I couldn't remember what the punsihment was for Pylon. I agree that the hose is definitely too far. And I have stated that there are obviously more effective, less physically abusive methods and that it should be explained what he did wrong and why he can't treat people that way. From the sounds of things Pylon was a bit of a terror as a kid. If those emethods had been tried continuously and obviously failed to get a message across, I think an escalation is warrented. Not rubber hose, and again there is likely a way to avoid hitting altogether, but in the moment a spank is probably warrented and if the parent has taken many other steps beforehand, I definitely wouldn't consider a spank or smack on the head as abusive. I was wrong about the rubber hose for Pylon so my bad.
I can't speak for what other methods were tried with pylon, but I know other parents in here have mentioned that they have found ways to deal with things without resorting to abuse. I'm not a parent, so I'm definitely not an expert in this area. However, one of the things that keeps me from wanting children is not having what I consider to be ideal models of parenting in my life to learn from, therefore I don't wish to pass on poor disciplinary habits to another generation.
Quote:
Isn't this the same thing? The guy is becoming personally threatening (not conforming ot others standards) and so can be hit (assaulted) to stop said non-conforming? And in this situation, it's likely that hitting that guy does nothing but escalate the situation, unless you can one-punch him, but that doesn't mean he didnt deserve it. These are adults so it is a different situation, but there are many cases of adult children being abused as well.
I guess it depends. I was more thinking about the guy who gets loser-wasted and starts mouthing off people. He's not a threat, he's an inconvenience. If someone is actually posing danger to other people, then yes those people have the right to defend themselves.
Quote:
I can agree to this, but that doesn't mean a person (and I want to get away from Pylon as I agree a rubber hose is excessive) can't look back on a spanking situation and go "It was innappropriate for my parent to spank me, but I earned the pain that time and since this happened few and far between and only when I really screwed up, I don't view my parents as abusive."
I think there is a line that has to be kept in mind. And also the fact that abuse generally refers to an ongoing thing. There are one-off occurances of rage that are obviously unnacceptable, but as far something like spanking or light smacks goes, if it a situation where you come home for your daily spanking each day that is definitely abusive. If it's you get hit once every couple years for being a complete jackass, your parents are probably fine and you probably deserved it that time.
Yeah, I can sort of agree with this. I think there are certainly differences between committing an act of abuse and being abusive. Sometimes people fly off the handle and do things they regret, and that's unfortunate, but I do think there are very few instances where someone should have to take responsibility for the actions of another.
Spanking if abusive people. Don't rationalize it please.
Here is a good video that you all should watch on the subject.
The video is good, but it really doesn't dismiss spanking as a form of punishment in it's entirety. It defines corporal punishment/spanking in all the studies it refers to as being spanked multiple times a week and along with the video I agree that if you are resorting to spanking multiple times a week you are doing it wrong and probably are being abusive.
I was spanked growing up, but it was for only the most egregious offenses so it was limited to two to three times a year tops. I didn't consider it abuse and in fact multiple times growing up my dad gave me a choice of punishment between being grounded or spankings. I literally chose being grounded only once (the first time) and then realized quickly as much as being spanked sucked, it was over in 10 minutes. In my 5 - 9 yr old view, I saw them as the lesser form of punishment then grounding, so I think it would be hard to qualify it as abuse at that point.
Spanking should be the nuclear deterrent and not something done every time a child does something wrong.
It's not a very good study. I was slapped, my ear was grabbed, flicked in the forehead one time even choked a little but I was a freaking a-hole little kid. When I look back on my childhood I wonder how my dad didn't outright punch me in the face and tell me to stfu, I know I was annoying as hell and have a perfectly fine relationship with my parents now. I think you have to take into consideration the circumstances and the relationship with ones parents after the age of 21. I wouldn't even call it abuse, it was the bare minimum to get me to behave when I was way out of line. You'd think real abuse would have to leave a lasting negative impact.
I was spanked growing up. I don't remember a single specific incident though. It was usually a last resort, and always done after the fact, say later on in the evening if the wrongdoing happened in the morning. I never really asked my parents why, but I'd imagine it was done this way to make sure they were calm and collected. It hardly ever happened though.
IMO, I think spanking is abused. If you have to spank your kids all week long there is a good chance you are doing something wrong. In fact, I think if you use any sort of object to spank the child, you're doing something wrong. There are a variety of discipline methods that work. Spanking, if done right can work. For the most part it seems to be just be abused, so parents are better off not spanking at all.
I'm sickened at the statistics for sexual abuse against children. It's actually pretty sad that years later some of my best buddies growing up admitted they were victims--felt like we maybe could have been there for each other.
I can't even imagine what I'd do if I had a little boy or girl and someone hurt them.
EE I am not sure if you have children but if you do, do you use physical punishment?
Two young boys. I spanked the older one on the bum once but that's the extent of it as my wife and I have gone to courses on this stuff. It's a lot harder being a parent now than it used to be as you have to be much more creative when it comes to correcting behavior.
Two young boys. I spanked the older one on the bum once but that's the extent of it as my wife and I have gone to courses on this stuff. It's a lot harder being a parent now than it used to be as you have to be much more creative when it comes to correcting behavior.
This, and you have so many more parents who let their child run the household, either because they'd rather be their child's "friend", or don't want to put out the necessary effort to teach their child how to understand and obey the rules.
Two young boys. I spanked the older one on the bum once but that's the extent of it as my wife and I have gone to courses on this stuff. It's a lot harder being a parent now than it used to be as you have to be much more creative when it comes to correcting behavior.
Why is it harder being a parent now? While the issues/struggles might be different, saying it is harder, is well incorrect IMO.
What confuses me is why you think you deserved hitting, but you kids don't?
Why is it harder being a parent now? While the issues/struggles might be different, saying it is harder, is well incorrect IMO.
What confuses me is why you think you deserved hitting, but you kids don't?
I never said I believe my kids don't deserve it rather than there can be consequences to the parents if someone finds out you have been spanking your children and feels it's their obligation to get their nose in your business. I'm only talking of spanking here and not the old means that some of us were subjected to. I'm not going to punch, kick, choke or use anything more than an open hand on a rear end.
It's harder because children can't be disciplined like they used to and they know it. My wife is a teacher and can lay claim that children are much more difficult to manage than they used to be. Lots of stories of defiant kids telling teachers off and telling them that they will tell that you touched them and such. Teachers are powerless at times and scared for their job. When I was young there was none of that and if you were hiding in a locker refusing to come out a teacher would pull you out. In the old days when you did something bad you got disciplined and nowadays it's kind of a fine line/walking on egg shells thing. Like I said before we have taken courses on this and have tried the new methods but they simply aren't as effective.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 04-28-2014 at 11:05 AM.
Well I would hope not but I don't consider spanking as abuse. As has been said spanking is a last resort and if you are resorting to spanking all the time then you are doing something wrong. You do it once or twice and the threat of it usually is all it takes for the child to learn the pitfalls of not listening or being defiant.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
I see three reasons why people hit their kids
-negative reinforcement for when a child does something dangerous
-trying to obtain or re-obtain dominance in the parent/ child relationship
-An inability to cope with the situation and the loss of problem solving
The first one seems straight forward when you're dealing with smaller children. Kid turns on the stove, smack em on the ass so they associate temporary pain with things you consider risky for a small child. I would think the window for this runs out some time around puberty
The second one seems more geared towards teenagers trying to test their boundaries. Like it or not, there is still a necessity for physical confrontation in parent/guardian - children relationships. I'm not saying kids need to be tuned up, however sometimes it takes being physically manhandled to shock someone back into place. The caveats to this would be a close to one time thing and the parent would need to be in complete control of their emotions. If these criteria are not met then its just a parent fighting a kid.
Anything other than these two situations is just a parent in over their head. Hitting someone with a tool, losing control of your temper in a confrontation or excessive physically contact is a parent crying out for help because they're out of ideas.
Also, this will be only the second generation in our history where we have taken steps to remove physical contact from children's lives. Zero tolerance in schools, a national focus on bullying and more parents taking a hands off approach when it comes to discipline. It will be interesting to see how the next couple of generations turn out.
The video is good, but it really doesn't dismiss spanking as a form of punishment in it's entirety. It defines corporal punishment/spanking in all the studies it refers to as being spanked multiple times a week and along with the video I agree that if you are resorting to spanking multiple times a week you are doing it wrong and probably are being abusive.
Spanking should be the nuclear deterrent and not something done every time a child does something wrong.
If the evidence shows that spanking has potentially serious negative effects, why play Russian Roulette with it?
Spanking is violence, plain and simple. Done to a dependent being, who has no way to either defend the action nor depart from said dependency (fight or flight) will have a traumatic result, even if done once. How big that result is, is the game of Russian Roulette you are playing.
I see three reasons why people hit their kids
-negative reinforcement for when a child does something dangerous
-trying to obtain or re-obtain dominance in the parent/ child relationship
-An inability to cope with the situation and the loss of problem solving
The first one seems straight forward when you're dealing with smaller children. Kid turns on the stove, smack em on the ass so they associate temporary pain with things you consider risky for a small child. I would think the window for this runs out some time around puberty
The second one seems more geared towards teenagers trying to test their boundaries. Like it or not, there is still a necessity for physical confrontation in parent/guardian - children relationships. I'm not saying kids need to be tuned up, however sometimes it takes being physically manhandled to shock someone back into place. The caveats to this would be a close to one time thing and the parent would need to be in complete control of their emotions. If these criteria are not met then its just a parent fighting a kid.
Anything other than these two situations is just a parent in over their head. Hitting someone with a tool, losing control of your temper in a confrontation or excessive physically contact is a parent crying out for help because they're out of ideas.
Do you have/plan to have kids, and have you done/plan to do the above? Because as a warning, that's 100% against the law and pretty disgraceful. Firstly, the "window" runs out years before puberty. Spanking is (while still distasteful) only an "option" for the very young. The main issue however is what you wrote after that.
You can, for no reason at all and regardless of what control you think you have, engage in a physical confrontation with a child. That's not just abuse, it's assault.
There is no "necessity" for physical confrontation in parenting. That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. A parent is not meant to dominate their children. They are meant to care for, nurture, and teach their children. There is no scenario where "dominance" must be established.
Seriously, who in their right mind considers hitting a child? We can debate the merits of spanking kids under 6, but physically engaging with a teenager? Get a grip.
Everything about that post is ridiculous and embarrassing. The only reason why people spank their children is the following:
Quote:
-An inability to cope with the situation and the loss of problem solving
That's it. The end. Good parents don't need to spank. You can, under certain conditions if you mentally can't process better ways of raising your children, but good parents don't need to in today's society.
Do you have/plan to have kids, and have you done/plan to do the above? Because as a warning, that's 100% against the law and pretty disgraceful. Firstly, the "window" runs out years before puberty. Spanking is (while still distasteful) only an "option" for the very young. The main issue however is what you wrote after that.
Show me the law or perfect parenting book that says i can spank a kid till he is six but not at ten. The goal is not to hurt them, just to create negative reinforcement towards dangerous things.
Quote:
You can, for no reason at all and regardless of what control you think you have, engage in a physical confrontation with a child. That's not just abuse, it's assault.
Well this just isn't true. In fact in a previous life i was trained by social services, in Alberta, on the proper way to restrain uncontrollable teenagers while working in group homes. I never said i hit a teenager, so feel free to re read my post. There are situations however where you have to put a kid down. Its not enjoyable, its stressful, but its not about you. Its about whats best for the kid and in that moment its making them submissive to you so you can calm them down and help them. I listed the criteria for what i think is acceptable ( in control, not angry, not hitting, very rare). I hope neither I nor anyone else ever has to do it again, but if it happens then its something that ethically and morally i would not feel wrong in doing.
Show me the law or perfect parenting book that says i can spank a kid till he is six but not at ten. The goal is not to hurt them, just to create negative reinforcement towards dangerous things.
Well this just isn't true. In fact in a previous life i was trained by social services, in Alberta, on the proper way to restrain uncontrollable teenagers while working in group homes. I never said i hit a teenager, so feel free to re read my post. There are situations however where you have to put a kid down. Its not enjoyable, its stressful, but its not about you. Its about whats best for the kid and in that moment its making them submissive to you so you can calm them down and help them. I listed the criteria for what i think is acceptable ( in control, not angry, not hitting, very rare). I hope neither I nor anyone else ever has to do it again, but if it happens then its something that ethically and morally i would not feel wrong in doing.
Funny, because my wife currently works for social services, so while in a previous life you were trained by social services, my comments come directly from information provided by someone who currently works for the government, and absolutely removes children and charges parents for some of the very things you mentioned. I was mistaken on the age though, you are LEGALLY allowed to spank a child between the ages of 2 and 12, but it can still be determined as abuse at any age.
That said, you don't "put a kid down", ever. Period. Full stop. Doesn't matter if you enjoy it, or if you're in control, or why you're doing it. You simply do not do it. The end. It's great for you that it's what YOU find acceptable, but I'm just letting you know (and being really honest about it) that what you're describing is abuse, and is quite literally against the law:
Quote:
Corporal Punishment of Teenagers. It is not helpful and potentially harmful to use force on teenagers because it achieves only short-term obedience and may alienate the youth and promote aggressive or other anti-social behaviour.
No offence, but group homes are not looked at very highly in their overall treatment and effect on at risk youth. If your training however long ago about working in a group home full of occasionally violent teenagers is your example of proper parenting, then you know very little.
