# Spanking and the Judging function.



## Steve MD (Jun 11, 2010)

http://personalitycafe.com/member-p...en-spanked-make-people-more-likely-spank.html

After reading this thread, I got me thinking, what if our judging function affects our attitude towards spanking?

I'd like to hear your opinions.


----------



## MiriUchiha (Jun 9, 2011)

I've been spanked many times not because I did something wrong, but because my parents were frustrated with me. And after growing up, I don't see how spanking someone disciplines them. In my case, since I grew up being spanked almost everyday, so when my parents threaten to spank me and don't follow through with it, I tend to hit myself in place of them because I am so used to it. But it doesn't really show discipline. At least, not for me. That's why if I have children, I would not spank them. I would probably just tell them in a firm voice that it's wrong.


----------



## nádej (Feb 27, 2011)

I was spanked once when I was three, and I clearly remember sassing my mom about it after. It wasn't effective at all, and my parents quickly learned that revoking privileges worked much better. I feel the same when I think about how I'd like to raise my kids someday. Take away those privileges; let the kids feel some natural consequences...I ended up being a nightmare in my early teens, but that probably would have happened regardless, and I did come back to being a good daughter eventually.

The worst punishment I remember was when I was three and I was told to clean my room, and I was really sassy about refusing to do it. My mom picked me up, carried me into my bedroom, put me on my bed, closed the door, and called my best friend's mom to tell her that I couldn't go to Disney on Ice with them that night like I was supposed to. I was _devastated_. You better believe I stopped the sass for at least a week or two.


----------



## shadowofambivalence (May 11, 2011)

Only morons spank their kids, because they lack the capability to talk to their kids and challenge/question their children's motives.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

Spanking children is culturally backwards and it should be illegal. It's hypocritical to teach children to prefer a non-violent approach, in most scenarios, when dealing with other people yet use violence as a means of 'disciplining' or reasoning with them. Most research suggests that the effects of corporal punishment range from neutral to negative but are rarely positive and probably never necessary.

I'd be willing to speculate that spanking negatively affects children who are NJs, especially NFJs, more than other types since Ns are less likely to blindly accept the traditions and social norms of the culture they were raised in, Fs are (supposedly) more likely to take things 'personally' and are more ethically conscious and aware of mistreatment and Js are more likely to analyze their having been spanked as unfair or wrong. I think that Js in general are more prone to 'moral outrage' and sensitive to what they perceive as an unjust or inappropriate.


----------



## SereneMind (Apr 11, 2011)

Spanking is just plain stupid and in the end your kids will hold grudge... specially if theyre Fs... you just have to be firm and apply a punishment that doent involve hurting physically your kids... at least that is what i think


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

I've been spanked and swatted with bare hands, fly swatters, spatulas, and big plastic spoons and it didn't effect me negatively at all unless there wasn't a good reason for it. Anyone who thinks spanking never does any good is just a pansy.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

I'm a TJ, I've never been spanked, and I don't think it's an acceptable form of discipline. If you need to use _adult physical force_ to control _your child_, you're doing something else wrong.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

I was spanked a lot. Too much, probably.
But since I am not parent (and do not want to be 
one), I think I do not have the experience (and very
likely will never have the experience) to answer this 
question.

However, I can tentatively say that if spanking did 
occur, it should be for some terrible, terrible offense 
such as your child hurting another child, and it should 
not go overboard.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

*grabs popcorn, watches this thread progress*


----------



## Kelly617 (May 25, 2011)

I was spanked as a child, and it really didn't do anything to affect me all that negatively. My mom was usually the one doing the spanking. To be fair to her, I was a very, very difficult child all the way up to around age 13, and we never really understood one another until I reached highschool. 

I don't resent her for it, nor do I feel it was abuse. I don't think it was all that effective, though. I was always much more affected by the serious discussions and loss of privileges. The spanking usually just happened when my mom was at the end of her emotional rope with me and lashing out, I never took it that seriously. 

That said, I don't think I'll spank my children. Not because I think it's abusive or damaging, but because it doesn't really achieve anything and usually just exacerbates already tense or emotional situations.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

Is there nothing in between ? 

I personally believe it is mostly evidence of lack of authority and inability to reason or punish/discipline a child properly but do understand why some parents can end up spaking (or doing a gesture that is close to spaking but mostly annoying for the child since he faces the fact that he is not the allmighty god in the family rather than a gesture made to calm one's feeling of exasperation and hurt) since children are naturally defiant to some extent (it is necessary for their development and understanding of limits and morality, just like lying - but while it is a good sign of development, it should not be encourage and I don't believe that reasoning (like an adult) only works, I think that children must sometimes be punished, and it's better when it is not through the use of physical strength (or anything like that, puting a child under a cold shower is aweful in my opinion) and especially not when the purpose is to hurt but I think that some kind of "gentle" spanking (as oxymoronic as it may seem, I've already explained what I meant) is acceptable depending on the circumstances since we are only human beings.

Anyway, I have no authority and don't want any children.

I've been rarely spanked, it didn't hurt. I've been punished but was always able to manipulate my mother into forgiving me, I don't think I've turned badly but it's not the spaking that made me aware of her lack of authority, it also comes from the aggressiveness of the parents (when they "anticipate" your response and raise their voices for example) or inability to remain detached once you've been punished.
I think that, perhaps, detached parents are less likely to spank or use physical discipline because they are less likely to lose their temperament and to fail at punishing in general. And also, they have to be more tenacious than their child.

Education is very complicated.

[Acceptable but not always really efficient by the way, education is not only about methods.]


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

My parents were ESFJ and INFP, and they didn't believe in spanking. Lucky for me, because I was a handful. Lol

I find the idea disgusting. Somewhere between assault and sexual harassment. They're kids, just take away the videogames for a while.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Looks like xxTPs are the violent ones.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Some of you anti-spankers are insane and don't understand children/parenting in the least. Get off your moral high horse. 

There is nothing inherently abusive about spanking. A painful association with bad behaviour will go a lot further than a lecture or grounding in some cases. It only becomes abusive if it's overdone, both in frequency and force: No marks or bruises, not an every day thing, not an attempt to actually harm the child.

I could just as easily call punishment by extended isolation (aka. grounding) psychological abuse if I take it out of context. Of course that _could_ be the case in certain circumstances, but in most cases it's entirely fine.

All types of punishments will have grey areas. You can't just take a kneejerk reaction to one and call it evil and everyone who uses said method cruel and terrible. That's extremely simple-minded.


----------



## Simplify (Oct 25, 2010)

I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me, but I am an INFP who is glad to have been spanked when I was a little kid, and if my child was a repeat offender, I would do the same to my child, too. 

When I was little, I was spanked, and my ESTJ dad did the spanking. He was very merciful with me, though- because he used his hand to spank rather than the belt he got by his more abusive father. He hated it so much, he didn't want to do the same to me and my siblings, which is really responsible of him. He's not a violent man, and it hurt him as much as it hurt us. I didn't realize it as a kid, but that's pretty deep. And he always remembered to say that he loved us afterward, too. He's a great, responsible parent.

I don't believe that spanking works for every kid, especially not the hard-headed ones, but it worked well for me. Since I was impractical and illogical as a kid, it was the best way to tell me "Don't do it again". A good spanking usually brought me back down to earth and more aware of what I was doing wrong. My ESTP brother generally was a better kid after a good, old fashioned hand-to-butt action, too. =)

There are kids who get beat with things way worse than belts, though, and still come out no better than before. If anything, the child becomes more tolerant to the beating, and rationalizes that "Doing X (bad thing) is worth the punishment". Time to try a different method, in that case, so spanking doesn't work for everyone, but I do think it's an acceptable form of punishment, so long as the person who is spanking is responsible and has no anger issues or enjoys inflicting others with pain. In my opinion, spanking is not abuse, and I don't believe that spanking leads to abuse in a responsible person.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I'm an INFP against spanking.

My Fi gives me a strong sense of right and wrong, and causes me to be against abuse. (Yes, spanking is abuse, no matter how people want to redefine it in order to pretend it isn't.)

My Ne makes me prefer a more creative, non-physical approach. 

Therefore, spanking goes against everything I am.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

dagnytaggart said:


> My parents were ESFJ and INFP, and they didn't believe in spanking. Lucky for me, because I was a handful. Lol
> 
> I find the idea disgusting. *Somewhere between assault and sexual harassment*. They're kids, just take away the videogames for a while.


Yes, this is precisely how I view it.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

snail said:


> I'm an INFP against spanking.
> 
> My Fi gives me a strong sense of right and wrong, and causes me to be against abuse. (Yes, spanking is abuse, no matter how people want to redefine it in order to pretend it isn't.)
> 
> ...


I am strongly against spanking since it causes unfortunate emotional distance between parents and children no matter how loving the parents are (the main impact it had on me), a visceral reaction which I believe hints at the real moral standing of the so called discipline. No other punishments really had that impact on me (to be fair, my Dad spanked me for just about everything I did, especially in early childhood, almost never grounding me, deducting allowance, making me write lines, or even sending me to my room, so I don't have much to compare it to). But personally I would not call it "abuse", because in most cases the parent believes that they are doing good. Of course, they are not; what they are doing is bad in my eyes and as I said I am personally against it, but most spankers are not bad people. Many parents loathe spanking, mistakenly believing it is the only way, bound by their sense of "moral duty" to their children. 

There are parents who spank abusively of course, and this is one of the worst things a parent can possibly do to a child. When the motive is anger and selfish desire to get the kid in line because they are annoying them (as did happen to me occasionally in childhood) it is abuse. But in general, the parent just has bad ideas (probably inherited ones) about how to raise kids, and just need to be shown that it is needlessly harmful and that there are better ways that to make their child into an ethical, respectful, and well-mannered adult.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I was spanked only a handful of times growing up. My mom saw it as a last resort move. I don't feel any lasting ill effects from it, I admit, but I don't think it was an effective form of punishment for me either.

Personally, I don't believe in spanking & would never spank a child. I think it's taking your anger & frustration out on a child in a violent way. I believe discipline should come out of love, not anger, & the objective should be to teach & correct. I think that can be done without hitting. If punishment is needed to show there are consequences to wrongdoing, then there are many non-violent options. 

The worst punishment I ever got was having my favorite toys taken away & not being allowed to watch my favorite cartoons for a week. That drove home the point far more than being smacked, which was over in just a few seconds, and just made me bitter & silently rebellious.


----------



## Wobzter (Jun 2, 2011)

*My experience*
I've been spanked only a handful of times as well. I don't remember what for, though. At the dinner table my parents also one of these at times: http://www.lemachemie.be/catalogus/site/images/handsproeier_spraymatic_web.jpg
Without the extension at the tip though, so the water would rather be spread out than focused. Anyway, they sometimes used that if I was behaving inappropriate. I think this has only been done a handful of times as well.
And the last physical thing I remember, which happened twice, was that my mother would get me up and put my head underneath a running tap (face down). One of the two times was because I had climbed up my desk, opened the window at was standing in the window frame waving at people passing by xD. When my mother saw that she grabbed me, told me to never do that again and put my head underneath the tap. 
It sure worked, never again did I try to stand in the window frame, one step away from my death (unless I was actually aware of the fact that I was one step away from my death).

Personally, I think it helped. I used to be pretty hard to handle, but now you won't even see me hurting a fly.
Besides all of these things I also got emotional trouble like being sent to my room, or having to go to bed earlier than my bedtime, or not allowed to play my video games anymore. But I've also been given enough love, well enough definitely.

*My opinion*
As mentioned before by @SuburbanLurker ; whereas you could consider spanking to be physical abuse you could consider isolation psychological abuse. Being yelled at all the time (whilst not being touched as to avoid the possibility of physical abuse) and being told you're a bad person each and every day can cause way more damage than spanking, in my opinion. 
I know I'm trying to compare apples with pears here, but please try to follow me.
There's a continuum of physical activities performed to raise a child. 


> This starts off at no physical contact --> a light tick with the fingers on one's hands --> getting hold of someone's arm --> getting hold of someone's arm and forcing that person somewhere --> spanking --> spanking hard --> hitting --> kicking --> beating --> molesting.


I think everybody considers the words in red to be out of the question. Also note that I did NOT insert a frequency here and that there are still various things in between. 

As for a psychological continuum, this will be harder to establish, but I'll give it a try:


> No bad aura --> showing annoyance --> raising voice / yelling --> showing you're upset --> taking away privileges --> social isolation --> long-term social isolation --> feeling unwelcome in your own house --> sexual psychological abuse


Where in each case a combination of multiple things scores "higher" (more painful) than the highest (most painful) of the two.
I didn't put any in red ('cept for the last one) because I don't know how you guys look at it. Personally I'd put the last two in red, but then again, we don't have a consensus about that - I suppose. Not again that I did NOT state a frequency. Also, I don't really know where to put "putting down / saying something negative about the person him/her".
Anyway! Assuming we'll make the last two red, we could regard the others as being fine. 

Yet, we already discussed that yelling and putting down on a daily basis is something we should avoid. But doing it once is fine... So wait a second... frequency DOES matter! (In case putting one down is not considered fine, then pick any of the other tools not too far on the left end of the continuum, the same principle applies).
We could argue the same for spanking (or any other raising strategy in the physical continuum); frequency matters. 

I think the reason people are afraid of using force is because of the risk of overusing it. Psychological tools usually only become too bad when used too often; physical tools can go bad right that instant. Nevertheless, both can go just as bad. Force is just more of an instantaneous risk. Parents who can keep their heads cool are not the ones you have to worry about, it's the ones who CAN'T keep their heads cool whom you should worry about. Those parents are both able to go too far physically as well as psychologically. 
My point is; both physical and psychological tools can go bad - so please to not try to act like one is wrong and one is right. They are both in the grey area. 

As for the people who try to raise their children by love, attention and discussion. If it works, awesome! If it don't works, you might risk raising people who notice they can get away with all sorts of things and won't hesitate to do so. 

*Final Conclusion*
Nothing is ideal and it all depends on how well the parents are able to keep their cool and how the child responds to various stimuli. Sometimes spanking works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes love works, sometimes it doesn't. Try to understand that and realize that raising children contains a *LOT* of grey areas. Of course, there are always black and white areas.

/end of rant

I don't know how I will raise my children though, I mean, I don't like to hurt people. Then again, I don't even know if I'll raise children and overpopulate this Earth in the first place!


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

dagnytaggart said:


> Looks like xxTPs are the violent ones.


Yeah, as a TP myself and one who voted against spanking I find these results sort of surprising but undeniably very interesting. I certainly didn't imagine spanking as a Ji thing, though it would make sense that it would be a thinking type more likely to do it.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Wobzter said:


> This starts off at no physical contact --> getting hold of someone's arm --> getting hold of someone's arm and forcing that person somewhere --> a light tick with the fingers on one's hands --> spanking --> spanking hard --> hitting --> kicking --> beating --> molesting.
> 
> No bad aura --> showing annoyance --> showing you're upset --> social isolation (short time outs ) --> taking away privileges --> raising voice / yelling --> long-term social isolation --> verbal insults -- > feeling unwelcome in your own house --> sexual psychological abuse


fix'd. You had the order wrong, and the point where each crosses the line into abuse. In the physical category, intentionally inflicting pain on the other person's body is abuse, while restraining a person can be protective in certain extreme circumstances.

In the psychological category, the line is a bit blurrier, but yelling feels threatening and definitely crosses it, as do other obvious verbal attacks.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

snail said:


> intentionally inflicting pain on the other person's body is abuse


According to what definition of abuse? How is a light flick on the hand worse than extended isolation or taking away a child's favourite toy? Certainly the latter two do more psychological harm than a flick on the hand does physical harm.

Going by your criteria of acceptable and unacceptable punishment, a child would likely grow up undisciplined and disrespectful/abusive towards their parents, like so many children are today. Once a child learns they can get away with doing _extremely bad things_ relatively easily, with a "slap on the wrist" but even less, they lose respect for your authority over them, which grows into contempt as they get older.

There is a broad range of bad behaviour, ranging from sneaking a cookie before dinner to stealing a chocolate bar from the store to beating up a girl at school and so on. You can't just send your kid to their room and take away their videogames no matter what they do. That's simply bad parenting.


----------



## Wobzter (Jun 2, 2011)

snail said:


> fix'd. You had the order wrong, and the point where each crosses the line into abuse. In the physical category, intentionally inflicting pain on the other person's body is abuse, while restraining a person can be protective in certain extreme circumstances.
> 
> In the psychological category, the line is a bit blurrier, but yelling feels threatening and definitely crosses it, as do other obvious verbal attacks.


It's not fixed. As I put in my previous post I said "I think everybody considers the words in red to be out of the question". Since I do NOT think a flick on the hand is out of the question there is at least one person (in this discussion! I'm not referring to everybody on the Earth, there are go as far as to consider kicking appropriate) who thinks it not out of the question, in which case it should NOT be red. I simply put the others red in order to not have the discussion go about that, but rather those nearing.
However, I do appreciate the edit, so I can see where you draw the line.

As for the psychological edit - I think this is rather subjective. And as stated before I wasn't very sure on this one.
I won't disagree with your order there, but I think I'll agree with other orders as well. The point at which you cross the line, however I do not agree with.
As said by @SuburbanLurker - you sometimes have to enforce respect. 
Then again, keep in mind that every child and every environment works differently!

But I like the discussion .


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

SuburbanLurker said:


> According to what definition of abuse? How is a light flick on the hand worse than extended isolation or taking away a child's favourite toy? Certainly the latter two do more psychological harm than a flick on the hand does physical harm.
> 
> Going by your criteria of acceptable and unacceptable punishment, a child would likely grow up undisciplined and disrespectful/abusive towards their parents, like so many children are today. Once a child learns they can get away with doing _extremely bad things_ relatively easily, with a "slap on the wrist" but even less, they lose respect for your authority over them, which grows into contempt as they get older.
> 
> There is a broad range of bad behaviour, ranging from sneaking a cookie before dinner to stealing a chocolate bar from the store to beating up a girl at school and so on. You can't just send your kid to their room and take away their videogames no matter what they do. That's simply bad parenting.


I didn't say those were the means I would routinely and arbitrarily use. I said that the line should be drawn there to determine what counts as abuse. 

If a child is misusing an object to do something harmful or dangerous, that object can be taken away without it being abuse. If a child is being aggressive or disruptive, isolating the child in time out might be necessary to protect others. If a child is being irresponsible with the privileges s/he has, then those privileges can be taken away until the child agrees to apply them properly. There are circumstances under which these consequences would be the most rational approach. The punishments should always make sense.

Most problems can be managed by talking to children respectfully and setting a positive example. If a child loves, trusts, and respects his/her parents, s/he naturally wants to please them, and discipline problems occur less frequently. If a child is obeying out of fear, because of artificially imposed consequences, and if one were to suddenly change the rules of the game by becoming permissive, then your concerns about an increased sense of entitlement would be valid, but the goal is to ensure that the child's internalized value system is developed before s/he reaches an age where s/he poses a threat to others. Traditional methods of punishment lead to problems like lying, lack of trust, lack of remorse, failure to develop empathy, resentment, rebellion, low self-esteem, and a lack of internal motivation. There are effective methods for training children without scaring them into obeying.

Punishment and consequences


----------



## Wobzter (Jun 2, 2011)

snail said:


> I didn't say those were the means I would routinely and arbitrarily use. I said that the line should be drawn there to determine what counts as abuse.


I think the line is even blurrier, to be honest. If a parent adheres these lines, they could still perform abusive acting by taking away _ALL_ privileges of a child for an _extended time_. Do you think this is less abusive than simply raising one's voice for a second? 
I know it's a bit of a trying-to-be-difficult-to-discuss-with-scenario, but if we're drawing lines we gotta draw them straight. 




> If a child is misusing an object to do something harmful or dangerous, that object can be taken away without it being abuse. If a child is being aggressive or disruptive, isolating the child in time out might be necessary to protect others. If a child is being irresponsible with the privileges s/he has, then those privileges can be taken away until the child agrees to apply them properly. There are circumstances under which these consequences would be the most rational approach. The punishments should always make sense.


Okay, so when I was little and my mom had chips on the table I would sometimes try to grab some. This wasn't bad per se, but the thing which was less likable was the fact that as a child you tend to have things in your mouth; so had I my hands in my mouth often. So if I were to grab some chips it would be with saliva-filled fingers, not the nicest if you consider guests are supposed to eat those chips as well. How would you handle this problem?
Assuming no physical abuse, of course. And you're not allowed to restrain my arms because it's not in order to protect me, now is it?
You could go and move the chips to a place unreachable for me, but then you would make things uncomfortable for your guests every time they're at your place. You could tell me "No!", but that would be yelling. You could tell me without the exclamation mark "No, boy, that's not good". And then all you can do is hope I understand what you're saying... And if I don't, well, then I goes your chips will be filled with saliva right? 
I might sound mocking towards you, but I'm just trying to get a discussion started.
Because so far all I've seen is you telling your thoughts and us telling our thoughts... ;P



> Most problems can be managed by talking to children respectfully and setting a positive example. If a child loves, trusts, and respects his/her parents, s/he naturally wants to please them, and discipline problems occur less frequently. If a child is obeying out of fear, because of artificially imposed consequences, and if one were to suddenly change the rules of the game by becoming permissive, then your concerns about an increased sense of entitlement would be valid, but the goal is to ensure that the child's internalized value system is developed before s/he reaches an age where s/he poses a threat to others. Traditional methods of punishment lead to problems like lying, lack of trust, lack of remorse, failure to develop empathy, resentment, rebellion, low self-esteem, and a lack of internal motivation. There are effective methods for training children without scaring them into obeying.
> 
> Punishment and consequences


Exactly. MOST PROBLEMS. I wouldn't want to advocate in favour of a daily spanking - I would just not disallow it. 
And, also, as can easily be deducted from what you're saying, children are very manipulative. As long as you're loving they'll grow up knowing more about love than about hate. If you're hateful towards your children they'll grow up being hateful people as well. I'll agree with you on that completely. 
However, if you're loving towards your children and at some point you want more and they are able to get it without any real consequences they'll find out that it's possible to get stuff unrightfully. And as manipulative as children are, they'll take this information with them throughout their lives. As they grow older they'll want more and more, and each and every time they'll try to get more and more. If you draw the line quickly enough they'll never take the aforementioned information with them. In order to draw this line you can must show they are indeed not getting away with it; easily done by outforcing them. Once they've crossed a specific age they'll know themselves that unrightfully taking something is bad because that's the line you've drawn for them. But up to that age you gotta make sure you're always in control. If you limit yourself to not even raising your voice, I wouldn't say you're very much in control.
Yet again, I do rather have loving families above families requiring one of those tools you put in red. But considering you as a parent are not the only influence in a child's life, you're not able to control your child entirely; there will always be bad influences. You're only able to draw lines for him. And as said, you gotta make sure those lines are imprinted in the child's mind. 
I know you're about to say "but you can draw those lines without having to raise your voice or getting physical" - but what if a child starts doing those things. What if your child starts raising his voice and getting physical. You could argue "it's not right to teach your children NOT to get physical by getting physical yourself" - but you gotta do SOMETHING about it, because letting him/her continue will let the child know that once they use force they can get away with stuff. So, you gotta do something. You could tell "Go to your room!" (I don't suppose you're gonna leave your voice low here, hence the exclamation mark) - but I don't think the child is going to do that after finding out he can hurt you can you can't hurt him. At this point, the evil-side of the boy has won.
Of course, you wouldn't let it get that far... For as far as you're able to. But if a kids sees another kid kicking somebody the kid is already badly influenced. In some cases the kid might try kicking somebody himself, in which case the kid is acting violent already. Your non-red options are taking hold of the child. But the child might find this annoying and freedom-restrictive and try and kick you. At this point you would have to use one of your red options to get through to the kid - or am I wrong there?

My point is. Happy families are awesome, but kids are influenced by other things than their family as well.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Wobzter said:


> I think the line is even blurrier, to be honest. If a parent adheres these lines, they could still perform abusive acting by taking away _ALL_ privileges of a child for an _extended time_. Do you think this is less abusive than simply raising one's voice for a second?
> I know it's a bit of a trying-to-be-difficult-to-discuss-with-scenario, but if we're drawing lines we gotta draw them straight.


I believe that there are ways of removing privileges that are not abuse. I do not believe there are ways of spanking that are not abuse. 

Of course some ways of removing privileges are still abuse, but it is possible to remove privileges without abusing a child. That is why I didn't mark it in red. Yelling _at_ a child to threaten him/her is abuse. Yelling _to_ a child to alert him/her of danger isn't. You didn't specify which you meant, so I assumed you meant yelling angrily in a "You'd better stop that right now or else!" way rather than yelling to say "Hey, watch out for that tree!" I suppose I should have clarified to avoid ambiguity. The things in red are the behaviors that are always abuse no matter how moderately they are applied, while the things that are not in red are the things that can be applied non-abusively. This does not mean that they cannot also be applied abusively. 






Wobzter said:


> Okay, so when I was little and my mom had chips on the table I would sometimes try to grab some. This wasn't bad per se, but the thing which was less likable was the fact that as a child you tend to have things in your mouth; so had I my hands in my mouth often. So if I were to grab some chips it would be with saliva-filled fingers, not the nicest if you consider guests are supposed to eat those chips as well. How would you handle this problem?
> Assuming no physical abuse, of course. And you're not allowed to restrain my arms because it's not in order to protect me, now is it?
> You could go and move the chips to a place unreachable for me, but then you would make things uncomfortable for your guests every time they're at your place. You could tell me "No!", but that would be yelling. You could tell me without the exclamation mark "No, boy, that's not good". And then all you can do is hope I understand what you're saying... And if I don't, well, then I goes your chips will be filled with saliva right?
> I might sound mocking towards you, but I'm just trying to get a discussion started.
> Because so far all I've seen is you telling your thoughts and us telling our thoughts... ;P


In that situation, I would start by explaining to you that if you wanted to keep eating chips, you had to wash your hands before grabbing them, and had to put them in a separate bowl rather than reaching repeatedly into the bag between bites, because your dirty hands would make the chips yucky for others. I would show you what I meant by washing my hands, getting out a clean bowl, and putting some chips in the bowl, then I would have you try it. If you didn't understand this, or refused to comply, I would put the bag of chips somewhere high enough that you couldn't reach them, but low enough that the adult guests still had easy access to them. I would then have control over your access to the chips, and could choose to give you your own smaller bowl of accessible chips when you asked politely for them. Each time you asked for your special bowl, I would let you put some chips in it, but only as a reward for washing your hands. After the hand-washing behavior had been reinforced to the point where you did it without having to be asked, the larger bag could be reintroduced. 




Wobzter said:


> Exactly. MOST PROBLEMS. I wouldn't want to advocate in favour of a daily spanking - I would just not disallow it.
> And, also, as can easily be deducted from what you're saying, children are very manipulative. As long as you're loving they'll grow up knowing more about love than about hate. If you're hateful towards your children they'll grow up being hateful people as well. I'll agree with you on that completely.
> However, if you're loving towards your children and at some point you want more and they are able to get it without any real consequences they'll find out that it's possible to get stuff unrightfully. And as manipulative as children are, they'll take this information with them throughout their lives. As they grow older they'll want more and more, and each and every time they'll try to get more and more. If you draw the line quickly enough they'll never take the aforementioned information with them. In order to draw this line you can must show they are indeed not getting away with it; easily done by outforcing them. Once they've crossed a specific age they'll know themselves that unrightfully taking something is bad because that's the line you've drawn for them. But up to that age you gotta make sure you're always in control. If you limit yourself to not even raising your voice, I wouldn't say you're very much in control.


Outforcing them might be the easy way, but it is not the right way. I agree about enforcing rules, but using violence sets an example of inappropriate behavior, besides being a violative act.



Wobzter said:


> Yet again, I do rather have loving families above families requiring one of those tools you put in red. But considering you as a parent are not the only influence in a child's life, you're not able to control your child entirely; there will always be bad influences. You're only able to draw lines for him. And as said, you gotta make sure those lines are imprinted in the child's mind.
> I know you're about to say "but you can draw those lines without having to raise your voice or getting physical" - but what if a child starts doing those things. What if your child starts raising his voice and getting physical. You could argue "it's not right to teach your children NOT to get physical by getting physical yourself" - but you gotta do SOMETHING about it, because letting him/her continue will let the child know that once they use force they can get away with stuff. So, you gotta do something. You could tell "Go to your room!" (I don't suppose you're gonna leave your voice low here, hence the exclamation mark) - but I don't think the child is going to do that after finding out he can hurt you can you can't hurt him. At this point, the evil-side of the boy has won.


Children who are not spanked are less likely to be physically aggressive than children who are spanked, but if I had a child who was being violent, I would have a discussion with that child about empathy for his/her victim, then I would suggest other non-violent conflict-resolution approaches. I would validate the child's right to feel angry without validating the violent behavior. If the child continued to behave aggressively toward a specific individual despite understanding the rules, I would deal with it by making sure that the aggressive child was not allowed contact with the child s/he victimized until s/he agreed to stop behaving violently. I would not yell when sending a child to his/her room, but would be very clear about the child's behavior and its consequences. "Until you can stop hitting little Susie, you'll have to play by yourself. You can come out when you decide to play nicely." 




Wobzter said:


> Of course, you wouldn't let it get that far... For as far as you're able to. But if a kids sees another kid kicking somebody the kid is already badly influenced. In some cases the kid might try kicking somebody himself, in which case the kid is acting violent already. Your non-red options are taking hold of the child. But the child might find this annoying and freedom-restrictive and try and kick you. At this point you would have to use one of your red options to get through to the kid - or am I wrong there?
> 
> My point is. Happy families are awesome, but kids are influenced by other things than their family as well.


You are wrong. I would not use one of the red options. Those are the options that I consider off-limits. There are always alternatives to violence. Sometimes we just have to get creative until something works. I have dealt with violent children before while babysitting, and they are not as difficult to train as you might think. I would also like to add that the children who started out violent were only violent because they learned it from their parents, and were able to be managed more effectively after I was alone with them, when their parents were not present to yell at them or threaten them.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

I'd try to avoid it.
I'd also try to avoid demonizing those who use the non-abusive form of it. Encourage them, perhaps, not to be closed to other options, but if it isn't my kids or abuse, it isn't my business either. If the child is fine, there is no issue, and not everyone is traumatized by spanking. I would question the wisdom of using it as the first resort though.

So on one hand I think it can be acceptable, when done properly, but on the other hand, I would rather not do so myself, as I don't like it.


----------



## Wobzter (Jun 2, 2011)

snail said:


> I believe that there are ways of removing privileges that are not abuse. I do not believe there are ways of spanking that are not abuse.


Okay, fair point.



> Of course some ways of removing privileges are still abuse, but it is possible to remove privileges without abusing a child. That is why I didn't mark it in red. Yelling _at_ a child to threaten him/her is abuse. Yelling _to_ a child to alert him/her of danger isn't. You didn't specify which you meant, so I assumed you meant yelling angrily in a "You'd better stop that right now or else!" way rather than yelling to say "Hey, watch out for that tree!" I suppose I should have clarified to avoid ambiguity. The things in red are the behaviors that are always abuse no matter how moderately they are applied, while the things that are not in red are the things that can be applied non-abusively. This does not mean that they cannot also be applied abusively.


Fair point as well. 




> In that situation, I would start by explaining to you that if you wanted to keep eating chips, you had to wash your hands before grabbing them, and had to put them in a separate bowl rather than reaching repeatedly into the bag between bites, because your dirty hands would make the chips yucky for others. I would show you what I meant by washing my hands, getting out a clean bowl, and putting some chips in the bowl, then I would have you try it. If you didn't understand this, or refused to comply, I would put the bag of chips somewhere high enough that you couldn't reach them, but low enough that the adult guests still had easy access to them. I would then have control over your access to the chips, and could choose to give you your own smaller bowl of accessible chips when you asked politely for them. Each time you asked for your special bowl, I would let you put some chips in it, but only as a reward for washing your hands. After the hand-washing behavior had been reinforced to the point where you did it without having to be asked, the larger bag could be reintroduced.


When typing that down I was slowly beginning to see that same scenario happening in my head; but it hadn't developed enough for me yet to convince myself, but thanks to you I can see it now ^^.




> Outforcing them might be the easy way, but it is not the right way. I agree about enforcing rules, but using violence sets an example of inappropriate behavior, besides being a violative act.


Hmmm, I'm still having a little trouble with this. Mainly because children are used to the fact that they are allowed less than adults. For example, adults are allowed to stay awake longer than children are (most obvious one, let's stick at that one). I'm not saying adults are allowed to engage in violent behaviour, not at all. I'm just saying that it's a natural thing for the child to be allowed less things than adults. The same thing could apply to violence (according to the child's mindset and as long as the parents have the right intentions!). So by using violence (a big word for a flick on the hand, but let's go with it for now, I currently don't know a better for it) the parent is allowed to raise the kid, vice versa the kid is not allowed to use violence to raise the parent. Just as the parent is allowed to stay up longer and take care of the children, vice versa the kid is not allowed to stay up longer and take care of the parents. 
I know this example is very strange for us, but I think a child naturally feels that parents have more authority than themselves; authority enough to use violence (Once again, let me point out it's with good intentions! A flick on the hand for example).
So in that sense, it would not be setting a bad example. 



> Children who are not spanked are less likely to be physically aggressive than children who are spanked, but if I had a child who was being violent, I would have a discussion with that child about empathy for his/her victim, then I would suggest other non-violent conflict-resolution approaches. I would validate the child's right to feel angry without validating the violent behavior. If the child continued to behave aggressively toward a specific individual despite understanding the rules, I would deal with it by making sure that the aggressive child was not allowed contact with the child s/he victimized until s/he agreed to stop behaving violently. I would not yell when sending a child to his/her room, but would be very clear about the child's behavior and its consequences. "Until you can stop hitting little Susie, you'll have to play by yourself. You can come out when you decide to play nicely."


I don't really know the statistics about correlation between spanked children and violent children, I know I'm certainly not in that group. And I know there are enough children whom are not spanked who are still violent. Then again, one example would not be enough to change the tides of statistics. 
HOW exactly would you make sure the kid doesn't contact Susie? Take, for example that Jimmy and Susie are siblings. How would you make sure Jimmy doesn't hit Susie again? You could tell him to go to his room, but what if he doesn't comply? 



> You are wrong. I would not use one of the red options. Those are the options that I consider off-limits. There are always alternatives to violence. Sometimes we just have to get creative until something works. I have dealt with violent children before while babysitting, and they are not as difficult to train as you might think. * I would also like to add that the children who started out violent were only violent because they learned it from their parents,* _and were able to be managed more effectively after I was alone with them, when their parents were not present to yell at them or threaten them_.


Okay, I'll give you that - you have much more experience with children. I only have observation experience. 
As for the bolded part, I personally am quite skeptical about this. Then again, I've only seen my own life 24/7 and so I can only tell you about my own experience about this. I wouldn't even be able to tell you about my siblings as they've had alone time. The same thing applies to you, you're only able to base this of your own life and what people told you. I won't say that the things people tell you are false, but it's still a limited amount of information you have. 
As for the part in italics, it seems to me as if telling and threatening isn't uncommon to those children - in which case I would completely agree with you that the parents are at fault. I'm only advocating for limited use of the red options. 

Liking the discussion so far, by the way ;D


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Wobzter said:


> Okay, fair point.
> 
> 
> Fair point as well.
> ...


First of all, I would like to thank you for keeping this discussion so civil, because it is one that is usually very heated and emotionally dangerous. I see that you have grown up respectful and non-aggressive, which makes me more likely to consider your position, even if I doubt I will change my mind about this topic.

You make a valid point about authority figures being expected to have more privileges. Well argued. I just don't think that violating another person's body, or inflicting intentional pain, should be one of those privileges. I believe that all people have a right not to be violently assaulted, regardless of age or status. I can't explain how I know this, but it is as clear to me as "all people have a right not to be forced to commit sexual acts against their will," which is something else I can't prove or explain, but which I feel strongly is universally true. 

To answer your question about how to deal with a violent child who defies the order to go to his room, and persists in behaving violently toward a sibling, this is one of those rare situations where physically removing one child from the situation in order to protect another is acceptable. Once the child has been gently placed in his room, he cannot, at first, be trusted to decide for himself when he is ready to interact non-violently, so the door may remain closed according to my discretion, which can be longer or shorter depending on how aggressive the child seems. If he is yelling and throwing things inside his room, then he might have to stay there longer than if he settles down and behaves non-aggressively. He should be allowed to break his own toys or trash his own room if he feels like it, because it is his personal space, but he will suffer the natural consequences of not having those toys to play with anymore, and may have to help fix any damage he causes. If he breaks a window, for example, it is acceptable to make him do extra chores to earn money to replace it, or to take away his allowance until it covers the cost. 

This only works if the child does not share a room with his sibling, because if he does, he might feel compelled to destroy the other child's belongings. In such a case, finding a neutral location where there are no breakable items is better. If the child is especially aggressive, he might end up having to stay in the room until his presence is required for the next group activity, such as family dinner time, at which point I would open his door and ask "Are you ready to settle down so we can all have dinner together now, or would you rather stay in your room shouting and breaking things?" Usually when the child is given that choice, he will choose to be free and polite rather than continuing to be rowdy and confined. Giving the child options makes him feel like he has more control over the situation, and emphasizes that being nice to his sister is a choice. If the child behaves well and is polite toward little Susie at dinner, praise him/her for it. "You're doing such a nice job of being polite to your sister, and Susie, you're being polite too. When you act like this, I feel so proud of both of you." If he acts up again at dinner, however, remind him of the agreement he made to act politely at dinner, and remind him of the other option, giving him the same choice again. 

If there is no family dinner or similar group activity, then after he stops being aggressive on his own, he can be safely released without harming anyone. At this point, it is important to talk to him about the behavior, and to explain why it was wrong.

"When you hit Susie, it hurts her. If somebody started hitting you, how do you think it would make you feel?" *child shrugs or looks away* "I'll bet that wouldn't feel very nice, would it?" Then I would let the child respond. If the child says something defiant to try to get out of empathizing, I keep trying. Like, let's say he says "It wouldn't make me upset. She's being a baby." I would respond with, "Well, whether it would upset you or not, it made little Susie feel afraid and sad. You've felt afraid and sad before. Do you remember what it felt like?" If the child says "no," offer a reminder of a situation that you know affected him/her that can be compared to this one. This teaches the child how to intentionally empathize, which is something he can apply in future situations by recalling situations on his own that made him feel a certain way. This will allow him to understand the effect he has on others more easily whenever he chooses. It is a good habit to start early. 

Then I would give my child a chance to talk, and to explain himself/herself. This is the best way to determine why s/he was using violence, and allows an opportunity to discuss acceptable alternatives. If the child can't explain what compelled him/her to repeatedly attack little Susie, you might try something unconventional. For example if you have an artistic child, this can be effective: "I want to understand what you were feeling when you hit Susie. Can you draw it for me?" So, let's play along with your expectations and assume the child won't try to empathize, doesn't care about alternatives, breaks the crayons and refuses to speak to me. I wait and try again using another approach. I do not let it go until there has been some kind of effective communication. Yes, this style of discipline takes a lot of patience and effort, but if it is applied effectively, the child learns more from it and internalizes positive values. 

In reality, it is unusual for something this extreme to happen, especially habitually. The first discussion is usually effective. I had to come up with this on my own, because I can't remember ever behaving violently with my little brother, or having him behave violently toward me, and the time when I destroyed one of his stuffed animals by putting makeup on it, my little makeup kit was taken away. The consequence was simple and fair, and required very little explanation to make sense. 

I have only ever had to deal with one child who was so seriously defiant that he attacked his sister and refused to go to his room. He was an ESTP who is now an adult, with whom I am still in contact. I carried him, kicking and flailing, to his bedroom and closed the door. He pounded the door and screamed, but only required a few minutes of isolation before he got tired of it. When he was quiet enough to talk to, I gave him the choice, "Would you like to come out and play nicely with your sister, or would you like to stay in your room so she can play safely without you throwing things at her head?" That was all it took to change his behavior, and if he started to become aggressive again, all I had to do was remind him what he had chosen. In that situation, it was more about cause and effect than about crime and punishment, since the purpose of the isolation was not to harm him, but to protect his sister. This made sense to him, even though he was quite young, and it solved the problem easily. 

My approach was different from what he was used to. His mother had given me permission to hit him with a big wooden spoon if he acted up, but I made it clear from the very start that I had no intention of using it. I suspect her violent approach was partly what made him so aggressive in the first place. By the third day of babysitting him, I found that he was no longer defiant when I was there, and he was able to channel his excess physical energy into running around on the lawn playing various active games with the neighbor children.


----------



## Wobzter (Jun 2, 2011)

snail said:


> Everything snail just said / shortened to reduce post-length


Wow! Simply... Wow!
If I could I would double-thank you for your elaboration. 
Your methods require a LOT of patience, indeed, but I do agree with you that, given the care-taker has enough patience this works best. However, you did cross your line of touching him (physically removing him). Okay, this is far from spanking, I'll give you that.
In these circumstances I would agree with you that your method is best.
However, I see a lot parents who state they would not like to touch their children as it is physical abuse... But they don't negotiate correctly with their children either.



> He should be allowed to break his own toys or trash his own room if he feels like it, because it is his personal space, but he will suffer the natural consequences of not having those toys to play with anymore, and may have to help fix any damage he causes. If he breaks a window, for example, it is acceptable to make him do extra chores to earn money to replace it, or to take away his allowance until it covers the cost


There are, unfortunately, only very few people adhering that thought. There are far too many parents buying new stuff over and over, getting tired of it while at it, but still buying new stuff. 



> This teaches the child how to intentionally empathize, which is something he can apply in future situations by recalling situations on his own that made him feel a certain way. This will allow him to understand the effect he has on others more easily whenever he chooses. It is a good habit to start early.


Quoted for truth. 

So, okay, you convinced that spanking *should* be too far.
However, considering you yourself crossed the line (by physically removing Jimmy) I'd like to just change the line up to allow myself to physically remove the child. But I guess that's just a matter of taste. 
Anyway, should, because this kind of parenting is ideal. There are, in my opinion, many cases which are far worse than what I went though (see my first post) - in which case spanking would be preferred over their method.
"their" method, assuming no physical force like you, would be people spoiling their children. People too impatient to give up on getting through to the child at the intentional emphasis. Well, I guess these two already make up a far too large portion of parents; in my experience at least. 

Oh wow, I think I just said the same thing thrice xD.
But yeah, you get where I'm going at. 
So, in short; in my opinion your method is ideal. Spanking is bad, but other things which are different from what you just described are bad as well; physically or not. 

Since we're on the subject and I've finally found someone elaborative (you), I would like to ask you something.
When I was 13 or something; me, my sister, and a few of our friends were playing outside. My sister being 16 at that time. As we were playing outside, there was this kid who started to kick one of our friends. We told him to stop a few times, but he continued. Then my sister took a hold of him by his shoulder and said "Hey, stop doing that!". A few seconds later the boy's mother came rushing outside. 
I was standing about 10-20m away from it, looking at what happened. 
The mother got angry at my sister for touching her child (I can understand that). My sister, in response, explained the situation. The mother then said she should've instead went to the her (the mother) and explain the situation (I can understand that as well). My sister, in response said that, that would imply he would continue kicking for at least 20 seconds as she would first have to go to her house, ring the bell and wait for the mother to open while the friend gets kicked at. After that a lot of yes/no-bitching continued followed by people not listening to each other's opinion. 
So what is your thought about this story? Was it right of my sister to take a hold of the child (I think 7 at the time, perhaps 6) and tell him to quit it, or should she have gone to the mother so she could take care of it, most likely without any physical force - and letting the kid continue for about half a minute?

In case you're wondering about the aftermath. As soon as my sister let the kid go he rushed inside while the mother was rushing outside, ready to tell my sister how opinion about the matter. The child was, according to the mother; "sitting in front of the tv, watching SpongeBob, all frightened".
To which a popular reaction was: "If he was really scared he wouldn't be watching tv >__>".".

So yeah, I'd like to hear your voice in this.
As a last thing:



> I just don't think that violating another person's body, or inflicting intentional pain, should be one of those privileges. I believe that all people have a right not to be violently assaulted, regardless of age or status. I can't explain how I know this, but it is as clear to me as "all people have a right not to be forced to commit sexual acts against their will," which is something else I can't prove or explain, but which I feel strongly is universally true.


That's ethics, which is a moral and cultural construct and is different from place and time. I'm not saying I disagree with you, just explaining. Also, I don't know if the current ethics are the right ones, seeing as how ethics are still changing in various ways and degrees... Then again, ethics can't really be classified "right or wrong", because ethics itself classifies other things as "right or wrong". For ethics itself to be considered right or wrong would require an objective view... but as long as we consider humans to have more value than chimps, I think that objective view will never really be objective. We consider humans to have more value because they do to US, making it a subjective consideration - with which I mean that our sense of right and wrong will always be subjective because we humans tend to put value on certain things and put less value on other things. But universally speaking (assuming we're irreligious) and trying to be as objective as possible; nothing has more value than what you make of it. Value itself is a subjective thing.

Thanks again for the elaboration!


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Wobzter said:


> Wow! Simply... Wow!
> If I could I would double-thank you for your elaboration.
> Your methods require a LOT of patience, indeed, but I do agree with you that, given the care-taker has enough patience this works best. However, you did cross your line of touching him (physically removing him). Okay, this is far from spanking, I'll give you that.
> In these circumstances I would agree with you that your method is best.
> However, I see a lot parents who state they would not like to touch their children as it is physical abuse... But they don't negotiate correctly with their children either.


Restraining a violent child does not cross the line when the child is violating someone else's body. If you will notice, I didn't put restraint in red. It is, however, something I very rarely ever apply, because it runs the risk of sometimes being done too aggressively.






Wobzter said:


> There are, unfortunately, only very few people adhering that thought. There are far too many parents buying new stuff over and over, getting tired of it while at it, but still buying new stuff.


Indeed, but the child will not learn the natural consequences of destructive behaviors if those consequences aren't allowed to occur. When I was a little girl, I once got so angry about something that I broke my drum set, which was one of my favorite toys, and it had to be thrown away, and I never ended up with another one. Because of that experience, I became less likely to break things when angry.




Wobzter said:


> So, okay, you convinced that spanking *should* be too far.
> However, considering you yourself crossed the line (by physically removing Jimmy) I'd like to just change the line up to allow myself to physically remove the child. But I guess that's just a matter of taste.
> Anyway, should, because this kind of parenting is ideal. There are, in my opinion, many cases which are far worse than what I went though (see my first post) - in which case spanking would be preferred over their method.
> "their" method, assuming no physical force like you, would be people spoiling their children. People too impatient to give up on getting through to the child at the intentional emphasis. Well, I guess these two already make up a far too large portion of parents; in my experience at least.


I agree that spoiling a child to the point where that child becomes a brat can be destructive to his/her future social functioning and can cause lifelong problems. Neglect through permissiveness is the passive form of abuse, and can be as harmful as spanking. Many who are against spanking seem to think that the alternative is not providing any guidance or discipline at all. In a worst case scenario, a child is parented by someone who fluctuates between these two damaging extremes, neglecting to provide any discipline until the child acts up so badly that the parent feels s/he must physically assault him/her in order to have any control. 



Wobzter said:


> Oh wow, I think I just said the same thing thrice xD.
> But yeah, you get where I'm going at.
> So, in short; in my opinion your method is ideal. Spanking is bad, but other things which are different from what you just described are bad as well; physically or not.
> 
> ...


If he was being violent, restraining him was justified in order to protect his victim. Your sister did nothing wrong as long as the restraint was defensive and non-violent. The other child has a right not to be kicked. We have a right to have our physical boundaries protected as long as we do not resort to intentionally inflicting pain on others. 



Wobzter said:


> In case you're wondering about the aftermath. As soon as my sister let the kid go he rushed inside while the mother was rushing outside, ready to tell my sister how opinion about the matter. The child was, according to the mother; "sitting in front of the tv, watching SpongeBob, all frightened".
> To which a popular reaction was: "If he was really scared he wouldn't be watching tv >__>".".
> 
> So yeah, I'd like to hear your voice in this.
> ...


I believe morality is objective, not a subjective cultural construct, but a deeper universal truth. Regardless of culture, some things are always wrong or always right, and what is true is not determined by majority opinion. We may all perceive it differently, which leads to different interpretations of it, but despite our tendency to disagree, there is always a right and wrong way to act, in every situation.


----------



## Wobzter (Jun 2, 2011)

snail said:


> Restraining a violent child does not cross the line when the child is violating someone else's body. If you will notice, I didn't put restraint in red. It is, however, something I very rarely ever apply, because it runs the risk of sometimes being done too aggressively.


Oh, sorry!



> Indeed, but the child will not learn the natural consequences of destructive behaviors if those consequences aren't allowed to occur. When I was a little girl, I once got so angry about something that I broke my drum set, which was one of my favorite toys, and it had to be thrown away, and I never ended up with another one. Because of that experience, I became less likely to break things when angry.


Yeah, that's a good way of learning stuff .



> I believe morality is objective, not a subjective cultural construct, but a deeper universal truth. Regardless of culture, some things are always wrong or always right, and what is true is not determined by majority opinion. We may all perceive it differently, which leads to different interpretations of it, but despite our tendency to disagree, there is always a right and wrong way to act, in every situation.


I would like to argue about this one as well, but this is not the right thread for that =P
Perhaps in private messages?


----------



## Linnifae (Nov 13, 2009)

I don't think spanking works for everyone but it does work for some kids. Some kids may be too sensitive, some too stubborn, etc. It's the parents' responsibility to know your child and find out what works.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

*I think that the biggest problem in this debate is that we only take "spanking" into consideration without paying attention to education in general.*

Talking from experience or observation, we could easily say everything and its opposite. When I worked in a secondary school in a poor area near my hometown, most children had a tendency to be violent and to teach violence to their younger siblings. Whether they were spanked or not was not the real issue there, some were, some weren't.
The real issue was that they had no education. Most of their parents had no authority andhad given up on educating them because they had other problems to deal with and could not handle them. Some did not know what to do without risking any traumatize (though I don't think that was the majority), some only used to spank them when they were younger and crossed the line to many times.

With or without spanking, there is no education.

Childrend aren't only influenced by their family, there is a whole society around them even at schools. And I think we should really forget about our idealistic views on human beings and children sometimes and realise that they won't be naturally good and innocent, they are amoral beings growing up to learn values, conventions and choose their path. They will try to use manipulation, lies and violence even on adults to impose their will, though each one will have their own limits, style and personality depending on their reasonning and background.

And I am very sorry but when I read this or any other author writing such things, I think they really should open their eyes and realise that there is more to education than spanking or just a method and that there is more to our life than our family.

Especially since some of the points he made can also be influenced strongly by exterior factors such as school (distrust of adults) and mostly be linked with psychological abuse (have you never had a teacher or adult telling you constantly that you were worthless, a real idiot and a shame or humiliating you publicly ? it is surely worse than any spanking parent). 

I'd argue as well that some of these consequences would more likely happen when the child has been punished when they've done nothing. It does happen more than we think it does and it will always been seen as abuse and violence (physical / psychological) by the child since it's unfair.

[And of course, the study is a little biased and insist too much on emotion, as if they were trying to persuade us by making us feel guilty or something like this rather than convince us with real evidence, but since it's social sciences, it is really hard to take into consideration everything and make a universal conclusion anyway.]

So yes, it's true, if you live in a mostly violent background, if spanking is the only education you received, chances are quite high that you will be violent yourself (though there are exceptions), but there's lots of grey areas and lots of influences other than spanking.

When I see someone spanking hard a child because they can't deal with their anger whether the child is really responsible or not, I think *it's abuse*. And unfortunately, I've seen it more than once.
When I see someone spanking a child who is misbehaving and refuse to be reasonned or accept any kind of punishment, I think it's acceptable because we all have our limits and depending on the situation, it can be more or less difficult to act differently.

And there are children abusing their parents as well, especially when they receive no education at all. 

If I were to speak from experience, I'd say that no one I know became violent even though they were spanked but they also received a real education, all of them has been somewhat unhappy with it (it is inevitable, sorry. No one will truly accept everything their parents has done or said to be the best way to educate a child since we have different personalities), they mostly come from a middle-class or upper class so there weren't any major issue in their lives and they also come from families which value knowledge and reflection so they are probably less likely to become violent, even the impuslive ones (since impulsivity isn't only about violence).

But what does that say about spanking ? Really ? Nothing. Because they are just random individuals with their own context and history, with their education and family and their schools, etc. and all of that is what has shaped them as adults.

So I won't say that, "because I've been spanked and didn't turn up as a real sociopath, spanking is good.", it's acceptable as long as it is not considered to be "education".


----------



## OuterMongolia (Jul 7, 2011)

Never got spanked (maybe once?), never will spank (never want kids, and it's not a sexual kink of mine ).


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

I think it can be an affective form of discipline with certain children and certain parents. I think people are perhaps a little too paranoid about 'child abuse' in regards to that. However, for me personally I could never bring myself to do it, and it only happened to me maybe once or twice because my mom soon learned that with me, that was overkill. All I needed was a stern look and I trembled in my shoes and was very sorry about what I'd done....that and I rarely did anything wrong to begin with. I do think that some people tend to use a physical smack whenever they're frustrated or upset - and not always just with their children but among their peers as well - and to me I just don't get that. I never play-punched people or pretend-smacked them upside the head....you know....it's just not my style. A lot of it really depends on the person and how they take it (and how it's meant). 

I'm not very good with kids who don't just obey me of their own accord - which many do because they like and respect me and are nice kids. I can't achieve much of a commanding presence, so my only resort if they don't respect me is to either yell which I don't like to do, or use physical force which can be a pretty touchy subject these days. With my cousins when I'd babysit, I'd never hit them, but if they weren't listening and kept doing something they weren't supposed to I'd grab both their wists and wrap them up in my arms and make them sit on my lap for a 'time out'. They would often struggle to get free but could never wiggle out of my iron-grip around their wrists. Sometimes it would turn into a good-natured wrestle and I'd tickle them or something to get them laughing before letting them escape. For me the point was to prevent them from doing what they shouldn't while also reinforcing a bond of closeness with them. Ultimately I think it's having the love and respect of someone you care about that makes you want to do as they say because you don't want them to be disappointed in you. But, that may not be how everyone's mind works.


----------



## Wobzter (Jun 2, 2011)

@snail

I just talked to my dad about this matter (because of family issues with a cousin) and his main argument against your method, even taking in account infinite patience on the parent's side, is that your method would (as far as I interpreted it~) require explaining to the child why the rules are the way they are. This would result in the child getting used to the idea of logical rules and thus not be prepared for a world where rules are the way they are just because they are the way they are / people not willing to give explanations for their rules. 

My dad said that in such a case the child could go and skip classes (which is of course not wished for) because the classroom violates the aforementioned thought that rules are explained. Considering schools are pretty bad at reporting skipping people (at least, over here), the child could easily get away with it without any consequences. 

So, was I misunderstanding what you said, or was there something I missed in your story to appoint to such a thing?

Edit: Afterwards the discussion continued about how, as society gets nicer and nicer, society also gets softer and softer; thus allowing jerks more room to abuse their jerkism. 
That is why, according to my dad, he gave up on his hope about a world without war; as people get nicer and nicer those who are not nice are able to abuse that and do lots of bad while getting away with it. Until people are fed up with it and become less nice/soft, thus resulting in people more prone to start wars.
This is, of course, assuming that in a very-nice-world there will be people who aren't nice; which I think is a fair assumption. Some people just have messed up childhoods due to unforeseen circumstances like car-crashes or something.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Wobzter said:


> @snail
> 
> I just talked to my dad about this matter (because of family issues with a cousin) and his main argument against your method, even taking in account infinite patience on the parent's side, is that your method would (as far as I interpreted it~) require explaining to the child why the rules are the way they are. This would result in the child getting used to the idea of logical rules and thus not be prepared for a world where rules are the way they are just because they are the way they are / people not willing to give explanations for their rules.
> 
> ...


I believe rules should make sense. If there is no reason for them, they shouldn't exist. Obedience is not a virtue for its own sake, and should never be undertaken blindly. He probably assumes we should accept unnecessary rules without trying to change them or fight them, but the rules exist for our benefit. Any rule that is not beneficial needs to be challenged. 

I also believe that a world where people are nice to each other would be ideal. His kind of thinking leads to a world that is far too harsh for some of us. He probably thinks everyone ought to be tough in order to protect themselves, and that exposing people to violence and unfairness is preparing them for the "real world." What he might be missing is the fact that we decide, by our actions, what the real world will be, and a generation raised to devalue patience and kindness will create more of the kinds of people who victimize others. 

The soft-hearted are powerful in numbers, especially if we are courageous enough to take a stand for the things that matter to us.  I disagree with your dad about pretty much everything. The more nice people there are, the more support we provide for each other when the not-so-nice people try to harm us.


----------

