Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

New Creator Theme: Elders! - posted on 1st Sep 2018 at 11:43 AM
Replies: 150 (Who?), Viewed: 36358 times.
Page 3 of 7
Banned
#51 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 1:00 PM
as my first post stated, EVERY CHILD IS DIFFERENT SO EACH CHILD NEEDS TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. Each parent needs to decide per child how punishments will be. I'm a firm believer that each child is different and thusly should be treated differently. I see it this way my parents wouldn't have accepted my brother and I just simply building a gasoline fire in the driveway directly beside the house that reached 3 stories up. Each parent needs to decide on their own punishment, if they're not single parents then they have to agree together, but either way each child should be dealt with proportionately to their offense.

My brother and I made gasoline fires...I feel we should've been beat within an inch of our lives but we weren't, and still to this day I still think I should be beaten for that.

It really depends on the child and what they've done.
Banned
#52 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 1:14 PM
ok maybe I should explain my situation to give a better clarification on my personal situation. My brother and I started gasoline fires right beside the house(usually 3 story high fires, reached the side window of my room((I'm on the top floor of the house))*) I was always blamed for the fires, my brother got the least bit of punishment( a minor spanking) I myself was blamed for it and punished for the full brunt of the ordeal. I hate my brother, I'd not turn against him unless he deserved it but he got away with 10x more than I did, we're american, so I don't see how it can be related to any nationality as he got away with more than I ever did, while I got punished for whatever he did(though I did tend to help some)
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#53 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 1:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *katie*
I find in that situation, most parents would be embarrassed because their child is acting up in front of people and so would want the quickest way to shut their child up and be seen to be disciplining them, so that's why spanking is used.
But walking away from them and ignoring their attention grabbing behaviour could be just as effective, you're not giving in to them so they will realise their behaviour doesn't get the end result they want. And you haven't got the confrontation of spanking.


Kids do this in the first place because they know, eventually, the parents will get sick of their screaming and do whatever they can to make the kid shut up the fastest. Usually, that's giving in and giving the kid what they want. It reinforces that behavior and the next time the kid wants candy, they'll just have another tantrum. Walking away won't help when the kid knows eventually you'll get sick of it and give them candy - nor does it tell them that you think their behavior is unacceptable. Even if you don't give in that time, you're letting your kid go screaming and throwing a tantrum around a store, being disruptive and annoying to other shoppers. It's your responsibility to make sure the kid isn't a nuisance, and if they are, you need to stop them - or if you can't stop them, you need to leave with them.

Parents that don't let their kids get away with this kind of behavior in the first place don't have kids that have these screaming fits. If, the first time the kid tries it, you tell 'em there's not a chance they're getting candy with that kind of bratty attitude, go home without giving them any candy, and then punish them for throwing a fit - by sending them to bed early, taking away privileges, etc., that sends the message that sort of behavior won't get them what they want, and has unwanted consequences that they don't like. Also, positive reinforcement is good in those circumstances too - before going out, tell the child that you'll stop for ice cream on the way home, or that they can choose some candy at the last stop on the outing, or something like that - but if they act up and throw a fit, they get nothing - they're much more inclined to behave. A simple reminder of, "Hey, remember when I said we could go get ice cream if you're good?" can be enough to correct them.

Whatever you do, stick to your guns. Don't give in just to shut the kid up. You do it once, they realize that if they throw a big enough fit, you'll let them have their way, and then you're screwed. Undoing that idea takes a lot of effort - they'll always be thinking "well this worked once, I bet it can work again."

Anyway. Back on topic...

Most of the time, spanking isn't necessary, and isn't effective. Children are much more reasonable most of the time than people give them credit for. I think most people just don't put forth the effort to get through to them and make them see things on their level. I've seen so many parents tell their child to do something, and then when the child asks why, the parents immediately bark, "Because I say so, now do it or you get a spanking!" when a simple explanation of why, in a way the child will understand, would keep things from escalating to that level.

Of course, there are plenty of times this doesn't work, and when your cranky screaming five year old is being uncooperative, reasoning with them usually doesn't work and you may have to try other methods - like, as above, threatening to take away privileges (and then actually doing so if they don't comply) or offering rewards if they behave. Some people would see this as bribery, but honestly, it's the way the world works - you do what someone wants, you get something you want. As adults, we call this "working for a paycheck." :P

It also depends a lot on the individual child. With some children, spanking is ineffective in most circumstances and only gets them more upset. But with others, it's really the only way to get through to them.

For instance, my sister has twin four year old boys, Jonathan and Joshua. They are about as different as night and day, and thus, must be dealt with in different ways despite being the same age.

Joshua is a very sensitive, thoughtful, empathic child, and most of the time you can explain things to him and he's happy to go along with it - if you even threaten him with a spanking, he immediately bursts into tears, crawls into your lap, and says he's sorry for what he did. Spanking a child like Joshua is much less effective than talking to him, or offering positive and negative reinforcement for good behavior.

Jonathan is a very boisterous, energetic, rough-and-tumble child, and he has a mischievous streak a mile wide. He seems to enjoy annoying adults, and if you scold him for doing something wrong, he gets this big (and often enraging) grin, shrieks with delight, and sometimes scampers off and hides behind furniture where you can't reach him. You can reason with him when he's in a reasonable mood, but when he's gone devilish, there's really nothing that can be done besides a spanking to get through to him. He doesn't care if you take away privileges or offer rewards so much as he enjoys pissing you off... so you have to spank him, and hard enough that it hurts (of course not hard enough to bruise him, and ever only on the bum) before he realizes that his actions have consequences, and that if he doesn't comply with what is wanted of him, his ass is going to sting.

My sister never spanks her kids with her hand, and I think that's probably a good method - not only because a mother's hand should be gentle and loving to her child, but because she uses a particular implement for it - one specific spatula (not the flipper kind, the kind you use to get the last bit of cake batter out of a bowl). It's never used for cooking, is distinctive and red, and the soft silicone cover makes it so it won't hurt them too badly when they're spanked with it. Oftentimes, just her getting it out means the kids settle down - they know she's serious, and just the sight of it coming out of the drawer can be enough to correct their behavior, preventing the need for a spanking.

I only got spanked twice as a child - most of the time I could be reasoned with. Once, I threw my first and only fit in a supermarket for wanting candy - my mum dragged me out of the store by the arm (since I refused to stand up) and took me out to the parking lot and spanked my butt good. I didn't get any candy, my ass hurt, and I was humiliated getting spanked in public. I realized right then and there that throwing a fit was pointless, made me look like a spoiled brat, and that it would result in unwanted consequences. The second time, well, it's a long story, but I'd stayed home from school without telling anyone and made a -gigantic- mess... I -totally- deserved a spanking.

I think as long as you are not acting in anger (simply spanking the child because you're so mad at them you want to smack 'em, but actually doing so in situations where it will help correct their behavior), only spanking on the rear, and trying other options first that may gain the desired result in a way that is much gentler on you both... it can have its uses.

Edit: ... wow, that was a long post.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Test Subject
#54 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 1:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *katie*
But walking away from them and ignoring their attention grabbing behaviour could be just as effective, you're not giving in to them so they will realise their behaviour doesn't get the end result they want. And you haven't got the confrontation of spanking.


I remember my cousins were a handful when they were that small, and walking away from them, ignoring them or even being nice to them didn't work. They were evil brats who would harm anyone to get their way and be screaming their lungs off if they didnt get their way. Afterwards their father started getting more strict with them. It had very good results because today they're very sociable, kind and decent early teens.

It depends on the kid. And sure, you could always find an alternative to spanking and try to use it but there is no really good reason to, from my point of view. Spanking them will not make them hate you or fear you nor will it scar them for life, it will make them associate some kind of pain with improper behavior which is a normal way of teaching children in many countries. Your goal is not to harm the kid.

Some months ago when I was in a bus, there was an old lady sitting and some mother and very small boy came into the bus. The old lady smiled and gave her seat to the little boy and he said "yeah f--ck off you old hag let me sit" (and it was obvious in his words that he knew exactly what he was saying and not that he was just imitating grown-ups). If it were my kid, he'd get it in the face.
#55 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 1:59 PM
my mum smacked me, and so did my dad on the ODD occassion if i was really naughty. woah, i was really scared of getting a smack off my dad - not that he was some brutal tyrant or anything. haha. just that he didn't do it often, so you knew he was really angry if he did.

so i got 'spanked' and still love my mum and dad more than anything. i even got a good old spanking when when i was 13 years old for coming home drunk :/ but after that, i didn't go out drinking with my friends in a hurry. which i'm greatful for because anything could of happened to me (ran over/fell over/..raped at the extreme)
so i'm greatful that i got disciplined for that.
yes, i'm happy that i got spanked. :umm:
Field Researcher
#56 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 2:36 PM
I was mostly a good kid, but when it warrented, I got spanked. I don't think any less of my folks. In fact, my father is the kind of person I want to be when I grow up. I think where spanking gets a bad rap (especially from the "I wasn't spanked and will never spank" crowd) is that the terminology is too broad for them. When the pro-spank crowd uses the term, the refer to a swift open palmed slap to the childs butt, which shocks the child more than harms them (Spanking was phased out as a punishment for me when I started to realize I was over reacting to a very minor pain). Almost every pro-spanker here has said that use of an outside object (belt, paddle, ect.) is wrong and they would not use it. In fact, the only time my father hit me with something other than an open palm was when he was teaching us the mechanics the "rat tail" (wrapping up a wet towel and using it in a whip like mannor) and accidetally hit me, but he was profusely apolagetic about it and probably more upset about me getting hit than I was. And it was an accident.

Yes, children can be reasoned with and should be. Spanking should not be the first option on the table and should be used if and only if all other attempts to reason with a child are not working OR if the child is engaging in an activity that may be harmful to the child's health or. It shouldn't be used to shut a child up, because they will only cry louder nor in front of the child's friends. Once the child calms down, the reason why s/he was spanked should be explained.
#57 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 3:24 PM
When I was a kid, I didn't get spanked, but instead whipped with a switch. That's a little thin, flexible branch off a tree that's been shaved of the bark. And that was when I was like 3-4 years old. Later, it was with an extension cord. Once I got to be around 8 or 9, instead of that, I was punched, kicked and picked up by my hair and tossed across the room. But, I guess that's what happens when you have an alcoholic for a father. So for that reason, I refuse to hit my son, even to spank him. But he grew up playing video games (he started on the N64 when he was like 3) so when he's bad now (which is very rare) I just take away the video games. Since he's only 7, I only let him play for an hour a day, once he's done with his homework. If he's bad, I won't let him play for a day or longer. He hates not being able to play his games, especially since we got a Wii, so that works well.
#58 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 4:28 PM
Like HP's nephews, my brother and I had a specific spanking object. We weren't bad children, and always behaved in public, but I think that started when we were young. I think, even before the spanking age, children need to be let out of the house. Take them to the park, to a restaurant, to the mall, just out around other people. Start teaching them then: "This is the way we behave in public. We don't swing from the lamp above our table in the restaurant." I think that might eliminate a lot of the need for punishment.

I can completely say that having a specific object for spanking works as a strong deterrent. For the same reason children don't touch a hot stove more than once, spanking works. You associate something negative and unwanted with a certain behavior. Even with Nanny Jo, her "time out" is more than just time out. There are negative things associated with that time out. But if a child likes to be alone and can find enjoyment even in a situation where they're alone, time out is simply not going to work. But having that spanking object? All my dad had to do was leave it out and we'd give it a wide berth. Didn't want to come near that thing.

Last thing for now: How many times have you been out and seen a child acting up? I mean, really acting up? In a store, playing on the merchandise, running around, bothering people. The parents say "If you don't stop that, you're not getting this or that." Now how many times have you seen the children JUST NOT CARE. So what mom takes your toy away. You'll get it back. Children can hold out a lot longer than adults. And so you do take that one toy away and keep it until he's 45. I'm sure that's not the only toy he's got. But I think the absolute worse is when parents don't show a united front on punishment. What's the point if Little Billy can just run to mom when dad takes the toys away, or run to dad when Mom won't give ice cream? The absolute best (sarcastic)? Getting punished TWICE. Get it once with mom, then sit and wait for dad to come home. I can bet you a million dollars I never played tent with the lamp with the exposed bulb under a flammable blanket again
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#59 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 6:06 PM
I've always been of the mindset that spanking teaches the wrong lesson--and no matter how adults try to spin it, I've always seen it as physically abusive. In the real world, adults aren't supposed to hit each other. They can face lawsuits, or find out the hard way that the person they're hitting has a gun, or have to deal with any other number of unpleasant circumstances. Similarly, if a child hits another child and gets caught, that child is labeled a bully and usually ends up in trouble with his parents or his teacher or whoever else happens to be in charge at the time.

So I guess what I would like to know is how parents are able to justify hitting a child. If they're not supposed to hit other adults, and their children aren't supposed to hit other children, how is ok for an them to hit their child? It shouldn't be. And yes, I know that most of you will argue that it's a "light spanking" and only hurts "a little bit"--but you're still hitting your child, and it still hurts.

And honestly, it seems like there are lot of overwhelmingly negative side-effects that go along with spanking. In some cases, children who are spanked will come to the conclusion that hitting someone is the best way to solve a problem. Or, they might end up living in fear of their parents--and that hardly seems healthy. And what about the parents who get carried away with the spanking?

Adults are supposed to be bigger and stronger and smarter than their children. Surely they can come up with something better than spanking?

And I've also noticed that a lot of you are insisting that unless you spank your child, the child is just going to go on doing whatever it is that they're doing, but in such a way that they won't get caught. How would spanking them change that...? Wouldn't they just go on doing their thing secretly so that they could avoid a spanking? I have a hard time believing that spanking a kid once is enough to convince that kid to never do whatever it is that he got spanked for again.

Anyway... I guess I don't even see how spanking could be particularly effective. I mean, if parents truly do just use a light slap across the bottom, as they claim to do, how does that work better than revoking a privilege? A spank is relatively quick, while a revoked privilege can last for days or weeks. And, on top of that, it leaves the option available for the child to earn back the privilege--which, in the long run, seems like it might teach the child a more valuable lesson than a sore butt ever could.

There's always money in the banana stand.
Original Poster
#60 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 6:24 PM
HP, I definitely agree. (I love long posts. Guys, feel free to rant on as long as you want! )

To add on to my useless post: What about spanking children with certain disabilities, such as my brother with Down syndrome? Whenever he's spanked, he just yells and screams because he doesn't know what he's being punished for, so he just assumes that people are hitting him for no reason and gets violent. I think this is what many small children do, so spanking them doesn't work and only makes the matter worse.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#61 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 6:56 PM
I think there's a pretty big jump of logic between a parent using spanking as an occasional method of behavior correction when all else fails to a child deciding that's the best way to solve a problem. I can see that perhaps being the case if the -only- punishment a child is ever given is a spanking, or if the parents go overboard with it, but I think most children who are old enough to be spanked would be able to tell the difference between mom or dad spanking them as a punishment for bad behavior (and mom and dad, being mom and dad, having the right to do so) and them just hauling off and decking another kid because they didn't give them the toy they wanted, or whatever.

Spanking is only effective as behavior correction if used occasionally, and only with certain children - it's not a matter of a smack across the bottom working better than revoking a privilege... if revoking a privilege would work, then great, do that... If spanking is the only thing you ever do, you're not really teaching and guiding your children, just smacking them because you're annoyed with them, or don't know what else to do - but in some situations, with some children, a swat on the behind is enough to get their attention so you -can- use other methods. Some kids -just don't care- that you're taking away a privileges or offering a reward if they're in a certain mood (like my nephew, Jonathan, can get sometimes, who could care less if you take away things he likes - he's way more delighted at the fact that he's being bad, and that you're displeased about it) - you have to show them a more immediate consequence of their bad behavior.

When I was visiting my sister with my ferret, I would take the ferret out to play with the twins. Ferrets love being tossed around, so I would pick up the ferret and toss her gently onto the bed in a way that she'd land softly and would bounce around dooking delightedly. Seeing this example, the twins would pick her up too... but in a way that they would squeeze her midsection tightly, and she would chitter in pain at this. I explained several times that they had to be gentle with her, that even though she could be tossed onto the bed, that squeezing her was bad and hurt her... they continued to do it. So finally, after one of them squeezed her particularly hard and she shrieked in pain, I took her away, set her aside, and pinched him on the arm, hard enough to hurt. "You see how that hurts? You're hurting her every time you squeeze her, and she feels pain just like you do. Be gentle with her!" I didn't have any trouble with either of them being too rough with her after that... with the one because he knew it actually would hurt her, and with the other probably because he knew Auntie would pinch him too if he made the ferret chitter like that again. They didn't learn that it's okay to pinch from that, but that other creatures feel pain just like they do, and to be gentle... and if they didn't, there would be unwanted consequences.

No, it's not okay for adults to hit each other, or for kids to hit each other. Nor would it be right for random adults to hit your kids. But in some circumstances, with your own children, physical methods are necessary to correct their behavior. I remember reading an article a few days ago about a dad whose teenage daughter kept sneaking out at night to go be with her drug dealing boyfriend... the dad found her, and when she refused to get in the car, he physically forced her into the car. She complained to the cops, and though she had no injuries, the dad was charged with assault. Eventually the charge was overturned as even though it may have hurt, he had a right to physically correct his child. Slightly different situation, but I think it's still applicable, in that a parent may have to do something that in other situations (like if this wasn't his daughter) would be completely unacceptable, for the good of the child.

I think kids probably -should- have some measure of fear of their parents. Certainly not all the time - the affection and love and feeling that their parents care for them and want the best for them should be the primary thing, but if a child doesn't fear their parents -at all- then it becomes very hard to correct their behavior. Even if you -don't- spank your kids, they should have some measure of fear - knowing that you will have some tough consequences if they behave badly may keep them from doing something they've been told not to do, fearing your reaction and the punishment.

Children will hide bad behaviour whether they're spanked or not. That's just how they are. If they get punished for something but don't understand -why- what they did was wrong, they'll probably just go ahead and do it, but sneakier next time.

If you're going to spank your kids you have to make sure you're not just doing it out of anger, and don't get carried away with it and do it too hard, or too often, or anything like that. It takes a lot of self-control when all you want to do is strangle the little brat to think out what would really be the best course of action for the situation, the child, and the way they're being at the time... most of the time, spanking isn't the answer, but every once in a while, it might help in correcting the behavior of certain children.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
#62 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 7:01 PM
HP,
Actually most studies done on disciplining young children is to ignore their attention getting bx and eventually they will learn they cannot manipulate you all the time.

This is not meant for babies, though, babies just scream because of physical needs or comfort needs... not for toys.

Even if you hit your kid... which, I hate it when a kid is crying and their parent slaps them... yeah, pain will make the kid shutup. ???

Anyway, but honestly if you really want to make an impact, get your kid, walk out of the store leaving everything behind and take them to their room and let them sit there for a while. It'll be dramatic enough to show them they are wrong, ect.
But most people either don't want to do that or simply don't have that kind of time, so they take an easy way out, even if it is less effective.


Here's kind of an easy way to understand without all the psychobabble from my texts and such...
http://www.ehow.com/how_2222921_und...e.html?ref=fuel

Lol, oh, and I just remembered spanking also frequently leads to sexual fetishes as adults, because spanking is often the first time that area of the child is ever touched, even if only through vibrations. That's not the parent's intentions... of course... I just think it's uber icky and I would always think of that if I ever spanked a kid (which i probably never will).
Test Subject
#63 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 7:28 PM
Being spanked taught me a few lessons :
- not to throw tantrums in public
- solidarity : when my brother and sisters and I would fight, my parents would punish every one, you learn fast to find a solution for to your problems.
I the last, I do see a difference between me and my four siblings and the way my three cousins act. They fight a lot, they scream a lot, they know that screaming long enough will get them what they want. My siblings and I know that screaming long enough will only get us punished.

My parents didn't believe in removing TV/Games... Times out and spanking were our punishments. I don't understand parents who do that. I do think that each child is to be treated differently, but, when you have to punish one of four, spanking and time outs are definetly a lot more practical that forbiding one to watch TV and allow the other.
Original Poster
#64 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 7:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faithlove13xxx
Lol, oh, and I just remembered spanking also frequently leads to sexual fetishes as adults, because spanking is often the first time that area of the child is ever touched, even if only through vibrations. That's not the parent's intentions... of course... I just think it's uber icky and I would always think of that if I ever spanked a kid.


Um...OK...?
Well, that's strange.

@Oceanborn: Spanking is against the law in Norway? I wonder how that would work. Wouldn't parents still be able to spank their children in secret without anyone knowing? After all, you can never be quite sure what goes on behind closed doors in someone's home...

So many edits! Aaahhh! Anyway, the punishments I normally get are grounding, which means that I can't go out with my friends, use the computer, or talk on the phone...normally for a week. My parents aren't incredibly strict, so I don't get grounded often. Anyway, I try not to tick off my parents, since my dad can benchpress 400 pounds and you don't want to make him angry...:bombface:
#65 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 7:54 PM
Lol, well I didn't say it was a fun fact.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#66 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 8:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faithlove13xxx
HP,
Actually most studies done on disciplining young children is to ignore their attention getting bx and eventually they will learn they cannot manipulate you all the time.


That I have to disagree with. By not reacting you're permitting the behavior. I don't think every situation is appropriate to spank them, certainly, but I think if the kid is acting up in some way, you do have to react...

Quote:
Anyway, but honestly if you really want to make an impact, get your kid, walk out of the store leaving everything behind and take them to their room and let them sit there for a while. It'll be dramatic enough to show them they are wrong, ect.


Which would be an appropriate reaction if your kid is throwing a fit in public at the store - remove them from the situation.

Quote:
Even if you hit your kid... which, I hate it when a kid is crying and their parent slaps them... yeah, pain will make the kid shutup. ???


Depends on the situation - if the kid's just crying for attention, a swat on the ass might work. Or even just a threat of it... "You're not starving, cold, or in pain, knock off the waterworks or I'll give you something to -really- cry about!"

Quote:
Here's kind of an easy way to understand without all the psychobabble from my texts and such...
http://www.ehow.com/how_2222921_und...e.html?ref=fuel


I disagree with almost all of that, honestly. Maybe because I think spanking isn't -usually- the method one should use and that seems to think that it's the only method of correcting a child's behavior for people who do so. Maybe because "Discipline should be aimed at calming the situation" (Step 4) seems like an utterly ridiculous statement to me. Discipline should get the child to understand what they did was wrong, that their actions have consequences, and to not to do whatever they did wrong again. If you can deal with something in a calm way that doesn't involve spanking, great, but your primary goal is not to be calm, but to correct the child's behaviour.

Quote:
Lol, oh, and I just remembered spanking also frequently leads to sexual fetishes as adults, because spanking is often the first time that area of the child is ever touched, even if only through vibrations. That's not the parent's intentions... of course... I just think it's uber icky and I would always think of that if I ever spanked a kid (which i probably never will).


Err, what? A child has its bottom cleaned hundreds of times in diaper changes long before they are ever spanked... And some adults develop (eeww) diaper fetishes. Should one not wipe a baby's bottom because the child might develop a fetish about poo later in life? I know it was a bit of a silly statement but really, fetishes come from everywhere and you never know what will develop them...

I went over to my sister's house wearing fishnet stockings, and one of the twins immediately ran up to me and felt my legs and gushed, "What are these on your legs? They are SO cool! They have little holes in them that you can see skin through! I really really like those! How far up do they go? Can I see?" and started trying to peek up my skirt. I'm almost sure that boy's gonna have a fetish for fishnets as a result... which doesn't bother me in the slightest.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Lab Assistant
#67 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 8:39 PM
I agree with a lot of what you have said HP.

When I was around nine years old I had a habit of lying compulsively. Regardless of the fact that my parents often saw me commit the acts that I would later lie about. My mother would ask me about the alleged acts and would often give me multiple chances to confess, but I always maintained that "I didn't do it!" She then had two forms of punishment: Writing lines or a spanking with a belt. I never got the option of choosing which I preferred, but looking back on it, I would have preferred the spankings. I absolutely hated writing lines. What most offended me about them is that they involved sins I had not committed. For example, if I lied, I would have to write "I will not lie, cheat, or steal" 300 times. I often protested to my mother that I hadn't cheated or stolen anything, but she would respond with a "if you've lied, then you HAVE cheated and stolen". While I did not entirely understand her message and hated writing lines they were temporarily effective because my pride was deeply upset by the fact that I had been implicated in moral crimes I had not committed and so, I did learn my lesson...until the next time.

Occasionally I would get spankings with a belt. These occurred from between ages nine to about twelve. Before the age of nine, if I did anything wrong, I was usually told "no" and slapped on the hand (and in truth, I rarely did anything that warranted much punishment because I had not yet discovered my childhood fondness for lying). At age twelve, there were more effective ways to punish me, namely I was grounded and could not partake in certain social events (the pre-teen's equivalent to "Oh noes! The end of the world!").

On two occasions I was spanked when I had NOT committed the acts I was being punished for. I will remember these two events for the rest of my life. In part, I understood then and understand now that when you do something wrong you ARE supposed to be punished in some way or another. So, when I received justified spankings, I was not particularly bothered by them (that is, I didn't think my parents were mistreating me). But those two occasions when I was wrongly punished ultimately taught me that lying was wrong. It's not that I didn't occasionally relapse, but I came to recognize that lying once or twice makes people distrust you even when you are being honest. This is a message that my parents and I think most parents sometimes aren't able to express clearly to their children.

For me, my childhood experience has taught me a few things: While I do not in any way support the spanking (or beating, the line is sometimes toed or crossed) with objects such as belts, paddles, or (my grandmother's choice weapon) birch switches, I think that given certain children and particular situations, an open-handed spanking (on the hand or behind) may be effectively employed so long as the parent expresses a verbal message and is completely under control of any anger they may have (or even better, if they have NO anger). One reason I hate spanking with objects is that the punisher doesn't particularly have a concept of their own strength and it is easier to lose control. When you hit someone with your open hand it hurts you almost as much as it hurts the other person. This sends a message to both the child and the parent. Any pain that the parent gains may encourage him/her to seek other forms of discipline for his/her children. And if the child is told that the process of spanking is painful to the parents also, the child may understand that he/she really have done something wrong if his/her parent will hurt themselves in order to mete out punishment. Next, (though not in this order necessarily) there are other forms of disciplining wayward children, example: writing lines.

All in all, however parents choose to discipline their children, (though I hope it isn't by beating) the effectiveness is dependent on the child, the situation, and the parent. The point of discipline and punishment isn't to beat waywardness out of children but to teach them how to behave. For it to be effective you have to be willing to verbally communicate the message and if necessary (and if you believe in it) use the slap on the hand or the behind to emphasize that message.

I know that in this thread some members have brought up studies that denounce the effectiveness of this or that form of discipline. However, studies are not infallible. They are always corrupted in some way by variables that the studiers do not take into consideration either because they don't think it will effect the study or because they are unable to account for all factors. Perhaps, age and gender of the parent, age and gender of the child, reason for punishment, how often the punishment occurs, region, socio-economics, social and psychological history of the family past and present, and etc.

Furthermore, some forms of non-physical discipline, specifically psychological, are more detrimental to a child's mental and emotional health than spankings. "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" is just about the biggest lie that I was ever told.

Sorry for the length of the post! I could have not told you my entire childhood history as a compulsive liar, but my point was a bit to let you perhaps interpret for yourself. And for the record, there's not much more I dislike than a liar (which isn't loathing of my childhood self but to demonstrate that I DID learn my lesson.)

EDIT: For clarification, I did not mean to suggest in ANY way that parents should psychologically abuse their children but rather that there are things that are worse than spanking!
#68 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 10:00 PM
Yeah, but the genitals don't feel the vibrations from being wiped... it's different.

And Its not like I make this stuff up. It;s people who deal with sexual psychology... which is not my field.

And I have had the misfortune of experiencing both real beatings and normal spankings as a child.. and I've never said that they were the same. I said in my first statement that spanking isn't what I would call abuse... it just doesn't feel the same.
But most psychological studies and parental styles show that it's not very effective. It might help in the short run.... but teaching lessons is what changes behavior in the long run.
And just because you disagree with it based off of your limited personal experiences doesn't make it untrue or not thoroughly researched.

And to the person above.... being a pathological liar is a mental disorder, and not so much a conduct problem....
Field Researcher
#69 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 11:29 PM
Yeah, being spanked makes kids happy. Which is why they cry so much after getting slapped. Of course, that makes total sense. Tell me, why are people who have never been spanked, yet are prone to falling on their butt a few times while learning to walk, immune? Or sports players who get patted on the butt as a congradulatory gesture?
#70 Old 3rd Apr 2008 at 11:39 PM
Are you using "happy" as a euphemism? Like I said, never tried this myself. Just what sex researches have found. Sorry if it offends you so...actually, not really.
Original Poster
#71 Old 4th Apr 2008 at 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HystericalParoxysm
I went over to my sister's house wearing fishnet stockings, and one of the twins immediately ran up to me and felt my legs and gushed, "What are these on your legs? They are SO cool! They have little holes in them that you can see skin through! I really really like those! How far up do they go? Can I see?" and started trying to peek up my skirt. I'm almost sure that boy's gonna have a fetish for fishnets as a result... which doesn't bother me in the slightest.


That made me laugh out loud, literally.

Anyway, it's sorta hard for me to imagine people developing fetishes from being spanked as children. I don't support spanking, but, again, I believe that it can be useful in certain situations, but only when absolutely necessary.
#72 Old 4th Apr 2008 at 12:38 AM
Faithlove, you're right. Just because it's something you disagree with based off your limited personal experience doesn't make it true. But this can also be said of your point of view. You've quoted studies, yes, but that doesn't make it an end all be all. How many times have conflicting studies, often by the same people, been put out? Chocolate was bad, then good, then bad, then good again. There are so many things to take into account with studies. Even who the researcher is and what their personal preference is. We like to think that in doing research, we're unbiased, but isn't that the whole point of doing research? To prove a point one way or the other? And yes, I'm aware of double blind studies. But the head researcher isn't the only one with his biases.

A case for not spanking as only punishment: My brother thinks that boys should be rough, so he roughouses with his son. Yes, this includes playful hitting and wrestling. But every time my nephew does something bad, it's this same roughouse hitting; he doesn't associate the hit with the wrongdoing. Instead, he thinks you're playing and he hits back. It's made it really hard for his mother to discipline him. He has no set boundaries, no structure, and because my brother play-hits with him all the time, he thinks you're doing the same when you have to discipline him. Which reminds me of something. If you think about the kids on Supernanny, they have other issues with their bad behavior. They're usually something like boundary issues, no structure in their lives, etc. I think this is what they're responding to more than the time out. They're actually being told no, and the parents are sticking to their guns.

As far as writing lines goes, I think that's just crap. They used to do that to us in grade school, and it just became a joke. It sucked the first time, but then students started finding ways to cheat (such as drawing a line down the paper for the I's). Then it became a competition: let's see who could finish them first. Completely ineffective for us.
Top Secret Researcher
#73 Old 4th Apr 2008 at 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOZOTRON
i think its just instinctive. pain means 'no'.

I completly agree!
When you touch something sharp.
Doesn't it hurt? Yes.
So when the child is bad...it gets spanked...which means 'no' (stated above)

So long, my luckless romance
My back is turned on you
I should've known you'd bring me heartache
Almost lovers always do

Lab Assistant
#74 Old 4th Apr 2008 at 4:03 AM
I agree with pretty much everything HP said. Spanking is an appropriate form of punishment sometimes and forsome children. I definitely do not agree with outlawing it. I seem to recall that a psychologist who said it was a form of abuse and wanted it illegalized had a son who committed suicide... now I know, correlation does not equal causation, and in this case it may not even be closely correlated, but it does make you wonder.

As for anti-spanking people who have said that spanking is just an excuse for parents to not have to deal with teaching their children through reason... I absolutely disagree. If I ever have to spank my children, I plan on following through shortly after with a talk about what they did wrong. Of course there will be parents who are irresponsible like that. But on the other end of the scale, you have parents who never do anything to discipline their children, either they ignore them (thereby condoning their behavior) or give them what they want, and the kids end up being horribly spoiled brats. No matter what methods you get into you're going to get parents who use them irresponsibly.
#75 Old 4th Apr 2008 at 12:00 PM
I don't know why I keep bringing up Nanny Jo (someone else mentioned her, and I guess she's the only person I can think of who doesn't spank their children), but her main point is to always explain to children WHY what they did was wrong. I imagine the child would still not understand what they did was wrong if you just sent them to their room. It's all about the why.

Someone said earlier that if you hit with your hand, it'll hurt you just as much? No. No it won't. And I HATED that line "this hurts me more than it hurts you," because to a five year old (and even now, and I'm 20!) That's just a load of complete and utter crap. YOU can still go sit down without your butt tingling painfully! You didn't have the anxiety of waiting while someone else got the belt. I think the most effective thing about spanking for me was the waiting. I was in trouble with my mom, and had to wait in the unprotected open while she got the belt or whatever, THEN I had to wait until my dad got home! That coupled with me being used being out in public kept me in line. But then, I was generally too busy being amused by everything. I was such an easy child to please.
Page 3 of 7
Back to top