Corporal Punishment

[lawtonfogle]

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

So, no objections if I apply the rod to the frontal half of the main torso, instead of the rear half? I don't think so.

 

[SearcherKris]

So would you say that there are certain instances where an adult couple could engage in spanking and not have it be sexual?

Why not?

It is not a turn on for everyone, and possibly not even for half the population. If a couple is fine with playfully (gently) swatting at each other, and don't get aroused by it, I see no problem with it.

I don't see a problem with them getting aroused by it if they do. They are married. They are supposed to want that kind of reaction from each other, and if that is what does it for them, whats it matter?

Different things are going to be appealing to different people. Some people have a foot fettish. Some people hate the sight of feet because they think they look ugly or make them think of smelly socks.

Why? I don't know. Maybe God just made us all different with different preferences.

 

[SearcherKris]

Besides, your next to last paragraph could be used by a child molester to defend acts of foreplay.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Do you think this means that parents should not kiss their kids goodnight or give them kisses before sending them off to school?

There are Biblical references to non-sexual kissing, including one happening to Jesus.

 

[Bro_Sam]

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?

And therein lies the problem: You're confusing corporal punishment with physical abuse. If your purpose is to inflict pain on your child and if your child has a reason to feel like they're in mortal danger, then you're an abusive parent and your children should be taken away immediately and you should be buried under the jail.

 

[SearcherKris]

And I'm very sorry, but unless you are against *all* forms of sexual violence, you can't really claim that you're "totally 100% against" it.

The problem here is that you are percieving something as sexual violence that is not something I see as always being sexual violence.

The way I see it is that spanking is something that can definately be used to harm people, intentionally or not. The harm can be only emotional, only physical, only sexual, or all of these.

But it is also something that can be done in an appropriate way with a pure motive and can have positives effects without having anything to do with sexuality, without physically or emotionally harming the person.

It has to be handled carefully, by the right people, and only done to children who are benefitted by it, in appropriate situations.

Personally, I don't favor spanking children. I try to avoid it and look for other options. But I also don't think it is always wrong; sometimes it can be the best thing for the right child.

Thats my final stance.

 

[SearcherKris]

And therein lies the problem: You're confusing corporal punishment with physical abuse.

I agree. Apples and oranges.

 

[SearcherKris]

So, no objections if I apply the rod to the frontal half of the main torso, instead of the rear half? I don't think so.

I have difficulty with this verse of Scripture because it makes me feel uncomfortable.

Yet, it is in the Bible.

Some say it is interpretted wrong or taken litterally when it should not be. They say that God would not want children harmed, yet He commanded that rebellious teen boys be taken out of the city and stoned by elders...

I don't get it. God and I have talks about it...we're still discussing it.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying that I would contemplate stoning my children! I'm just trying to reconcile Scripture understanding and my feelings about what it says.

 

[Mling]

And therein lies the problem: You're confusing corporal punishment with physical abuse. If your purpose is to inflict pain on your child and if your child has a reason to feel like they're in mortal danger, then you're an abusive parent and your children should be taken away immediately and you should be buried under the jail.

You may have to demonstrate for me how, exactly, you hit somebody in any meaningful way, without hurting them. Or why, if your goal was 'not hurting somebody,' anybody would chose hitting them as a means to that end.

 

[Mling]

Ok....the sexual stuff grabbed people's attention, as could have been predicted. When I think about the issue, that's what leaps to the fore of *my* brain, because it's what provokes the strongest emotional reaction in me. As much as I think, in my brain, that spanking is ineffective, counterproductive and developmentally stunting, that sort of calm rationality isn't what makes me shudder, freeze and freak out emotionally when people talk about the subject.

As logic goes, though, it isn't really the strongest argument, and doesn't touch on issues that matter more to other people, so probably shouldn't have been as central to my OP as it was.

So, putting that aside, I want to bring back a few things that were said, that are more about effectiveness.

It keeps being said that, if you're spanking your kids right, you shouldn't be hurting them. That there's no intention to inflict pain. That the spank is 'symbolic.'

Well, ok, that's one way to do it. Another way is to strike repeatedly until they're crying. Another that I hear advocated once in a while is to use an implement and keep going until they're limp and have stopped fighting, because that indicates remorse, and that this should occur for every incident of direct disobedience.

You may approve or not, but all of these things are "spanking." You call many abuse, and so do I. It seems like most of us agree 99%, in that, if we lay out the spectrum from "no spanking" to "spanked to hysteria for every infraction," we all agree that the closer a kid is to the 'no spanking' side, the better the situation, at least in this regard.

I just take it that one step more. Think about it...how is a mild tap "symbolic" of anything but a harder slap? How much meaning does it convey? It isn't a punishment at all.

Aside: I consider the word "discipline" to refer to training a person in things that are beneficial for them. Teaching yourself to play the piano requires discipline, as does teaching your kid not to run in front of cars.

A "punishment" on the other hand, is an artificially created consequence, intended to make a person suffer to some degree, because they did something bad.

Making a kid stay outside of the 'play area' because they weren't playing safely is a natural consequence, intended to teach cause and effect, and responsibility. It is discipline. Making them stand in the corner and hold a coin to the wall with their nose is intended to be humiliating and uncomfortable, so it's a punishment.

Ok, end aside.

Before I interupted myself, I was talking about a mild tap, as discipline/punishment. It's neither. The tap doesn't teach anything (discipline), and it doesn't make the child suffer (punishment).

So why does it appear to work? Because a person who is only using a little tap probably isn't relying on it *as* either. Rather, they're talking to the kid, explaining the problem, interacting with them, showing that what they did was wrong, and likely explaining why, and what should have been better. And then doing this silly little meaningless tap thing that doesn't really contribute anything on its own, and has the potential to short-circuit out some of the lesson that might have been learned.

In effect, a person who uses the 'symbolic tap' method thoughtfully is disciplining their kid in the exact same way that a thoughtful non-spanker is. The fake spanking is just...incidental.

On the other hand, if spanking is being used *as a punishment,* that is, as something that is meant to cause enough suffering that it turns the kid away from bad behavior, in and of itself, that's when it needs to be brutal to be meaningful. That minute or two needs to cause more suffering than, say, being grounded for a day, or having their favorite toy taken away, or anything else that might be considered a lesser punishment.

So, what I come back to is the question I asked early...back in maybe the second page. Everybody here seems to agree that, out of the full spectrum of what being spanked *can* mean, the kids who are *closest* to not being spanked are the best off. If that's the case...then I see three 'levels' of possible spanking:

1. Fake, neither disciplines nor punishes. Some people call it "symbolic." (mildest 5 percent of the spectrum)

2. stronger, causes pain, but is insufficient to really punish. Sufficient, though, to short circuit potential lessons. Sort of the way you can put vitamins in soda, but the caffeine prevents your body from absorbing them, so it's pointless. Worse than pointless, because people will think it's good and use it even more. (Middle....let's say....75 percent of the spectrum)

3. Actually suffiecient to function as a punishement, and thus, abusively brutal. (upper 20 percent).

So....it really begs the question.....what's the point?

 

[Risen Tree]

Why not?

It is not a turn on for everyone, and possibly not even for half the population. If a couple is fine with playfully (gently) swatting at each other, and don't get aroused by it, I see no problem with it.

I don't see a problem with them getting aroused by it if they do. They are married. They are supposed to want that kind of reaction from each other, and if that is what does it for them, whats it matter?

Different things are going to be appealing to different people. Some people have a foot fettish. Some people hate the sight of feet because they think they look ugly or make them think of smelly socks.

Why? I don't know. Maybe God just made us all different with different preferences.

Spanking adults is *not* sexual?

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Do you think this means that parents should not kiss their kids goodnight or give them kisses before sending them off to school?

There are Biblical references to non-sexual kissing, including one happening to Jesus.

There's a big difference between a peck on the cheek and locked lips. The first is usually one-and-done, the second can lead to something far more.

The problem here is that you are percieving something as sexual violence that is not something I see as always being sexual violence.

The way I see it is that spanking is something that can definately be used to harm people, intentionally or not. The harm can be only emotional, only physical, only sexual, or all of these.

But it is also something that can be done in an appropriate way with a pure motive and can have positives effects without having anything to do with sexuality, without physically or emotionally harming the person.

It has to be handled carefully, by the right people, and only done to children who are benefitted by it, in appropriate situations.

Personally, I don't favor spanking children. I try to avoid it and look for other options. But I also don't think it is always wrong; sometimes it can be the best thing for the right child.

Thats my final stance.

Doctor's visits or giving baths aside, making contact with the buttocks is not sexual?

Let me re-ask you a question: Why do authority figures specifically choose the buttocks to strike? Why not the shoulder, wrist, or face?

You may have to demonstrate for me how, exactly, you hit somebody in any meaningful way, without hurting them. Or why, if your goal was 'not hurting somebody,' anybody would chose hitting them as a means to that end.

Exactly. Because the entire purpose of a spanking *is* to hurt the victim.

 

[SearcherKris]

I didn't say it is not. I was saying that it does not have to be. Spanking adults does not have to be sexual.

If it does nothing sexual for either party, then it is not sexual.

If it does do something for them, then yes, it is.

 

[SearcherKris]

There's a big difference between a peck on the cheek and locked lips. The first is usually one-and-done, the second can lead to something far more.

Then maybe you can come to understand the difference between a few mild swats on the behind and a beating.

 

[SearcherKris]

Doctor's visits or giving baths aside, making contact with the buttocks is not sexual?

It can be, but it does not have to be. It all has to do with the reason for it and how it is done.

 

[SearcherKris]

Let me re-ask you a question: Why do authority figures specifically choose the buttocks to strike? Why not the shoulder, wrist, or face?

When you say authorities do you mean child development and psychology experts or do you mean authority figures in childrens' lives?

I know plenty who strike the wrist and have no problem with it. I've done it; its been done to me. I think it is fine.

I've seen people slap on the shoulder as well. I don't think it is as wise because it is usually done out of frustration and impulse rather than thought out discipline, but I don't condemn it either as long as it is not hard enough to cause bruising or knock the child off balance or to the floor altogether.

The face... Plenty of people do that too. I don't like it. I think it is abusive. The face bleeds very easily, more internal damage can be done because of the close bone proximity. Plus, you don't want a child's head to be knocked around.

On the bottom there is more cushioning between the skin and bone. Enough pain can be inflicted to make a difference without causing enough damage for it to be significant. This has already been discredited in this thread so I don't expect it to be taken seriously or considered to be a valid point.

The no-spanking camp won't like what I have said, but I really don't care. I don't live my life to make people happy with what I say. My beliefs and experiences are just that, and so are your's. No one has the corner market on being right.

I think I've said about all I can say on the topic. Unless there are other questions asked that I have not given an answer to I probably won't comment further.

 

[bliz]

Well I was corporally punished and never felt "sexually violated" my sons were spanked and neither of them felt "sexually violated"

That would be a little more assuring if your sons had shared that with us.

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.

Why don't you check back with us in 10 or 15 years? Better yet, have you kids check back with us. If you can answer the question correctly, you get spanked. If you don't, you get talked to some more. That's motivation to get it right the first time! And why in the bedroom, on the bed?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Then maybe you can come to understand the difference between a few mild swats on the behind and a beating.

But where does a peck on the lips fall?

 

[SearcherKris]

But where does a peck on the lips fall?

I dont understand the question.

 

[Risen Tree]

I didn't say it is not. I was saying that it does not have to be. Spanking adults does not have to be sexual.

If it does nothing sexual for either party, then it is not sexual.

If it does do something for them, then yes, it is.

That's plausible but unlikely. Causing pain via physical contact is hard to separate from sexual sadism.

Then maybe you can come to understand the difference between a few mild swats on the behind and a beating.

The number of strokes?

It can be, but it does not have to be. It all has to do with the reason for it and how it is done.

How so? Examples?

When you say authorities do you mean child development and psychology experts or do you mean authority figures in childrens' lives?

The latter. Parents, school administrators, babysitters, etc.

I know plenty who strike the wrist and have no problem with it. I've done it; its been done to me. I think it is fine.

I've seen people slap on the shoulder as well. I don't think it is as wise because it is usually done out of frustration and impulse rather than thought out discipline, but I don't condemn it either as long as it is not hard enough to cause bruising or knock the child off balance or to the floor altogether.

The face... Plenty of people do that too. I don't like it. I think it is abusive. The face bleeds very easily, more internal damage can be done because of the close bone proximity. Plus, you don't want a child's head to be knocked around.

On the bottom there is more cushioning between the skin and bone. Enough pain can be inflicted to make a difference without causing enough damage for it to be significant. This has already been discredited in this thread so I don't expect it to be taken seriously or considered to be a valid point.

Actually it has been discredited, and in exactly the opposite way that I think you're implying. Kris, there is no getting around, no dodging this critical point: The entire purpose of a spanking is to hurt the victim. This renders the buttocks-have-more-padding argument moot. There is a specific reason that the buttocks are struck, however, and it has nothing to do with the amount of padding down there. (That's a hint, BTW...)

The no-spanking camp won't like what I have said, but I really don't care. I don't live my life to make people happy with what I say. My beliefs and experiences are just that, and so are your's. No one has the corner market on being right.

I think I've said about all I can say on the topic. Unless there are other questions asked that I have not given an answer to I probably won't comment further.

Unfortunately, there is research that implies that spankings, even if administered "properly" (and just what the heck does that mean?), they can cause long-term damage to the child's psyche:

Increased incidence of psychiatric disorders.
Parents who spank tend to increase the intensity just to have the same effect

I normally don't pause at just two sources, but I'd like for you and others to peruse them with an open mind, and then we'll look at some more studies.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I dont understand the question.

You were comparing a peck on the cheek to a spanking, and locked lips to a beating. I would think the better analogy would be a pop on the wrist = a peck on the cheek, locked lips = a beating, and spanking = a peck on the lips. At the same time, I would like to point out that a peck on the lips is often times, except in the case of a mother and young child, seen as awkward, if not down right creepy.

 

[lawtonfogle]

That's plausible but unlikely. Causing pain via physical contact is hard to separate from sexual sadism.



The number of strokes?



How so? Examples?



The latter. Parents, school administrators, babysitters, etc.



Actually it has been discredited, and in exactly the opposite way that I think you're implying. Kris, there is no getting around, no dodging this critical point: The entire purpose of a spanking is to hurt the victim. This renders the buttocks-have-more-padding argument moot. There is a specific reason that the buttocks are struck, however, and it has nothing to do with the amount of padding down there. (That's a hint, BTW...)



Unfortunately, there is research that implies that spankings, even if administered "properly" (and just what the heck does that mean?), they can cause long-term damage to the child's psyche:

Increased incidence of psychiatric disorders.
Parents who spank tend to increase the intensity just to have the same effect

I normally don't pause at just two sources, but I'd like for you and others to peruse them with an open mind, and then we'll look at some more studies.

As to the padding area, a different take on it. If one was trying to cause pain, but not cause damage, then the padding would seem to help. Because, while the vital organs are protected by the padding on the butt, the pain receptors are not. Unless by pain, you mean internal bruising, you will still be causing full pain with or without the padding, because nerves do not benefit from the padding.

I actually think the most often two reasons for the butt to be spanked is tradition, and it does not (at least from the average parents mind) cause internal problems like spanking the belly, back, or head would.