Spanking children. What good does it do ?

[_random_]

You can't hit a woman, and neither should you. If your personality doesn't have enough force to compel her to accept your authority, you have no business being in that relationship.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Archbob]

We don't know what they associate it with, because we're not children.

Let me tell you something. I was a kid once and Mobboss is correct, thats how I thought.

 

[GenMarshall]

Have you read the thread? Or did you feel like making an entirely unsupported statement just for the fun of it?

Incase you're just trolling, Yes I have read the thread and no I did not "feel like" making a statement. And I am terribly sorry that my Opinion has offended you but frankly my dear, I don't give a Damn.

There are a handful of posts from posters who are against spanking children that said almost similar to what I said, yet I don't see you chastising them.

 

[Brighteye]

Oh, I know that others have said similarly ignorant things, but they've also, as far as I remember, said other things that give me an argument that I can chew on.

Your sort of statement, not couched in the middle of an attempted argument, is more borderline trolling than my response.

Do you really think that everyone who spanks his children is stupid, ignorant and thoughtless, or could it be possible that he disagrees with you over whether it's right or not, has indeed considered other options etc.?

If this is a really deeply held belief of yours, it's fair to point out that you consider it grossly inhumane, but to make a blanket statement insulting those who disagree with you in a thread meant to debate that disagreement just strikes me as a little silly.

 

[MobBoss]

Spanking your children is a sign that you cannot think of any other non violent ways to discipline your children.

Commenting without thinking is a sign that you havent really thought things out very well.

Once more, slowly for those having trouble keeping up, spanking isnt about violence....its about instructing your child to obey. It is a method that works great on some children...not so great on others.

But civg, for you to simply dismiss people that spank their kids as being violent.....well, thats just ignorant.

 

[GenMarshall]

Commenting without thinking is a sign that you havent really thought things out very well.

I'm sorry, but I thought out things very well thank you very much.

Once more, slowly for those having trouble keeping up, spanking isnt about violence....its about instructing your child to obey. It is a method that works great on some children...not so great on others.

There are people who would disagree with your belief and methodology. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics states that corporal punishment has negative side effects and limited benifits. Also, they state that the use of physical punishment is unlikely to improve the problem of the behavior and poses a risk of poor self-esteem, hostility, and greater chance of using physical agression.

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS: Guidance for Effective Discipline

But civg, for you to simply dismiss people that spank their kids as being violent...

What are you teaching your kids when you spank?
The answer, you're teaching him or her that spanking is an ok behavior.

..well, thats just ignorant.

五十[wǔ shí] 步[bù] 笑[xiào] 百[bǎi] 步[bù].
"Soldier who fled off the battle fifty steps afar laughs at those a hundred steps afar."

 

[scy12]

Anyway , i hope you would be know to learn that Spankings is illegal in atleast 27 countries. I hope other countries take notice.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sorry, but I thought out things very well thank you very much.

You sure do say your sorry a lot.

What are you teaching your kids when you spank?
The answer, you're teaching him or her that spanking is an ok behavior.

Nope. I am teaching them to not do what they were doing.

Sorry, civg, but a book isnt whats going to make you a good parent. Its the end result that counts.

 

[Simple Simon]

Your children are supposed to feel safe with you. If you have to hit them and cause pain as corrective action, then you've not been doing your job. Besides, there are other, more effective ways of correcting behavior. Use of violence just means you lost control of the situation.

I agree, however, I have seen kids who simply were not receptive to completely non-violent methods. Specifically, a kid who - aged 3 - would pull hair, which he had learned in kindergarten. In the end, the parents were reduced to crying when they talked about how they had failed raising him...... until his mother one day firmly slapped his little paw when he pulled her hair.

'Oops, others can hurt me, too? never knew that.......' and his hair pulling stopped ASAP!


Therefore, I must (as much as I dislike it) admit that a firm slap on the wrist, immediately during the situation, can have a better corrective effect than other methods.

Saw the same thing in a home for disabled people where I used to work. One huge guy was always beating people up. Obviously, his parents had screwed that up, but now he was here and beating people. Violently. In the end, my boss (all of 5 feet tall) asked to have this guy transfered to our floor. First time he went for my boss, he got slapped right back. End of beatings, forever. The only way to teach this physically healthy but mentally badly ******** guy that violence hurts people was to show him.



But anything that goes beyond this (basically: self-defense) is child abuse. You 'need' to do it means you failed.

 

[Simple Simon]

Obviously there's a huge question regarding effectiveness, but it is no more sexual abuse than changing (or indeed failing to change) a diaper or getting a pelvic or prostate exam from a doctor.

Depends...... if a catholic priest spanks a boy, I'd start to think really hard about his motives

 

[classical_hero]

Prostate exam , that is done i imagine by a doctor putting an object or his finger in your butt. Which is "Sexual" in nature. But as i said it is not considered sexual abuse.
Quote:
It is necessary. Because it is done for health reasons it gets a free pass.


Also the doctor does not do it to impose his will to you , or as a symbol of punishment. If you sexually abuse someone to discipline them into obeying you then you don't get such a free pass. Because it is done from one Human to an other so he can impose his will on him or punish him. It is sexual in nature and it is abuse. Whether you think sexual abuse is effective that is an other matter but i believe by definition is neither effective not humane.

Well I think that is rape. And I have back up from Peter Griffin.

 

[Keshik]

Spanking, and the threat of future spanking, effectively changes my son's behavior. I hate doing it, but it is necessary. Spare the rod, spoil the child.

 

[odintheking]

My parents spanking me occasionally when I was little, but it didn't really deter me at all, haha. It was more I knew I was doing something wrong when they spanked me. Yet, if my mom just took away stuff or got mad at me I also knew I was doing something wrong as well.

 

[IglooDame]

What i consider amazing is that you kept singing into that tune , when after my explanations you should have stopped.

As yet I've yet to hear anything that I could reasonably call "an explanation". This has been one of the biggest wastes of typing I've committed on CFC in the last couple years - despite some honest trying, I still don't have much more of an idea of why you think the way you than when I originally read your opinion.

My arguement here is not circular because i do not make an arguement. Red is Red because is Red. That is a claim. I am saying sexual abuse like spanking is , for example bad. If one asks then if under my definition of what red is i believe that Aliens exist and where blue uniforms i will just repeat my claim and in addition wonder about how that person was lead to that thought process. If one will wonder whether what i consider as Sexual abuse , is sexual abuse , then he can do it with a straight face and not inditectly so i know what he is talking about. If you see my first post , i did say back then that the only think you can question is how we determine what is sexual and what is not. I will do it on my own initiative even though this is not the point of our """arguement"""

I assume you know that spanking is often used during Sex , as a Sexual action. It is done by hitting someone in the Butt and that area of the Human body is again connected with Sex.

Though you could put it in the category of "fetish" and make another broad generalization , but i hope that you will not , because it is not just a fetish.

I'm quite familiar with sexual actions and fetishes. Spanking IS "just a fetish" - just like bondage, roleplaying, or a couple hundred (less common) other fetishes. But there's a completely non-sexual reason for parents to use spanking as their method of applying pain - the buttocks is the part of the human body least vulnerable to significant injury caused by impacts. More padding than elsewhere, no organs to damage, no bones to injure flesh against.

The parents don't see it as an action with sexual implications. The children, either at the time or in retrospect, don't see it as an action with sexual implications. Only you do.

And with that, I'm done discussing this with you - clearly we're unable to communicate effectively with each other and I see no point in trying further.

 

[scy12]

As yet I've yet to hear anything that I could reasonably call "an explanation". This has been one of the biggest wastes of typing I've committed on CFC in the last couple years - despite some honest trying, I still don't have much more of an idea of why you think the way you than when I originally read your opinion.

Well i agree that it has been a waste because attempting to discuss with one who uses strawmen , insults and putting words in your mouth , is not a discussion at all.

By my previous discussions with you i already knew how much of a waste it would been a possible discussion with you. When instead of an arguement i got a straman and when you continued it my opinion was assured. Certainly you are unable to discuss but then an amazing thing happened. You posted something on topic which is not a trollish waste of time (but still used bad argumentative methods)

I'm quite familiar with sexual actions and fetishes. Spanking IS "just a fetish" - just like bondage, roleplaying, or a couple hundred (less common) other fetishes. But there's a completely non-sexual reason for parents to use spanking as their method of applying pain - the buttocks is the part of the human body least vulnerable to significant injury caused by impacts. More padding than elsewhere, no organs to damage, no bones to injure flesh against.

So you don't consider Spanking nature sexual but a Fetish. Was it so hard to say? Fine. Is it a sexual fetish or a fetish unrelated with sexual actions? Or with areas in the body that are related with sexual arouse ? The fact that i use the word "sexual" does not mean i am equating with Rape( with the series of strawman you said i assume you either may have said that or may say it in the future).

Whether the case it is violence. And i don't find it very important to discover how much "sexual" is that abuse. I do find it important to note how much you like to post diamonds like these

"Then you must be lying (for creating an impression) because my definition of what sexual abuse is or anything in particular never included , completly irrelevant , and i find this an insult to intelligence (not mine) that you think that under my "definition"
Quote:
#1 - Parents that do it, logically consider it necessary. I've never met a parent that spanked their children despite considering it unnecessary.

#2 - Police arresting someone and putting them in handcuffs is now sexual abuse? Or is it "necessary"?

#3 - Prison terms for convicts is now sexual abuse? Or is that too "necessary"?

What i consider amazing is that you kept singing into that tune , when after my explanations you should have stopped. "

I find the fact that you continuously misinterpreted my position to be more interesting.

You also claim that the buttocks is the best area to use violence against someone. I am not going to bother disputing that , actually. I never expected that you are such a bad poster .

The parents don't see it as an action with sexual implications. The children, either at the time or in retrospect, don't see it as an action with sexual implications. Only you do.

Oh my the "Everyone disagrees with you" arguement again. And my answer to that has always been the same. You are not convincing by using it , and you are wasting both of our time by using such useless arguement. And i am not going to even answer to it.

And with that, I'm done discussing this with you - clearly we're unable to communicate effectively with each other and I see no point in trying further.

I disagree. You are unable to discuss because you don't want to. And i have continuity posted examples where you on purpose did not discuss . The only instance where you attempted to discuss was around 3 lines of texts around the dozens of lines you wrote.

 

[Brighteye]

Scy, YOu are being rather stubborn here. The first definition I found of sexual abuse was this:
'Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim.'
Parents spanking a naughty child aren't sexual abusers. What more is there to it? Do you think that if someone, somewhere considers an act sexually arousing then the rest of us should avoid doing that act?

That's the point IglooDude is making. You might think of spanking someone's bottom as sexually arousing, but there are people out there who find handcuffs arousing. And yet you do not seem to think that the use of handcuffs is always sexual abuse.