themselves. And yet...those of us who spank aren't supposed to think it's about us?

Well, these terms have not been used in the recent posts that you have responded to, and I personally have never made them. So I wonder why you read past the arguments and concentrate on those things you can take offense from. It´s annoying, to be frank.

Yeah, I don't understand that all. So, that's why I'm and taking my leave. I know what my personal experiences with spanking have been.

I think that´s a good move if you really can´t discuss an ethical question without taking personal offense.

So have a great day and I hope you have the courage to tell someone in real life about all of us abusers and near-rapists. We really are awful and horrible to our children and I just don't understand why if that's truly the case, our children aren't just taken away from us and given to foster parents, who I'm sure have much BETTER ways to discipline children!

*shakes head

Since I have never said anything of all this, I can´t help but assume that you refuse to address the arguments I did make. As to why that is I can only speculate.

 

[Mling]

I see. So it's okay to let your kid nearly get burned by an open fire, but not to spank them. That's some leap of logic ya got going there.

Yup, and I'm not ashamed to say it, honestly, without any sugar-coating words to distance myself from it: I am pro-children getting hurt. Not harmed (ie: damaged or injured) but hurt (feeling painful sensations). Pain is a powerful teacher. Specifically, it teaches that something is dangerous, and that it's important to either learn how to control it, or avoid it altogether until you *can* control it.

Neither of those are lessons that should be associated with parents. Children should not view their parents as a source of danger, and parents should avoid doing *anything* that might *make* their kids view them that way.

Tell them the baking chocolate is bitter, and not candy. If they still want some, let 'em have it, and stand by with a glass of milk. Tell them the light bulb is hot. If they still want to touch it, be ready with a glass of cold water. Pull them out of traffic, obviously, but let them trip and fall, and skin their knees, and catch a baseball that's going a little to fast. If they steal, make them return what they took, and do extra work to make up for the crime. If they break something that should be replaced, have them work to replace it or pay for it out of their allowance.

In short, let kids experience real consequences, live their own lives, and gain their own wisdom.

This is now a circular argument. I'm not a psychopath, I don't abuse my kids and I don't have any leftover resentment or violent tendencies from being spanked myself.

um...yeah....not sure what that has to do with what I said.

 

[DeathMagus]

Yup, and I'm not ashamed to say it, honestly, without any sugar-coating words to distance myself from it: I am pro-children getting hurt. Not harmed (ie: damaged or injured) but hurt (feeling painful sensations). Pain is a powerful teacher. Specifically, it teaches that something is dangerous, and that it's important to either learn how to control it, or avoid it altogether until you *can* control it.

Neither of those are lessons that should be associated with parents. Children should not view their parents as a source of danger, and parents should avoid doing *anything* that might *make* their kids view them that way.

Tell them the baking chocolate is bitter, and not candy. If they still want some, let 'em have it, and stand by with a glass of milk. Tell them the light bulb is hot. If they still want to touch it, be ready with a glass of cold water. Pull them out of traffic, obviously, but let them trip and fall, and skin their knees, and catch a baseball that's going a little to fast. If they steal, make them return what they took, and do extra work to make up for the crime. If they break something that should be replaced, have them work to replace it or pay for it out of their allowance.

In short, let kids experience real consequences, live their own lives, and gain their own wisdom.



um...yeah....not sure what that has to do with what I said.

That's how I plan to raise my kids. Why build a false world of actions and consequences, when the real world is fine for most occasions (barring the especially dangerous ones, of course)?

 

[higgs2]

There are so many alternatives that actually work better in the long run, I'm surprised that anyone still spanks. How sad.

 

[JadeTigress]

Umm...

This thread is 2 years old.

 

[Daniel25]

So, there we go: how is it ethical or moral to inflict an experience on a child that an adult would feel is comparable to rape, when the child has fewer mental faculties with which to understand it, when the view of authority that it creates is obviously harmful to society at large?

We should inflict corporal punishment on adults as well. Public intoxication, stoners, crimes of decency, minor larceny so on so forth; we aren't doing the victims, society, or the perps any favors by having them sit in a jail cell for 3 months. A physical admonishment could inflict the necessary retribution more effectively than an adult "time out" chair.

Personally, I'd choose the rattan over 3 months jail, if I was given the option.

 

[Mling]

Umm...

This thread is 2 years old.

Yeah, and I've learned and grown in that time, and figured out not to start threads that I can't comfortably discuss. Not happy to see this dredged back up...

 

[higgs2]

hmmmm.spanking is unnecessary and should never be used. There is always a better alternative. There is no way to know which child will be emotionally damaged by spanking and which child will get over it easily and even think they deserved it.

 

[Orange Kitten Bob]

By parents alone, and if done controlled; yes, I'm for spanking in the home. In the schools-NO! Here's why:

A. Pedophiles are being released after as little as a month's treatment, with teacher unions and pervert rights activists... Some will be hired by the schools.

B. Parent and student have no legal recourse if a student is injured.

C. Witnesses and victims of crimes alike have been intimidated into not testifying by threats of paddling.

D. Sickos whom get their jollies by hurting kids, and they abuse the paddle as a method of doing so.

E. The 1937 development of the Swisher [drilled hole]paddle turned the paddle from a tool of Godly correction into a tool of satanic abuse.

F. In Detroit, child was paddled for bowing their head in prayer over lunch[1990, Paul Harvey radio show].

G. Parents and families have given up too much to the state. It's time we started rolling back these things and reclaiming America's freedom.

 

[apache1]

There are few things more alluring than a beguiling swat on the female posterior of a consenting adult (I'm admittedly a proud WITHIN MARRIAGE spanko), but not at all supportive of corporal punishment in schools. Spanking (not beating) one's own kids is one thing, schools doing it no way want somebody not family member paddling son or daughter. I saw way to much abuse of it many years ago when I was a boy (people being paddled because of missed words on spelling bees, paper wads missing the trash can, etc., and probably NOT ENOUGH paddling for bullying and outrageous behavior, so just be fair and abolish it).

 

[ebia]

By parents alone, and if done controlled; yes, I'm for spanking in the home. In the schools-NO! Here's why:

A. Pedophiles are being released after as little as a month's treatment, with teacher unions and pervert rights activists... Some will be hired by the schools.

B. Parent and student have no legal recourse if a student is injured.

C. Witnesses and victims of crimes alike have been intimidated into not testifying by threats of paddling.

D. Sickos whom get their jollies by hurting kids, and they abuse the paddle as a method of doing so.

E. The 1937 development of the Swisher [drilled hole]paddle turned the paddle from a tool of Godly correction into a tool of satanic abuse.

F. In Detroit, child was paddled for bowing their head in prayer over lunch[1990, Paul Harvey radio show].

G. Parents and families have given up too much to the state. It's time we started rolling back these things and reclaiming America's freedom.

Except for the last, which isn't a reason at all, each of those would apply equally well as reasons for banning corporate punishment at home.

 

[quatona]

By parents alone, and if done controlled; yes, I'm for spanking in the home.

Controlled by whom or what?

 

[Oafman]

Teach a child to associate punishment with violence, and they will seek to visit violence upon those who wrong them in adulthood. A perfect recipe for a violent society.

 

[Orange Kitten Bob]

Controlled by whom or what?

With utmost restraint on the part of the parents. You only spank to teach bad from good. You never spank in rage or because it convenient or because you think it funny to scare a kid that way.

 

[Tom White]

I am vehemently opposed to corporal punishment of anybody other than mentally functioning, free, consenting, adults.

Why the adult bit on the end?

If a child consents, then what is the problem you have? Their freedom is not violated.

If you were to step in and say "Perhaps it isn't but I know what's best for them", then aren't you now a hypocrite? Aren't you now the one who ought to be smacked for aggressing against their freedom and that of their parents?

 

[Mling]

Why the adult bit on the end?

If a child consents, then what is the problem you have? Their freedom is not violated.

If you were to step in and say "Perhaps it isn't but I know what's best for them", then aren't you now a hypocrite? Aren't you now the one who ought to be smacked for aggressing against their freedom and that of their parents?

I've pretty much left Christianforums for all but occasional lurking when I'm bored, but I think that's a really interesting question, so I guess I'll pop back in for a moment.

The conventional wisdom is that children can't give meaningful consent because they're so vulnerable to psychological pressure and so inexperienced/uneducated about life in general.

I disagree with the idea that kids are *incapable* of meaningful consent, but, I do think that it's important to keep their vulnerability in mind and make absolutely certain that their "yes" is real consent.

So, a quick refresher on what consent is is in order: consent means willingly saying yes when saying no feels like a real and safe option. It's not consent if a parent says, "you know you deserve a spanking, right?" and they say "yes." If they have any idea at all that they *could* answer no to that, they're still almost certainly saying yes just because they think they'll get worse if they say no. Agreeing to something because you're afraid of what somebody will do to you if you refuse is *not* consent. Caving under pressure is not consent.

So what is? Here's what I would consider meaningful consent from a child in this case: they either came up with the idea of spanking by themself, or (more likely) they heard about it in a fairly neutral way like reading about it in a book or hearing about it from a friend. Then, on their own, without any outside pressure, they decide, "yeah, I want that.". Then they either ask an adult outright or try to lead an adult toward the idea--do and say things that cause the adult to ask "do you want me to spank you?" (Sincerely, not as a threat) to which they answer "yes."

So, that's not a very likely situation, but it's definitely not impossible. I've even heard of it happening, and I can think of a few different reasons why a kid would actually *want* to get spanked. They're all really different, though, and I think they should be handled in different ways.

What sort of scenario did you have in mind? Why does this kid want it?

 

[quatona]

With utmost restraint on the part of the parents. You only spank to teach bad from good. You never spank in rage or because it convenient or because you think it funny to scare a kid that way.

So if violence against children is only advisable when done cold-bloodedly (not that I´d agree with this idea) - what´s the reason that this approach should be reserved for parents, in your opinion?
What´s the reason you trust parents of all (who are likely to be more emotionally involved when it comes to their children) to punish children in cold blood, but not professionally trained persons like teachers etc.?