Corporal Punishment

[Mling]

I would like to get away from the sexual aspects of the question for two main reasons:

1. The emotional aspect of it distracts from more logic-based questions, and logic based questions can be explored more meaningfully in this context.

2. More importantly, the sexual aspects are an 'easy out.' I say, "it's sexual," somebody else says, "I never felt aroused," conversation either ends or goes back and forth without real progress. Meanwhile, there are much more *substantial* issues regarding the purpose of discipline and child development that are being neglected.

I find it very interesting that nobody responded to the questions I asked that were *not* about sexuality. I think this is because those questions are actually very difficult to answer, and saying "I wasn't aroused as a kid, so it's not sexual" is very *easy* to say.

To me, the sexual aspect of the situation is the most distressing part, and I know that a few of you agree with me. It could be a worthwhile conversation, but it doesn't get to any real answers.

most importantly, it *lets people off the hook too easily.* It gives them a distracting, easy question to answer instead of making them face the more difficult ones.

So please, let's leave it be for a while and move on to the questions that require real thought to give a real answer. I posted this before, and I'm still very interested to see if anybody has a response to it:

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?

 

[SearcherKris]

Honestly I feel like it is pointless to say anything anymore. Because you are not going to accept what I say is right and you are not changing my mind either.

There are too many variables for either one of us to be completely right. In some cases, what you have said is correct. But not in all of them.

To address one of your questions, personally I don't think that I've heard anyone say that they did not intend to inflict pain when spanking. That's the point after all. The reason the bottom is chosen is because it is the safest place to inflict pain. Pain can be felt without it doing any serious damage.

 

[SearcherKris]

Risen Tree, because I feel like you present you points in a respectful way and don't intend harshness, I will look at your links. If you want we can continue discussing in another thread or PM. I just need some time to look over it first and re-read some of my own studies for comparison, and i want to be able to do it undistracted so I can give it good thought and consideration.

Mling, although it is upsetting to me (for good reason), I don't think that taking the sexual aspect off the table of discussion is wise because it obviously is something that is a concern to people. I find it very irritating that we are being asked to not talk about it now especially by the person who brought it up to begin with. It appears that because the discussion is not going your way, you want to change the rules. You get to say what you want to say and when people are not buying it you don't want to talk about it anymore. How reasonable and logical is that?

BTW, answering something easily because of strong conviction and personal understanding does not make the answer wrong.

 

[SearcherKris]

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.

ah, gotcha.

Yeah, the peck on the lips thing can be creepy, escpecially depending on whos doing it. It would seem best on the check or elsewhere on the face. But as you say, not so much for a (mother) parent and child. I still think it is all about context and the people involved.

 

[Mling]

Mling, although it is upsetting to me (for good reason), I don't think that taking the sexual aspect off the table of discussion is wise because it obviously is something that is a concern to people. I find it very irritating that we are being asked to not talk about it now especially by the person who brought it up to begin with. It appears that because the discussion is not going your way, you want to change the rules. You get to say what you want to say and when people are not buying it you don't want to talk about it anymore. How reasonable and logical is that?

Well, I wanted to take it off the table, at least temporarily, because the conversation didn't seem to be going anyplace useful, and because I wanted to make sure topics that have the most potential to go useful places get addressed.

I do realize that bringing it up and then saying 'ok, let's not discuss this anymore,' is annoying, but I was actually directing that more toward the people who agree with me. I brought it up because I thought it would be a useful point to make, but people responded with what is, essentially a "yes it is," "Not it isn't" argument. Which, honestly, isn't anybody's fault. The question of "What does is mean for something to be sexual?" is pretty abstract to begin with, and then we would need to factor in what it means for a *child* to be sexual, and that makes it even more nebulous--for example: is a child who likes being tied up being "sexual?" I say probably, as that interest is likely to grow into a kink, even though they aren't aroused and there's nothing overtly sexual in the way they are playing. Then we would need to get into what it means for a *situation* to be inherently sexual, even though neither person intends it to be, and one is a child.....

It could be a fascinating conversation, and definitely a worthwhile one, but as it went on, I realized it's *really* beyond the scope of this topic. Just defining the terms is a topic for a college paper, in and of itself.
If childhood sexuality is something we're interested in talking about, cool. I'm all for it. But...I hadn't meant for *this* thread to get turned into that conversation, and there's really no way to do both conversations justice at the same time.

On the other hand....I ultimately don't have any control over what people post. I'd prefer that, given the choice between two meaningful topics, we stick to the OP, but, if people would rather veer into childhood sexuality, that could work too.

About me asking people not to talk about it because it wasn't going my way....you do realize, right, that that topic is the one that matters most to me? Asking people to give it up was sort of a hard decision. If I hear about a child getting spanked, my reaction is pretty similar to when I hear about a child being molested. Almost certainly, it has to do with my own interested in adult spanking, but there it is. I freeze, I need to pinch my leg until it hurts to keep myself from freaking out. A roomate described a fairly normal spanking to me once, and I nearly cried. Listening to her calmly describing an act that I consider abusive on so many levels was almost physically painful. If I just wanted the conversation to go 'my way,' I'd rant on that one topic endlessly. I often do. But I want the conversation to go a meaningful way. That's why I sometimes slip into the hyper-formal style I use (which I've been told comes across as cold and arrogant...it needs fine-tuning, I know)--having to organize my thoughts in the style of a formal argument keeps me from just ranting about what I want to rant about.

BTW, answering something easily because of strong conviction and personal understanding does not make the answer wrong.

Interesting statement....If you'd said that alone, I'd think that you were trying to offer a little comfort and understanding across the aisle

I'm not sure why anybody would feel such strong conviction the way you're suggesting, though. I mean, except for those people like the Pearl family, who make a living off of selling books about how great it is to whip babies. *They* have a reason to at least express strong conviction that way.....they have money riding on it. (That's not hyperbole by the way--Debi Pearl recommends using a foot-long switch on babies as young as six months, for crimes like crying after they're put to bed. Their book is called "No Greater Joy.")

You, on the other hand, seem pretty reasonable, and your position seems fairly thought out, even though I'd consider it deeply flawed. I truly don't get why somebody who's said that they don't favor spanking, and don't think it's right for all kids, would feel 'strong conviction' that it is right, and not damaging.

To put it goofily, there's a reason why nobody ever writes about the "Epic Battle of Good vs. Neutral" (as my friend liked to say during D&D games) : because positions that accept a little bit of both sides tend not to be combined with a lot of force or zealotry.


So, anyway....like I said way above, in my last post, I don't think think that every random swat is going to do irreparable harm, but I think "it did no harm" is the best that can ever be said about it.

 

[Tenebrae]

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.

This.

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.

Me too

Well said

 

[Bro_Sam]

Honestly I feel like it is pointless to say anything anymore. Because you are not going to accept what I say is right and you are not changing my mind either.

There are too many variables for either one of us to be completely right. In some cases, what you have said is correct. But not in all of them.

To address one of your questions, personally I don't think that I've heard anyone say that they did not intend to inflict pain when spanking. That's the point after all. The reason the bottom is chosen is because it is the safest place to inflict pain. Pain can be felt without it doing any serious damage.

If you're spanking your children to inflict pain, that's called abuse. The purpose of spanking is NEVER to inflict pain on a child.

 

[SearcherKris]

If you're spanking your children in order to inflict pain, could you please give me your address so I can call the police?

They won't do anything because it is not illegal. They'd probably tell you that that is the whole point of doing it. There's a chance they would not even investigate. At most they would be irritated for the waste of time.

I don't do it often anyway. It is not my prefered method of dealing with my children. You make it sound so much worse than it is. No damage is done to them. I don't think they even get a red mark most of the time.

<shrug>

When my cousin was a teenager she was incredibly rebellious. Her mother had a crippling disease and my cousin was cruel to her. She would not even allow her mother to go to the restroom. She would push her, slap her and say horrible things to her.

Her dad worked far away and was only home for short periods of time. He didn't realize it was happening for a long time. When his wife finally broke and told him what their daughter had been doing her, he got after my cousin with a belt.

My cousin called 911. The sheriff's deputy arrived and talked to my cousin alone first. Then he talked to her dad. After talking to both of them, he told my cousin that she was lucky the law wasn't called on her, and then he thanked her dad for trying to control her and teach her to behave. He told my cousin not to bother calling again because he was glad she got what she did.

 

[SearcherKris]

If you're spanking your children to inflict pain, that's called abuse. The purpose of spanking is NEVER to inflict pain on a child.

You changed your post after I quoted you.

I think there is a breakdown in communication here. I don't mean inflict pain as in being a sadist or something like that. But the reason spankings work is because they do hurt. It causes some physical pain and emotional pain.

Not all pain is bad. If no significant damage is done and it causes a behavior or attitude change, then it is not harmful.

 

[Mling]

They won't do anything because it is not illegal. They'd probably tell you that that is the whole point of doing it. There's a chance they would not even investigate. At most they would be irritated for the waste of time.

I don't do it often anyway. It is not my prefered method of dealing with my children. You make it sound so much worse than it is. No damage is done to them. I don't think they even get a red mark most of the time.

<shrug>

When my cousin was a teenager she was incredibly rebellious. Her mother had a crippling disease and my cousin was cruel to her. She would not even allow her mother to go to the restroom. She would push her, slap her and say horrible things to her.

Her dad worked far away and was only home for short periods of time. He didn't realize it was happening for a long time. When his wife finally broke and told him what their daughter had been doing her, he got after my cousin with a belt.

My cousin called 911. The sheriff's deputy arrived and talked to my cousin alone first. Then he talked to her dad. After talking to both of them, he told my cousin that she was lucky the law wasn't called on her, and then he thanked her dad for trying to control her and teach her to behave. He told my cousin not to bother calling again because he was glad she got what she did.

Well, in that sort of situation, I'm not going to pitch a fit about it, but I also don't think it's about discipline. It's about rage at a cruel [expletive] who deserves a lot worse.

Which...in the perfect, sweet 'let's all be nice to each other' part of my brain, I don't really support, but...eh, I'd probably do the same.

 

[country_cookie]

Mling, I agree with you. Spanking is just not even necessary.

I was abused as a child and psychologists and pediatricians tell parents who were abused as children not to spank so we have to come up with different forms of correction.

There are many ways to discipline a child other than hitting them. My kids are very well behaved but not spanked.

As a side note, how would any of us feel if someone at least 3 to 4 times our size and weight came at us with the intent of hitting us? Particularly when that person is also the main person we look to for safety and security and yet they are the one hurting us and making us afraid. This sends a confusing message to the child because humans assign meaning to actions.

When God talked about sparing the rod, he was talking about discipline (to make sure children understood there are consequences for their actions). That doesn't mean we have to hit them.

 

[SearcherKris]

Mling, I agree with you. Spanking is just not even necessary.

I was abused as a child and psychologists and pediatricians tell parents who were abused as children not to spank so we have to come up with different forms of correction.

This is not true for everyone. I was abused, I've had tons of counseling, and so have my children. I have NEVER been told to not spank my kids (and they were aware it is a method I use) because I am not harmful to my children.

It is all circumstantial and comes down to the individuals involved.

 

[Risen Tree]

If you're spanking your children to inflict pain, that's called abuse. The purpose of spanking is NEVER to inflict pain on a child.

No Sam, the entire purpose of a spanking IS to physically hurt a child. If it's not, then why not use a consequence that is more nearly benevolent?

You changed your post after I quoted you.

I think there is a breakdown in communication here. I don't mean inflict pain as in being a sadist or something like that. But the reason spankings work is because they do hurt. It causes some physical pain and emotional pain.

Not all pain is bad. If no significant damage is done and it causes a behavior or attitude change, then it is not harmful.

The ends justify the means?

Mling, I agree with you. Spanking is just not even necessary.

I was abused as a child and psychologists and pediatricians tell parents who were abused as children not to spank so we have to come up with different forms of correction.

There are many ways to discipline a child other than hitting them. My kids are very well behaved but not spanked.

As a side note, how would any of us feel if someone at least 3 to 4 times our size and weight came at us with the intent of hitting us? Particularly when that person is also the main person we look to for safety and security and yet they are the one hurting us and making us afraid. This sends a confusing message to the child because humans assign meaning to actions.

Wow, great points. It certainly blurs the line between what counts as "deserved" punishment and what counts as bullying, doesn't it? One even wonders if there IS a line.

When God talked about sparing the rod, he was talking about discipline (to make sure children understood there are consequences for their actions). That doesn't mean we have to hit them.

Though this is absolutely correct, many Christians choose not to accept this, so that they can continue the barbaric practice of striking a child's buttocks when he or she does something that the parent does not approve of.

 

[LittleNipper]

I was spanked. If a child understands that if he does this or that, he will get this or that, the child can respect his parents when he is out of bounds... And not all children should be spanked, but some need a little more then a "Billy, don't do that."

 

[Bro_Sam]

Mling, I agree with you. Spanking is just not even necessary.

I was abused as a child and psychologists and pediatricians tell parents who were abused as children not to spank so we have to come up with different forms of correction.

There are many ways to discipline a child other than hitting them. My kids are very well behaved but not spanked.

It depends on the child. I have six children. Of them, I have one who was never spanked (at least not that I can remember) and one who was spanked. Both are very well behaved, very well adjusted young adults now.

As a side note, how would any of us feel if someone at least 3 to 4 times our size and weight came at us with the intent of hitting us?

Spanking and hitting are two conpletely different things.

 

[Mling]

Spanking and hitting are two conpletely different things.

Ahh...I was completely with you, right up until this point. This is one of the major things I want people to stop denying--spanking means raising your hand and striking the flesh of another person. That is, by definition, hitting.

People use all sorts of less-loaded words, like spank and swat to make themselves more comfortable with what they're doing. The very fact that sort of self-deception is necessary should be a clue that something is wrong.

Spanking is hitting. It may be hitting very softly, but it is. Progress won't be made if people can't even acknowledge what they're doing. Own up. Face it. If you strike another person's flesh, you have hit them. If they are your child, you have hit your child.

The word "spanking" does not mean pouring tea for somebody, or sending them to their room, or writing an essay. It means hitting.

 

[SearcherKris]

<staff edit>
<staff edit>
Risen Tree is a non-spanker...and he is a rather persistant one with his beliefs. You two could be friends, and I don't mean that in a patronizing way. <staff edit>

Want a marshmellow?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Hmmm...so apparently I'm now a sexual predator because I choose to spank my kids.

Rather hard to have a good discussion with that on the table, dontcha think?

Spanking works in my family. I was a hard headed kid when I was young, and I have the scars to prove it. A tap on the wrist only made me disobey more. "oh, momma doesn't want me touching the stove so I'm gonna touch it more!" "Hello, ER, here is my daughter with a burn on her chin and hand from trying to climb on the stove."

My children get spanked for very serious offenses. Anything else nets a different punishment, depending on the child.

If we stretch logic enough, ANY form of discipline can be construed as damaging. My goodness, I was grounded for an entire summer once...imagine the pain and suffering I experienced from being away from my friends (not). Losing a privilege? Gasp, I lost computer privileges on more than one occasion and I'm almost positive it's why I am on the computer at all hours of the night now!!

As has been said, there's a huge difference between spanking a child and beating a child. Yes, my children feel pain when they are spanked. Momentarily pain, mind you (and I know this having been spanked as a child). But they also get more upset when I take a toy away or when the TV is turned off. I can also tell you that something my children have been spanked for doesn't happen again, and generally speaking, the two other kids seeing the spanking don't try to do what the other one who got spanked did.

I'm not parroting my parents, I've just been a parent long enough to know my own children. If you don't want to spank your children, that's fine. I don't crap on your decision to do so, nor do I make judgments about you as a parent or say rude things about it. However, it seems that can't always be reciprocated...

 

[Verv]

Children do not have the ability for abstract thought until just before puberty, and thus they are not good reasoners.

To make them stop some things they must be treated with the pain/pleasure methods of rewarding or punishing.

Similarly, sometimes in the military or in other environments giving out a beating is a useful way of reminding someone the importance of something and dissuading them from misbehavior.

 

[Bro_Sam]

Seriously, you should read through threads before making personal comments toward people, especially negative ones.

OK. What would I read that would negate the fact that he believes that spanking is for the purpose of inflicting pain?

You two could be friends

I seriously doubt I'd want to be friends with somebody like that.