Spanking
Offline It just occurred to me that I dislike spanking for the same reason that I dislike religion. When a parent spanks a child, it doesn't teach them why what they did was wrong. It just makes them afraid of being hurt if they do it again. This is why kids will do anything that they can get away with when they are not in the presense of adults.
This, at least in my mind, parallels religion. Many religious people have told me that there are no morals without god and that if they didn't believe in god they would all suddenly become murderers and theives. They aren't abstaining from murder because they disagree with the idea! They are just abstaining from murder because they are afraid of devine punishment. If that isn't horrifying, then I don't know what is.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
- Login to post comments
Eh, I guess it depends on how it is done, I was warned and given the reason what I was doing wrong, if I continued, I'd get spanked (actually it was more like a smack at the back of my head), however with my daughter, it goes we tell her three times to stop what she is doing and why, on the third it's time out in her bed (and no toys or anything and she's not aloud to get out), when she gets out, we tell her why she had a time out and what not to do, if she goes back and does it again, she gets told only once and what she is doing wrong, the next time I hit her hand or bottom, again she is told what she has done wrong. I have hit her only once and not hard at all, but enough that she knows we are not joking around (I say this because a few friends of mine do this but never follow through the punishment part neither time out or hitting, and the kids now think it's a big joke, which it is now). There has to be consequences to their actions otherwise what you get are brats from hell.
yes, it's rule by threat of violence. The first step of indoctrination into a violent society. Teach the kid that to get what you want, use violence. Then say to them violence isn't the answer. Violence causes more violence. Violence is bad.
No wonder kids grow up confused, just another hypocrisy in what seems a brain dead society sometimes.
Then again, I've never had to raise a child, I imagine it can be frustrating and infuriating. Taking the easy route must be very tempting.
spanking is extreme, a quick moronic reaction ... punishment is not healing ... stern focused explanition is better ....
Prisons should be places of healing, zero punishment ......
"god" never forgets, .... that word forgiveness ? umm, I await for a rrs todangst reply ....
I left out all the details, typing sucks .....
Atheism Books.
I am against spanking children.
Now consenting adults? entirly different. :D
Actually most of the kids I know that are violent, or break the rules with out fear of punishment, never had any disciple. Please give me the evidence that disciple (not abuse i mean) makes kids violent? Punishment doesn't necessarily mean hitting, either.
I don't have any evidence, it was pure conjecture.
I did not say that not spanking your children would create good children. Obviously kids need dicipline of sorts. And I would guess that if it can be done without violence, that would be better.
I completely agree with you, hence why hitting is the last resort, we (wife and I) do talk to our child first and try to make her understand what she is doing is wrong, and of course first punishment is time out (this has 99.99 percent of the time worked). Talking is a major part of it, making sure they understand why they are being punished and what they did wrong.
I agree that spanking is in most cases not only unnecessary, but really just a release for the parents frustration and not done for the benefit of the child. As soon as you physically hurt a child, they react so emotionally that getting through to them with any kind of rational thought is impossible. I feel that there are much more effective ways to teach your children how to behave that won't make them afraid of you. I want my kids to listen to me because they trust me and know that I have valid reasons for the things that I say.
Atheist Books
Teaching children that punishment is due when rules are broken is not wrong. The example of murder has been used... but let's just back up a bit. Let's say theft. No, I don't take that car because I'm afraid of god's wrath, I do it because I feel it is morally incorrect. That's right. Now let's take something even more innocent: tax evasion (which, incidentally, carries the death penalty in China!). The same moral code comes into play here, but to be honest I mostly don't cheat on my taxes because I'm afraid of getting caught, thrown in jail and getting raped by Bubba and his gang. Teaching a child that actions have consequences is an important part of preparation for real life.
Getting back to morals. A child aged 2 or 3 does not understand morals, death, religion, or any other type of logic that we take for granted. They understand only the physical world around them, and what their senses tell them about it. This is why babies put everything into their mouths... the only way they know of experiencing the outside world is through taste. This makes them much like animals. Don't scream at me! That statement is just a build up to this comparrison: Have you ever seen anybody teaching a dog to roll over, sit, stay, etc by reasoning with it? I thought not. Yes, dog trainers mainly use "treats" instead of violence, but in this case it is reward for doing something, not punishment for NOT doing something. You can't reward someone for NOT doing something naughty, can you?
Either way, the connection of the word "violence" when discussing spanking is out of line to begin with. My method of spanking involves an emotional explanation of what she did wrong followed by a swing and a miss that basically just makes a very threatening "whoosh!" sound as it brushes her clothes. Believe me, that's enough to get the message through! Physically hurting a child is always wrong, no matter what the reasoning... although I almost DID find a reason when my 4 year old discovered scissors the other day and proceeded to cut up het pajamas, her pillowcase, her watch strap, her Barbie's hair, etc, etc. Does strangling count as spanking?
Atheism: My licence to sleep in on Sundays.
I don't have children but am a fan of the art of spanking. There are varied forms and many techniques. Each provides the child a few moments to really reflect on what it is they were doing.
For example, the "one-arm-dangle spank" is often used when the parent wishes to transport a child to a more secluded spanking site. The child should recognize that whatever the child was doing, it was doing it in too public an area. So, a lesson on how to behave in public is learned.
Another favorite example is the "cuff-to-the-back-of-the-head spank." This spank informs the child that the environment is not really set for too much emotional manifestation but that something reallyirritating has been done.
My personal favorite is the "wound-up-backhand smack." This one is often reserved for smart ass teenagers who have not learned that words can actually hurt. Nothing says, "Shut the fuck up" like a solid backhand. This one provides the child some time to realize that he/she should really shut the fuck up and reflect on what was being said.
I think it is really pretty nice compared to what I'd have done to the little brutes.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
http://nospank.net/n-r36r.htm, http://archpedi.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/8/761 (anti-social behavoir cooerlation with coorperal punishment), http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/161/7/805, http://nospank.net/adctn.htm. This all has to do with spanking. Therea are other ways of discipline that do not involve physical contact such as listed in this article http://nospank.net/heins.htm
Every article i could find about spanking speaks to the fact that a) its not effective as a means of discipline and b) it increases the likelihoodof violence, antisocial behaviors, anxeity and/or other psychtric disorders.
Other articles i read talks about how postive punishment (which is what spanking is) causes other problems to pop up that the punisher doesn't want either. Whereas both types of reinforement and even negative punishment do not have these problems.
It also seems that countries that have either banned spanking or discourage it have lower rates of violence then ones whodon't discourage it as much .
I also agree it should be between consenting adults. I love having a woman beat my ass!
Too much information dude.
Morte alla tyrannus et dei
Massachusetts is considering making it illegal.
story here
Ok, maybe we are working with different interpretations of what spanking is. I am under the impression that a spank is the same thing as a smack, which is physically hitting the child, even if it is soft. I consider this a form of violence, physical violence. Indeed, detaining a child to it's room is also a form of violence, perhaps more mental than physical. Again, detainment is used in the adult world, it's called prison. Our cultures definitely train children from a young age as to the violent forms that are taken as a given in the adult world.
So question, if hitting a child is an accepted way to punish/dicipline children, why are we so against it for adults? It seems only in backward, sharia law type coutries that lashings, stonings etc are accepted as forms of dicipline. And before anyone blows up, yes I realise there is a massive difference between a soft whack on a child and the likes of islamic law, but in essence it is the same thing - physical threat from an authority if you do the wrong thing.
Oh yeah! I am so pleased to hear that the government is developing new laws that will allow them to violate my privacy. Telling people how to raise their children is way over the line. Perhaps they should be telling us to send them to church as well? BAH!
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
It seems to me when advocates of not spanking kids go as far as to use the term "corporal punishment" it is a gross misuse of language to hype the point. Every time I've ever heard of someone receiving corporal punishment it meant they were going to get lashed or cained or the equivilent. That's a very scary sounding term and I wouldn't equate that to swatting a kid on his butt just enough to make it sting. I know that a few parents go that far but damn.
On the flip side of the coin though, I am leaning towards not spanking my kids at all. I got the belt for being very bad when I was a kid, and I don't agree with that. I don't think it helped at all. I still swat my kids on the butt for openly defying a rule when they know they are doing something real bad, but I have often thought about stopping that altogether. I guess I have mixed feelings on it because I don't know how to effectively discipline without it completely. Sometimes I think when a kid knows they are doing wrong, and you can see them trying to get away with it, then they need to get that shock of a little stinging swat on the butt or the hand. A good example would be a kid looking to see if you notice that they are marking on the walls with crayon or pouring red coolaid on the carpet cause they are mad at you. Something that I have yelled at them before, and they know its bad. Maybe if I knew an effective alternative in that situation it would be easier to stop altogether.
I also think that a bad teenager may need a good hard spanking if he is out of control, once in his life to get the point through that his/her behavior is unacceptable. Am I off base here? I just keep thinking of these talk shows where the kids have never been disciplined and they are out screwing everything, and doing drugs at 12 years old. Those kids could use some fear of thier parents, because they show none, or any respect for that matter. What do you think?
"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."
My father spanked me with his belt growing up all the time.
And I'm one of the least violent people you can meet. Last time I even got in a fight was in the 3rd grade and even during the fight I pulled my punches because I didn't want to hurt the guy that was hurting me.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Personally I believe that there is a huge difference between violence and disciplne, violence is done to intentionally injure someone, disciple however is not as it is a form of punishment for breaking law/rules and does not lead to injury. violence is injuring someone out of anger/fustration/hatred/etc etc etc.
In spanking I view it more as a last resort as well (again this is my take), it's purpose again is not to cause injury (as some people have caused to children in the so called name of disciplne) but to reinforce the idea of punishment for breaking the rules/law, never to leave a mark but at a young age much force is not required at all.
As for my personal experience i have been hit maybe maybe 8 times in my entire life, i was told each time why, and personally yeah i deserved it. Of course there is my mother that would occassionally do that smack the back of the head and grab the collar of my shirt in one continuous motion to drag me out of a store, oh the memories. But being spanish we are a society that does not fear hitting our children for disciplinary purposes as North American society does.
corporal punishment –noun
from dictionary.com
So yes it is corporal punishment
as for the rest http://nospank.net/myers.htm. Discipline != spanking, there are plenty of non-violent ways of discipline.
Effective alternatives
http://nospank.net/adngtn.htm
http://nospank.net/heins.htm
http://nospank.net/solter.htm
besides you make it sound as if punishment is effective when the links i gave say and every study i've read point to the fact that it isn't effective , specfically postive punishment
There are 2 forms of puinishment postive and negative punishment, one is generally pretty effective (negative) while the other isn't (except in extreame case , like really extreame). What they mean are postive is the adminstrastion of an aversive stimlus where as negative punishiment is withdraw of a dsirable stimlus. But punishment which is used to discrease a behavior isn't nearly as good as reinforment which is used to increase a behavior. Quoting my psych book "PUnishment tells you what not to do; reinforcment tells you what to do. "
Correct and I agree with that statement, and as I stated, the wife and I tell my daughter three times first what she is doing wrong and what to do to correct her behavior (each time we explain to her why it is wrong and why she cannot do what she is doing) If she stops we thank her, if she doesn't however on the third time, it's time out (this is pretty effective to date, at this point 99.99 percent I have to say). She is told again what she did wrong, why she should stop (I much rather she understand what she is doing wrong and understand why she is being punished rather than what some parents do and just simply punish without the child understanding why). If she comes out and does it again, she is told once more, does it once more then a spank. This works for us, is it for everyone? nope, is it for every situation? nope, should there be limits to physical disciplne? Yes
There is a correct way and of course a correct time for physical punishment, for me, it should never be the first thing one should resort to, communication should be the first thing, the secon d and third, but there arrives a time when a child just doesn't want to listen, if it gets there, then physical punishment is due, but never out of anger or fustration.
"And after the spanking, the oral sex!"
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
I'm not sure what I said that makes it sound like smacking is effective discipline, beyond the comment about out of control teenagers, and that is one situation where it is used once. I also said what my disciplining habits are and the fact that I'm putting some thought into changing. Indicating that I was a bit uncomfortable with the little smacking on the butt that I had been doing.
The fact that you posted definitions makes me wonder if you actually read my post. My point was the usage of the phrase corporal punishment in todays venacular, and how severe it sounds. I was fully aware of the actual definition. I'm not sure most people think of something that can be mild like spanking when they hear the phrase.
In any case, thanks for the links though.
"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."
I think that was my misunderstand if so i'm sorry. I think i inferred it falsely because you said "effective alternative" which for some reason i thought meant you thought it was effective therefore you wanted one that was at least as effect sorry if i was incorrect about that.
On the second part, i Posed the defination because i was trying to show that it spanking is cooperal punishment, it is physicaly force used as an action of punishment for doing wrong.
What this dialog does not take into consideration is that not all of us are born the same. The blank slate theory doesn't hold water. I knew a family that adopted a baby because the woman could not conceive. Sure enough, before the ink was dry on the papers she conceived.
Both these children were raised the same. The adoped child never had to be told no twice. Saying no the other never had any effect at all.
I am not for or against spanking. Some kids will not behave whatever you do to them. Only the use of force can have any effect. All the wishful thinking and "thinking positive" won't change this.
Ever seen a child who appeared to have no concience at all? That's because they don't. Today the reason for this is known. We know what a concience is.
First let me say that it is a complete mystery to me why this is not widely known. The only reason I know about it is because I saw it on a documentary on TV about five years ago. I have seen no other reference to it anywhere. I have only one theory and it is fantastic even to me. Maybe too many people want to believe issues are about either good or evil and don't want to delve into the reasons some people behave the way they do. It is a lot simpler. This is the only thing I can come up with.
In a normal person a frontal lobe of the brain communicates with the primitive brain and tells it what it has learned about right and wrong. In the kids in question this communicatin does not take place. The amazing thing is that not long after this was discovered they found a drug that cures the problem and starts the communication. The kids behave normally.
On the documentary they interviewed a kid about 10 years old who had recently picked up a kitten and strangled it. He not only showed no remorse but didn't seem to understand what remorse is.
Another kid who was on the drug was asked if he liked the change and he unhesitatingly said yes. "I can have friends now."
There is another issue that the public is ignorant of but I can understand it's being suppressed. That issue is the fact that alcoholism is caused by the absense of an enzyme in the brains of some of us. I have seen estimates that as many as one in six of us lack that enzyme. It is known that virtually all native Americans lack this enzyme. I mention this just to illustrate that everything known about human behavior is unknown to the general public for one reason or another.