Corporal Punishment

[Mling]

This came up, fairly randomly, in a different thread, and it's one of my 'pet peeve' topics, so I started to derail the conversation. Rather than do that, here's a new thread!

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

I have lots of personal reasons, and I'm not going to list them all here, but here are two.

The first is pretty simple. Make a little chart, comparing different ways that spanking is viewed in different situations. The two factors are age and consent. Here's whatcha get:

Consenting adult: This is usually a sexual situation. Some people see it as a 'kink,' others as a fetish or a perversion. Some people who don't like it are completely fine with it, on a moral level; other people think it's immoral. Treated as illegal in some American states, though individuals in their homes are rarely prosecuted.

Non-consenting adult: A person more powerful than you either grabs you and forcibly strips you, then begins hitting a sexual area of your body, or uses some form of mental or emotional force to make you go along with it. This is sexual assault. Most any adult who experienced it would feel violated, and some might even consider it similar to rape. Illegal.

Consenting child: Ok, this one is sort of hard to imagine, since legally, a child can't consent. Let's take it to mean 'willing,' though. If we also take 'child' to include teenagers, it's possible to imagine a sexual relationship between an adult and a teenager could include spanking as a kink. Most people would probably consider this similar to statutory rape, as adult/teen sexual relationships are usually frowned upon. Illegal.

Non-consenting child: Here....many people say it's not only perfectly ok, it's actually vital to a child's wellbeing. The claim is that it's not the slightest bit sexual, and that a child is not harmed by it.

I don't understand that at all. Forced, coerced or 'role-played, actually consenting but let's pretend it's forced' nudity is sexual in every other situation. As is attention given to a person's butt, with their clothes on, (unless it's medical or related to hygiene). It's well understood that children do have sexual feelings. So why would this situation be any different?

Anybody else would feel horribly violated if a stronger or otherwise more powerful person started hitting them. Especially in that area of their body. Most people would either be traumatized, or would go through some mental, self-depreciating gymnastics to figure out why they deserve it, the same way that abused children and battered women do.

Most people would quit their jobs and sue if an authority figure decided that spanking them was an appropriate form of office discipline.

How does this all disappear with children? Why would a child not feel raped by forced exposure and sexual pain? Why would a child not feel the same degrading loss of dignity anybody else would feel, if they realized that they needed to submit to such treatment and couldn't fight back?

And, if a child was told that this forced exposure, pain and loss of dignity is appropriate, and they aren't allowed to fight back, how would that child react to being molested? Would they be likely to tell anybody? Would they be likely to realize that they're being abused? Given that child molesters are specifically on the lookout for children who will do what they're told no matter what, and who are unlikely to tell anybody, is it a healthy idea to instill that worldview in your child?

Even if they were not literally exposed, between the physical positioning and the focused attention to their buttocks, the effect is pretty similar.



My other, more global thought is that, in nearly every other situation where somebody is using a position of authority to hurt other people, it is considered a form of corruption. If a police officer or prison warden beats a prisoner, it is illegal. Likewise a soldier attacking a civilian. A teacher hitting or abusing a student...

To extend the idea, a boss who expects his secretary to do personal errands, and threatens her with some job-oriented discipline if she doesn't (denied a raise or something).

I have to wonder how often this would happen if we stopped teaching our citizens that having power means you can hurt people who don't do what you want. If the child is not taught that power means you can hurt people, how often will the adult assume it does? If the child is not taught that they deserve to be overpowered and hurt, how often will the adult accept such treatment?


Ah, one more:
Some parts of a child's brain is not fully developed. Obviously. Specifically, the frontal lobe is extremely underdeveloped. That is where reasoning and logic take place. The parts of the brain that control survival instincts are pretty much in place, at birth.

Say you're fasting (I'm assuming you're an adult), or deciding to skip a meal for some reason. You get hungry, but you're able to think "Something is more important to me than hunger, so I'm not going to eat." That's your frontal lobe at work. You're using reason to override a survival instinct. Same as if you saw your kid fall through ice, and you dove in to get him. Your body is screaming at you to get out of the water, but your reasoning tells you that something else is more important.

And that's exactly what a young child can't do. That's the part of their brain that doesn't work very well, because a large portion of that part simply isn't there. It still has to grow in.

So, if a child feels pain, their body is yelling at them "DANGER! DANGER! THREAT TO LIFE!!!" If they're hungry, their body is yelling, "YOU MIGHT STARVE!! EAT SOMETHING!!"

How can it be ok to use these instincts against a child, for the convenience of the parent? I mean...how can it be ok for a parent to make their kid feel like they're in mortal danger, at the parent's hand?

How can a child trust an adult after they've had feelings like that? How can they truly believe their parent will protect them, if they've felt, in the past, that their parents might kill them?


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?

 

[Gishin]

You cannot reason with a small child to make them behave. I'm all for positive reinforcement, but I am also for corporal punishment with limits. Never spank a child out of anger.

Also, to let you know where I am coming from, I was both physically and mentally abused growing up, and even I can see the benefits of a good spanking.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Well I was corporally punished and never felt "sexually violated" my sons were spanked and neither of them felt "sexually violated". My wife was was severely sexually abused as a child including rape and tells me that to her there is no realistic comparison. I'm sorry unless you come up with some scientifically verifiable correlation I have to disagree with your premises and your conclusions my friend.

 

[yasic]

Well, throughout my life, I was only physically punished 3 times, and its easily 3 to many.

I agree that such punishments may be appropriate for children with severe learning disabilities, or children who were forced to live with parents who ruined them beyong a point where they can not longer function without such punishment.

But given that I was not spanked or beaten (almost not at all), and I know plenty of people who were never spanked, not even once, and are fine respectable members of society: it certainly is possible.

... and why beat a child when you can resolve the matter through more diplomatic measures?

 

[Mling]

Well of course you can't speak reason to a very little kid, but you can, say...put things out of reach. Pull them away from something, ground them, take away privileges.

On the proactive side, you can make a point of explaining your values to them in age-appropriate language, and point out situations on the street, or when you're watching TV or something, where somebody does something praisworthy--or not.

Children probably can't put sexual language to their feelings, no, and may not formulate explicitly sexual thoughts regarding being spanked, but why *wouldn't* a kid feel at least confused and degraded if they're told "it's bad if somebody touches you where a swimsuit covers, unless they're a doctor giving you an exam or a parent helping you change or take a bath. That's a private place." And then somebody forcibly and painfully touches them there and says it ok?

You may not have had the language or experience to form distinctly sexual ideas, but I can't believe that anybody could be non-consentually spanked and not feel some type of violation and humiliation. I do think that it is sexual, whether the kid can pin down that aspect of it or not.

Regarding the benefits...what are they? Something that can't be achieved through any other means, and has minimal chance of causing more harm than good.

Given all of the potential tools an adult has available--creativity, reasoning, cunning, empathy--why should the *single* most primitive way of interacting with another entity ever be the most beneficial?

 

[jpcedotal]

Well, throughout my life, I was only physically punished 3 times, and its easily 3 to many.

I agree that such punishments may be appropriate for children with severe learning disabilities, or children who were forced to live with parents who ruined them beyong a point where they can not longer function without such punishment.

But given that I was not spanked or beaten (almost not at all), and I know plenty of people who were never spanked, not even once, and are fine respectable members of society: it certainly is possible.

... and why beat a child when you can resolve the matter through more diplomatic measures?

and u grew up to be a liberal and an atheist...that's enough proof for me......

 

[Mling]

Here are two studies:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP51R6.pdf That one was a longitudinal study (followed a group of kids over a period of several years) that found that the more kids were exposed to corporal punishment, the more their cognitive abilities fell behind, relative to kids who were not hit.

Spanking Research Analysis

That one is a meta-analysis of 88 different studies, finding that "Spanking was strongly linked with immediate compliance, but also with 10 negative behaviors such as aggression, antisocial behavior and abuse of children and spouses in adulthood"

If you're actually interested, there is *tons* of research on this. People have been studying it since at least the 40's, in a scientific way, and from what I've seen, the results range from "Spanking does varying types of harm" to "Spanking doesn't really do *that* much harm." I've never seen any type of study that concluded that it was beneficial overall, or had any type of benefit other than "immediate compliance."

 

[Mling]

edit: never mind, misunderstood something.

 

[Mling]

and u grew up to be a liberal and an atheist...that's enough proof for me......

it should be. Honestly, the most devout conservative Christians I've known showed very little ability to think for themselves, were easily cowed by claims of authority, and were spanked very regularly as their primary form of discipline. It was extremely clear that they were parroting their parents beliefs or values, without giving it a lot of thought.

It's entirely possible that that is a coincidence, but...given that the outcome is exactly what I would *predict* from the given...I find it hard to believe.

 

[jpcedotal]

it should be. Honestly, the most devout conservative Christians I've known showed very little ability to think for themselves, were easily cowed by claims of authority, and were spanked very regularly as their primary form of discipline. It was extremely clear that they were parroting their parents beliefs or values, without giving it a lot of thought.

It's entirely possible that that is a coincidence, but...given that the outcome is exactly what I would *predict* from the given...I find it hard to believe.

Here's my angle. It is my opinion that MOST parents who do not spank usually don't disciple or correct much in any other way. Sure, they say they do, but it is really laxed and with little structure. "Time-outs and serious talks with a 3 year old is a joke.

So we have these kids growing thinking they never do anything wrong or their opinions are actual facts and everything is ok as long as you do not hurt anyone else.

So now we have all these adults with no idea what discipline is or even what is right and wrong or how to treat others or they don't believe in God because "No one is gonna tell them what to do or how to live, even God."

Sound familiar?

 

[yasic]

and u grew up to be a liberal and an atheist...that's enough proof for me......

Yeah, I guess it is one of the downfalls of not beating children: they grow up to be independent thinkers with a sense of logic and reason.

 

[yasic]

Here's my angle. It is my opinion that MOST parents who do not spank usually don't disciple or correct much in any other way. Sure, they say they do, but it is really laxed and with little structure. "Time-outs and serious talks with a 3 year old is a joke.

So we have these kids growing thinking they never do anything wrong or their opinions are actual facts and everything is ok as long as you do not hurt anyone else.

So now we have all these adults with no idea what discipline is or even what is right and wrong or how to treat others or they don't believe in God because "No one is gonna tell them what to do or how to live, even God."

Sound familiar?

Also, what do you know about my moral system or how I treat other people (and myself) beyond the fact that I am a liberal and an atheist?

 

[jpcedotal]

Yeah, I guess it is one of the downfalls of not beating children: they grow up to be independent thinkers with a sense of logic and reason.

Spanking and beating are two different things. Most parents who spank use other forms of punishment as well and as the child gets older the spanking become less and less because the child first needs to understand that what they did as wrong period, then as the child matures a good parent will start explaining why what they did is wrong.

When I spank my 9 year old girl (which is very rarely) or my 4 year old boy (more often), I first sit on the bed with them in front of me and ask them to tell me exactly why I am going to spank them. Until they get it right, I correct them. When they get it right in their mind and can tell me in their own words what they did wrong, I spank (using the flat of my hand while sitting) and tell them don't do it again.

Works good in my house.

 

[yasic]

Spanking and beating are two different things. Most parents who spank use other forms of punishment as well and as the child gets older the spanking become less and less because the child first needs to understand that what they did as wrong period, then as the child matures a good parent will start explaining why what they did is wrong.

When I spank my 9 year old girl (which is very rarely) or my 4 year old boy (more often), I first sit on the bed with them in front of me and ask them to tell me exactly why I am going to spank them. Until they get it right, I correct them. When they get it right in their mind and can tell me in their own words what they did wrong, I spank (using the flat of my hand while sitting) and tell them don't do it again.

Works good in my house.

Beat (n)- to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly.

You are physically striking your child forcefully and repeatedly on their buttock with the intent of causing pain. Spanking is infact a form of beating.

It is actually, arguably, worse than punching as a slap damages the nerves while a punch goes more for the muscle, and while muscle heals easily nerves may be damaged permanently. In truth most people do not care much for nerves in their butt, however still...

You are also teaching your child that violence is a way to get things done. If you want to correct someone, you physically overpower and purposefully hurt them so they change their actions. While this may be your viewpoint, I find it a rather barbaric way to live and think that humans should interact on a higher form of communication that primal instincts.

 

[Mling]

Spanking and beating are two different things. Most parents who spank use other forms of punishment as well and as the child gets older the spanking become less and less because the child first needs to understand that what they did as wrong period, then as the child matures a good parent will start explaining why what they did is wrong.

When I spank my 9 year old girl (which is very rarely) or my 4 year old boy (more often), I first sit on the bed with them in front of me and ask them to tell me exactly why I am going to spank them. Until they get it right, I correct them. When they get it right in their mind and can tell me in their own words what they did wrong, I spank (using the flat of my hand while sitting) and tell them don't do it again.

Works good in my house.

Here's the thing...you could have that conversation without the spanking, and the effect of the spanking itself is actually minimized *by* that conversation.

If you touch a hot stove, the action and the pain are directly connected. It's the immediacy of that connection that really makes the point. If you separate the cause and the effect with enough time to walk them to their bedroom and talk about it, then the connection is lost. The point is lost. *Especially* with a four year old.

If you aren't going to take advantage of the real educational value of pain, why use it at all?

(Yet another reason for my opposition is that spanking has to be sort of brutal to be meaningful, for reasons other than what I just said. More on that if somebody wants to hear it.)

If they understand what they've done wrong, then that's a wonderful opportunity to *enhance* the way they think, by then explaining why a relevant form of discipline was chosen. If they're old enough to understand that going out of bounds is bad, then they're old enough to understand that their punishment is that they have to stay in smaller bounds. If they can understand that they abused a privilege, they can understand why they're losing it. And if they're old enough to understand issues of trust, they're old enough to understand why it needs to be earned back, once lost.

It's thought that *this* is the reason why children who are spanked tend to lag behind their peers in cognitive reasoning. Because they miss out on those immensely valuable lessons and conversations in cause and effect (and empathy, responsibility and anything else that might be connected to a childish crime.) Mistakes and misjudgements are how we learn. If a significant number of opportunities to learn something are replaced with "Daddy will hit me," then whatever might have been learned from them is lost.

 

[Mling]

Beat (n)- to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly.

You are physically striking your child forcefully and repeatedly on their buttock with the intent of causing pain. Spanking is infact a form of beating.

It is actually, arguably, worse than punching as a slap damages the nerves while a punch goes more for the muscle, and while muscle heals easily nerves may be damaged permanently. In truth most people do not care much for nerves in their butt, however still...

You are also teaching your child that violence is a way to get things done. If you want to correct someone, you physically overpower and purposefully hurt them so they change their actions. While this may be your viewpoint, I find it a rather barbaric way to live and think that humans should interact on a higher form of communication that primal instincts.

Ask anybody with sciatica...those nerves get pretty darn noticeable once they're damaged.

Beyond that, I go back and forth tremendously on whether it's worse to openly punch a kid, or to give them a calm, reasoned spanking.
Most anybody realizes *very* quickly that getting punched is violating and that they're being abused. Spanking seems to have many of the same effects, to greater or lesser degrees, but with the veneer of rationality and moral uprightness. That is, they're getting a lot of the same harm, but they think it's actually *right.*

 

[jpcedotal]

Here's the thing...you could have that conversation without the spanking, and the effect of the spanking itself is actually minimized *by* that conversation.

If you touch a hot stove, the action and the pain are directly connected. It's the immediacy of that connection that really makes the point. If you separate the cause and the effect with enough time to walk them to their bedroom and talk about it, then the connection is lost. The point is lost. *Especially* with a four year old.

If you aren't going to take advantage of the real educational value of pain, why use it at all?

(Yet another reason for my opposition is that spanking has to be sort of brutal to be meaningful, for reasons other than what I just said. More on that if somebody wants to hear it.)

If they understand what they've done wrong, then that's a wonderful opportunity to *enhance* the way they think, by then explaining why a relevant form of discipline was chosen. If they're old enough to understand that going out of bounds is bad, then they're old enough to understand that their punishment is that they have to stay in smaller bounds. If they can understand that they abused a privilege, they can understand why they're losing it. And if they're old enough to understand issues of trust, they're old enough to understand why it needs to be earned back, once lost.

It's thought that *this* is the reason why children who are spanked tend to lag behind their peers in cognitive reasoning. Because they miss out on those immensely valuable lessons and conversations in cause and effect (and empathy, responsibility and anything else that might be connected to a childish crime.) Mistakes misjudgements are how we learn. If a significant number of opportunities to learn something are replaced with "Daddy will hit me," then whatever might have been learned from them is lost.

Sorry, I see too many kids raised with your way of thinking sitting in the middle of Wal-Mart screaming cause they didn't get a toy. All I have to do is say, "No".

Because I, the parent, said so is all the reason they need for the little things such as temper tantrums and disrespect. I do not have to explain every decision to my child.

I see Moms begging and pleading and threating their kids in public when all that is needed is a clear definition of who the parent is and who the kid is. Most adults can't follow your logic, how can you expect a small child to?

 

[sk8Joyful]

it should be. Honestly,
the most devout conservative Christians I've known
showed very little ability to think for themselves, were easily cowed by claims of authority, and were spanked very regularly as their primary form of discipline.
It was extremely clear that they were parroting their parents beliefs or values, without giving it a lot of thought.

It's entirely possible that that is a coincidence,
but...given that the outcome is exactly what I would *predict* from the given...I find it hard to believe.

sadly true; and it's excused with a perversion of a Bible-verse "Spare not the rod, to spoil the child". Sadly,
too many parents, incld. christians have no clue what this means; but claim Ignorance is bliss. Then they wonder, why their kids became atheists , in some cases.

And as a Christian, I believe & practiced just this: I encouraged/encourage... children growing up questioning questing..., after all this is what GOD us Lovingly created for. He created us each with an inquisitive-nature, to want to explore, to Observe, to Practice and learn... He wants us (within His eternal safety-net), to become & thrive... as saved wholistically-balanced: constructively-positive & in-dependent thinkers

 

[Mling]

Sorry, I see too many kids raised with your way of thinking sitting in the middle of Wal-Mart screaming cause they didn't get a toy. All I have to do is say, "No".

Because I, the parent, said so is all the reason they need for the little things such as temper tantrums and disrespect. I do not have to explain every decision to my child.

I see Moms begging and pleading and threating their kids in public when all that is needed is a clear definition of who the parent is and who the kid is. Most adults can't follow your logic, how can you expect a three to?

How do you know how these kids are treated at home?

For that matter, how do you know how the kids who *aren't* like that are being treated at home? do you make a habit of interviewing parents?

I was spanked *extremely* rarely and I would never had done anything like that in public, at any age older than infancy. (I can count the number of times from age 2 to 12 on one hand, and that includes a few times that most people wouldn't really call "spanking" and would fall more in the category of "adult temper tantrum." My parent who was subjected to very regular CP is prone to those)

In general, what you're talking about is similar to 'confirmation bias.' You notice all the kids who fit your assumptions, and none of those that don't. And you need to make *more* assumptions in order to make them fit. IE: you assume that the good kids are spanked and the nasty ones aren't, and then point at the nasty ones and say "that's why you're wrong."

 

[yasic]

Sorry, I see too many kids raised with your way of thinking sitting in the middle of Wal-Mart screaming cause they didn't get a toy. All I have to do is say, "No".

Because I, the parent, said so is all the reason they need for the little things such as temper tantrums and disrespect. I do not have to explain every decision to my child.

I see Moms begging and pleading and threating their kids in public when all that is needed is a clear definition of who the parent is and who the kid is. Most adults can't follow your logic, how can you expect a small child to?

Huh, interesting. In my experience the kids throwing the temper tantrums are the ones who are getting spanked, and the parents who don't do spankings rarely have to deal with such issues... (and I will admit, I may be lapsing in memory due to my bias with this issue)

But all either of us has is anecdotal stories. I wonder if anyone did a scientific study on the frequency and severity of temper tantrums with respect to spankings.