|
Post by The_L on Apr 2, 2009 13:35:10 GMT -5
I was spanked as a kid. Other than a BDSM fetish, I can't tell that i't's changed much about me.
That said, I feel there are certain guidelines that parents who choose to spank MUST follow, for the sake of their children:
- Don't spank over every little thing. First, scold your child, and explain how he/she is expected to behave instead. The second time, issue a warning. ("If you do that one more time, you won't be able to sit for a week!" worked wonders on me and my brother.) Then, if the child continually and deliberately disobeys, spank. This is not a first resort.
- Do not do anything that causes permanent harm or bruising, and definitely avoid hitting your child in the face, as there are delicate body parts such as eyes and noses located in that region. All you're really going for here is a light stinging sensation, NOT the Passion of the Christ.
- If you feel the need to use a belt, DO NOT USE THE BUCKLE END!
- Be sure you hit the buttocks--miss and it hurts your child a lot worse. A light sting is all you should really need.
- Once your kid is older than about 8 or 9, you really shouldn't need to spank them anymore, for any reason. Grounding and time-out are much better ideas. Or take away their cell-phones.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 13:41:05 GMT -5
I spank my son, but only after time outs and taking away things, toys, videos ect..., does not work and he will not stay in timeout. That does not happen very often at all.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 2, 2009 14:09:34 GMT -5
Sometimes they won't listen to words and the other option is to LET THEM touch the hot stove, which would be worse. Agreed. Before a certain age, children simply can't reason out why it is that what they've done is bad or why their parents are upset with them; they'll either miss the point about why the parents are lecturing them or promptly forget it. OTOH, swatting them a little will help them actually get the picture that they've done something they shouldn't have. Then, once they get older, you stand a better chance of explaining things to them.
|
|
|
Post by captainhooker on Apr 2, 2009 14:16:24 GMT -5
I have no problem with it as a last resort.
It should never be a "spur of the moment thing" unless it's one of those emergency "Don't run out in the road" things....
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 2, 2009 14:19:11 GMT -5
A quick swat on the tush never harmed anyone. Psychology is better. When our boys were toddlers there was a steep decline into a wooded area at the back of our house. My wife, who has a graduate degree in psychology, would advise the boys, "If you don't stop doing that right now, I'll throw you down the hill." It was pretty effective, and demonstrates the value of a good education.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 2, 2009 14:19:49 GMT -5
I was never spanked as a child and turned out reasonably well. In general, I'm usually against it except as a last resort. Not much to say...
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 2, 2009 14:42:55 GMT -5
I don't like SPANKINGS because they more often than not just don't solve a problem--or make it worse. It's usually the parent's frustration getting the better of them and they have no idea how to remedy the problem. But there's nothing wrong with a little swat on the back of the hand or something to stop them from doing something stupid or dangerous. Sometimes they won't listen to words and the other option is to LET THEM touch the hot stove, which would be worse. I disagree -- experience is the best teacher. (And I guarantee they *won't* touch the hot stove again.)
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 2, 2009 15:03:30 GMT -5
I don't like SPANKINGS because they more often than not just don't solve a problem--or make it worse. It's usually the parent's frustration getting the better of them and they have no idea how to remedy the problem. But there's nothing wrong with a little swat on the back of the hand or something to stop them from doing something stupid or dangerous. Sometimes they won't listen to words and the other option is to LET THEM touch the hot stove, which would be worse. I disagree -- experience is the best teacher. (And I guarantee they *won't* touch the hot stove again.) Well, I'm not a parent and I won't be one, but speaking as a member of the human species I would rather be smacked on the hand than have second-degree burns. It's the lesser of two evils. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I don't know anybody who would LET their kid touch a hot stove rather than grabbing them away from it and swatting their hand.
|
|
|
Post by Jebediah on Apr 2, 2009 15:11:10 GMT -5
I disagree -- experience is the best teacher. (And I guarantee they *won't* touch the hot stove again.) Well, I'm not a parent and I won't be one, but speaking as a member of the human species I would rather be smacked on the hand than have second-degree burns. It's the lesser of two evils. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I don't know anybody who would LET their kid touch a hot stove rather than grabbing them away from it and swatting their hand. I agree that for some things, experience is the best teacher, but not touching a hot stove. Letting them fall because they won't stop running is the kind of experience kids need. Touching a hot stove that could cause permanent damage is not the right kind. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 15:17:12 GMT -5
I disagree -- experience is the best teacher. (And I guarantee they *won't* touch the hot stove again.) .....and those third degree burn scars on there fingers will be a constant reminder. How does that work for things in the power outlets, or running out in to the street? The dead don't learn.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 2, 2009 15:56:05 GMT -5
Things my mom let me learn 'by experience':
"Don't go down the slide standing up." "Be nice to your aunt's cat." (Also: "Be nice to your grandmother's dog." "Don't touch that fiberglass insulation.' "Go ahead, eat that. But if you have diarrhea tomorrow, you still have to go to school."
...because the worst that could happen from any of this is that I got sick for a few days from eating too much candy and my aunt's cat once bopped me in the face because I was bothering him. None of it was lasting damage and I wasn't in danger of getting killed. You can't let a kid 'learn by experience' not to do things like stick his finger into an electrical socket.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 16:36:44 GMT -5
No doubt some things are best learned from experience, basically anything that will not kill or could cause permanent damage.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Apr 2, 2009 17:05:59 GMT -5
I learned why touching hot things is a bad idea from a light bulb. Didn't do any lasting damage but it fucking hurt. From then on I could understand why touching hot objects, such as the stove, is a bad idea.
OTOH I learned why climbing around on the hooks in those pool changing rooms is a bad idea from losing my grip and impaling my armpit on one of said hooks. That did leave a permanent scar and required a trip to hospital and a fuckload of stitches. Not cool...
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 2, 2009 17:10:14 GMT -5
I disagree -- experience is the best teacher. (And I guarantee they *won't* touch the hot stove again.) Well, I'm not a parent and I won't be one, but speaking as a member of the human species I would rather be smacked on the hand than have second-degree burns. It's the lesser of two evils. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I don't know anybody who would LET their kid touch a hot stove rather than grabbing them away from it and swatting their hand. I'm not saying, "be negligent," I'm saying that, sometimes experience is the best teacher. I touched a hot thing ONCE -- after that, I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Apr 2, 2009 17:15:45 GMT -5
I think about it about the same as other domestic violence. Edit -- More constructive comments. I'm fine with the quick swat, more of surprise than to cause pain. I use it on my dogs and it works well. My breeder has titled 150 dogs in Schutzhund using positive training techniques. He trains police and military dogs using positive training techniques. These are dogs that would tear your arm off if you tried to beat them (yes I could see my own puppy doing it). If we can use positive training techniques to raise a dog, why can't we use them to raise a kid? Are you trying to define "a quick swat" as a "positive training technique", or am I missing something? Well it should be easier to rationalize with your child. At least you speak the same language. And what the hell is wrong with telling your kid he's a "good boy" and giving him a head ruffle? I admit I do find that a little creepy too, perhaps it's mostly because of the dog connotation. I'm not saying their anything wrong with praising a child, just remember you're talking to a person. There are plenty of good ways to express appreciation or approval of another person's actions without being creepy. But generally "good job" seems more aproprate than "good boy". I'm not saying, "be negligent," I'm saying that, sometimes experience is the best teacher. I touched a hot thing ONCE -- after that, I didn't. It has the additional advantage that if someone tells you not to touch something hot, and you choose to do it anyway, not only have you learned what happens when you touch hot things, you've learned that person gives good advice.
|
|