http://www.whattoexpect.com/wom/toddler ... d=webmail6 (http://www.whattoexpect.com/wom/toddler/0715/harsh-physical-punishment-in-childhood-may-bring-health-problems-later.aspx?xid=aol_wte-preg_5_20130715_&aolcat=HLT&ncid=webmail6)
SUMMARY: New research suggests that harsh physical punishment in childhood may be associated with health problems in adulthood.
QuoteSpare the rod and spoil the child, the old saying goes. But new research suggests that parents who rely heavily on physical discipline may increase kids' risk of future health problems, including obesity and heart disease.
MedPage Today reports on the work of Canadian researchers who recently published a study in the journal Pediatrics. The researchers looked at data from more than 34,000 adults who reported on both current health problems and childhood discipline experiences. The data were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, family history of dysfunction, and mental disorders. Watch this video below to learn more about the study:
The study authors specifically looked at what they defined as "harsh physical punishment" in childhood: pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting. They wanted to see how these measures may affect kids in the absence of more severe maltreatment (sexual abuse, physical or emotional neglect, exposure to marital violence, physical abuse, etc.). Prior research had established a link between physical punishment and future behaviors like delinquency and aggression, but long-term health consequences had not previously been explored.
Results showed that kids who received physical punishment were more likely to end up with health problems as adults. Highest risks were associated with obesity (24 percent) and arthritis (35 percent). But there was also significant correlation to a handful of other ailments in adulthood, including cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, diabetes, liver disease, and hypertension.
Authors speculate that when kids are physically punished or abused, they may experience changes in brain structure, hormones, and emotional health. Any of these can contribute to health problems in adulthood.
Admittedly, this study has limitations. It relied on retrospective, self-reported data that may be highly subjective. It's tricky to quantify "harsh" physical discipline. To a child, a little swat from adult may feel like a slam from a baseball bat. I've heard of parents disciplining kids by flicking, lightly swatting, or poking. Where do those methods fall on the spectrum of harshness? Every situation probably depends on the parent's temper, strength, and delivery method, as well as the child's perception.
So yeah, there may be certain gaps in the data here. But the bottom line is certainly worth considering: Is physical punishment useful for timely discipline, or simply dangerous and damaging? Research indicates that spanking and other corporal discipline measures tend to do more harm than good.
My husband and I don't believe in physical punishment. It seems counterintuitive. We're always telling our kids it's not okay to hit each other, so we'd be hypocrites to turn around and hit our kids.
But I understand why some parents use physical punishment. Sometimes, it takes every ounce of my self-control to reign in the spanking hand. I'm older, I'm wiser (theoretically), I'm more resourceful...I figure I should be able to discipline my kids without roughing them up. I try to lead by example and avoid striking out in anger or frustration. Oh, but it's tough.
hmmm............... I wonder how harsh is 'harsh'. We could spend hours figuring
this out.
I left another forum for good arguing this bullshit when I said I spanked my kids then was compared to a child molester. It's a no win argument.
We spanked ours (not hard tho) They turned out really well. lol
Thanks for the info Sabrina! By the way your art work is very professional. Have you done scratch board?
One day when I went to pick up my children from grade school I saw a teacher with a paddle tell a kid to turn around, which he did facing her, so know he has his toward her, she told him to turn around and grab his ankles while she wacked him on the butt. I got furious and got out of the car and slammed the door shut. When she heard it she stopped. I ran up to her and took the paddle away from her and told her to turn around and grab her ankles since she just taught me this is how you get what you want by being physical.
I took the paddle to the principle and told him if I ever see anyone paddle my kids I'm coming to him and show him what's it's like to get physical. He said my kids have never had to be paddled. I asked him what it teaches kids when you use corporal punishment that even the military doesn't do that. And that it only teaches kids that they can use physical violence to get their way. An article in Play Boy magazine came out soon after saying what I did. Solitary
QuoteMy husband and I don't believe in physical punishment. It seems counterintuitive. We're always telling our kids it's not okay to hit each other, so we'd be hypocrites to turn around and hit our kids.
yet another group of parents that think they can parent and be fair. being a parent means being a hypocrite sometimes. i never had to spank my nine year old but my two year old??? he can be a holy terror...spanking may be in the play book down the road.
yeah, I beat the fuck outa my kid...she's fine.....kinda.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"We spanked ours (not hard tho) They turned out really well. lol
I'm calling cops on you now you...you..you molestress!
What's the number for 911? :shock:
My mom used to beat the crap outta us - and not really for good reason either. Other than some serious therapy, life was easy and productive and I turned out decent.
:rollin:
My parents never had to spank me. Apparently I was smart enough to figure it out on my own.
I don't plan to spank my own either. I don't see any way in which it would help raise them properly.
I personally don't care for spanking. I understand the potent combination of frustrated parents and the easy availability of corporal punishment. But there are better ways for correcting behavior.
I can't remember getting an official spanking, although I came close one time. Mostly, I just remember getting an occasional flurry of blows about the head and shoulders. I never stopped to consider whether this was appropriate or not. It's just the way it was.
I've always experienced guilt as a rather strong emotion. That probably did wonders for keeping me in line. I hate feeling guilty, and will behave in such a way to avoid that feeling. A couple of times I was accused of doing something I didn't do. Then I didn't feel guilty, but I was incredibly angry. I could not convince my parents of my innocence. They just said I was lying. I think those two experiences were probably more emotionally damaging than any of the blows I received about the head and shoulders.
But we survive. Some of us even overcome the bad stuff.
During the 2's, I used the finger flick on the top of the head. That's as corporal as I ever got.
Never spanked my kids because no one spanked me. Best approach is simply hands on- hold the child firmly and make sure they got your attention, and make them look you in the eye when you talk to them. But don't cause pain, because that only incurs hurt and resentment.
Does this report specifically refer to adults dishing out the beatings? Because when I was young I recall getting hit by kids almost as often as my parents.
QuoteThe study authors specifically looked at what they defined as "harsh physical punishment" in childhood: pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting.
So spanking isnt mentioned, and the rest of these indicate a parent who is frequently engaging in unfettered physical abuse. Its no surprise to me that serious physical abuse has effects on child development.
Quote from: "surly74"QuoteMy husband and I don't believe in physical punishment. It seems counterintuitive. We're always telling our kids it's not okay to hit each other, so we'd be hypocrites to turn around and hit our kids.
yet another group of parents that think they can parent and be fair. being a parent means being a hypocrite sometimes. i never had to spank my nine year old but my two year old??? he can be a holy terror...spanking may be in the play book down the road.
Exactly. Do as I say and not as I do.
I don't have kids, but if I ever do, it'll be a house of discipline just like my dad ran for me. I hated it when I was a kid [discipline], but my parents didnt go overboard with it and I turned out alright with an appreciation that I was a dumbass kid who didn't know what I was doing when I was young.
I got whipped with a garden hose when I was 9 for "borrowing" someones boat to go fishin......never "borrowed" one since..
Quote from: "stromboli"Never spanked my kids because no one spanked me. Best approach is simply hands on- hold the child firmly and make sure they got your attention, and make them look you in the eye when you talk to them. But don't cause pain, because that only incurs hurt and resentment.
I completely agree.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"QuoteThe study authors specifically looked at what they defined as "harsh physical punishment" in childhood: pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting.
So spanking isnt mentioned, and the rest of these indicate a parent who is frequently engaging in unfettered physical abuse. Its no surprise to me that serious physical abuse has effects on child development.
Yeah, surprised nobody else caught this.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "surly74"QuoteMy husband and I don't believe in physical punishment. It seems counterintuitive. We're always telling our kids it's not okay to hit each other, so we'd be hypocrites to turn around and hit our kids.
yet another group of parents that think they can parent and be fair. being a parent means being a hypocrite sometimes. i never had to spank my nine year old but my two year old??? he can be a holy terror...spanking may be in the play book down the road.
Exactly. Do as I say and not as I do.
I don't have kids, but if I ever do, it'll be a house of discipline just like my dad ran for me. I hated it when I was a kid [discipline], but my parents didnt go overboard with it and I turned out alright with an appreciation that I was a dumbass kid who didn't know what I was doing when I was young.
I disagree. I feel that striking your children is lazy parenting. It is never okay to strike someone because they are not doing what you want. You are supposed to be an adult, it takes a lot of mental strength and effort to deal with children, especially young ones, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable to lapse and just hit them when you give up.
This is just my opinion, and I'm sure people will disagree, but if you are willing to strike a 4 year old because they're being difficult then you need to look very long and hard at yourself. Hitting someone small and defenseless does not suddenly become okay because they are your child. Yes, plenty of people were hit as children and turned out fine, I know, that doesn't justify this behaviour though. Deep down, everyone knows that hitting someone in order to get them to behave how you want is wrong, if something is wrong, then it is wrong, but it is also easy, which is why people do it.
I also disagree that being a parent sometimes means being a hypocrite. If something is not acceptable, then it is not acceptable. A principle is not a principle if it is simply ignored at convinience and when you're too lazy to do the right thing.
I think it works if spanking is used sparingly, certainly not as a default setting. For example, where the transgression would have involved serious harm to the kid itself or others and the kid is unwilling to listen to reason. Some kids just aren't up for discussion. I got spanked when I was a kid - not very often - and looking back, I was being a twat so I deserved it.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"I disagree. I feel that striking your children is lazy parenting. It is never okay to strike someone because they are not doing what you want. You are supposed to be an adult, it takes a lot of mental strength and effort to deal with children, especially young ones, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable to lapse and just hit them when you give up.
This is just my opinion, and I'm sure people will disagree, but if you are willing to strike a 4 year old because they're being difficult then you need to look very long and hard at yourself. Hitting someone small and defenseless does not suddenly become okay because they are your child. Yes, plenty of people were hit as children and turned out fine, I know, that doesn't justify this behaviour though. Deep down, everyone knows that hitting someone in order to get them to behave how you want is wrong, if something is wrong, then it is wrong, but it is also easy, which is why people do it.
I also disagree that being a parent sometimes means being a hypocrite. If something is not acceptable, then it is not acceptable. A principle is not a principle if it is simply ignored at convinience and when you're too lazy to do the right thing.
it's lazy to throw out the lazy argument. it's much lazier parenting to give into a toddler or older who is throwing a tantrum instead of riding it out and dealing with it...but sometimes spanking is needed as a tool. it's much lazier to gloss over truly bad behaviour because steps weren't taken early on to instill respect.
spanking your child is not the same as beating your child.
parents want the fear of a spanking to correct the behaviour rather that actually deliver one. I don't know any normal parent that takes joy in spanking their child but those that have instilled a tool that the mere threat will take care of things. that is the exact opposite of lazy.
what works for one child doesn't necessarily mean it will work for another...even if they are siblings so if kids from the same family behave differently how can anyone expect one solution to the spanking debate for everyone?
Did anyone here that was spanked as a child actually respect their parents for it? Personally I would've felt contempt, at best.
I've also heard more cases of "getting spanked taught me not to get caught" over "getting spanked taught me not to misbehave".
When my nephew was 2 I would smack him on the calf if he was at his absolute worst. Now that he's 4 there's not much need for physical discipline of any kind, I just have him sit on the steps if he gets out of line. Now, if he tries to hit me I'll flick his ear then put him in time out.
Quote from: "Plu"Did anyone here that was spanked as a child actually respect their parents for it? Personally I would've felt contempt, at best.
I've also heard more cases of "getting spanked taught me not to get caught" over "getting spanked taught me not to misbehave".
I don't think it did anything for me, honestly.
To be fair though, punishment never really did anything to me... suspensions from school, entertainment taken away, ISS... never really bothered me. I have always had a hyper imagination and learned more about the world outside of school anyways so those type of punishments didn't bother me and I have a high pain/embarrassment tolerance so spanking didn't do much either. Didn't really lose respect, gain resent... I really couldn't have cared less one way or another.
If I was ever a parent I know I wouldn't spank my child, I don't see the point. I rather the child respect me than fear me, and threatening them with physical punishment seems counter to that.
I've never understood the concept of it. I've never been spanked, but my dad has always believed in physical discipline, mostly slapping. I don't like to be touched and my uncle knows this, but when I was a kid he always used to rub my head as a way of making fun of me (that's my perception anyway). One day it pissed me off so much I yelled at him "Fuck off!" and gave him the finger. My dad saw this hit me across the face three times, the hardest he ever did. Couldn't hear out my right ear for a week. Safe to say if I ever have kids I don't plan on ever hitting them in any way.
I was spanked, as most of my generation was, I have absolutely no issue with what they did. I won't go into the anecdotal crap but between the 6 siblings and all our 21 kids, I can see the proof of spanking in the behavior of the kids who got it and those who didn't it. So I don't oppose spanking.
I worked for two years on an inpatient child psychiatric unit with children with problems ranging from psychosis to mood and severe behavioral problems. Corporal punishment is not necessary to change behavior in even the most difficult children. There is clinical evidence that corporal punishment produces less desirable long-term results in conduct and behavior, particularly with increased aggression. Spanking gives parents a temporary feeling of control when they are frustrated with their child's behavior, which is the only positive result I can think of that comes from spanking.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Exactly. Do as I say and not as I do.
I don't have kids, but if I ever do, it'll be a house of discipline just like my dad ran for me. I hated it when I was a kid [discipline], but my parents didnt go overboard with it and I turned out alright with an appreciation that I was a dumbass kid who didn't know what I was doing when I was young.
I disagree. I feel that striking your children is lazy parenting. It is never okay to strike someone because they are not doing what you want. You are supposed to be an adult, it takes a lot of mental strength and effort to deal with children, especially young ones, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable to lapse and just hit them when you give up.
This is just my opinion, and I'm sure people will disagree, but if you are willing to strike a 4 year old because they're being difficult then you need to look very long and hard at yourself. Hitting someone small and defenseless does not suddenly become okay because they are your child. Yes, plenty of people were hit as children and turned out fine, I know, that doesn't justify this behaviour though. Deep down, everyone knows that hitting someone in order to get them to behave how you want is wrong, if something is wrong, then it is wrong, but it is also easy, which is why people do it.
I also disagree that being a parent sometimes means being a hypocrite. If something is not acceptable, then it is not acceptable. A principle is not a principle if it is simply ignored at convinience and when you're too lazy to do the right thing.
I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).
It's also a mistake to equate spanking with "lapsing" into a behaviour. Young children do not pick up on social cues, neither do they understand fully or comprehend stern talking to's and firm dialogue. Sitting them on the naughty step is all well and good and probably could account for around 95% of corrective discipline (if utilised correctly, which often it isn't), but sometimes children need to understand that acting in a given way will earn them a physical rebuke. And again, this is not to be equated to beating them senseless, it is light but firm physical interaction to create clear and decisive boundaries that a talking to or isolation (eg. the naughty step) could not and wil not achieve. When they're older, then sure, of course, because they'll understand it better.
spanking a child when it runs through crowded traffic is, for me, preferable for setting the boundary than simply telling them no because they really have no clue as to what 'no' actually means unless there's an actual repurcussion for doing so.
Hypocritical behaviour I believe is unavoidable when it comes to being a parent because there are clear and defined rules for children that do [not] apply to adults and vice versa. Drinking for example. Telling a child it cannot drink whilst having a pint. Hypocritical? Perhaps, also legally enforcable.
Don't talk to strangers. Often we tell children this, yet adults do it all the time (pub, bar, whatever). Hypocritical, but then again, adult's understand the rules of engagement much better than children because they've become accustomed to the societal context to which they live.
Don't run in the road (when crossing at a crossing for example). Adults, again, are able to both understand the consequences of enacting such behaviour and also are guaging the risk/reward of doing such a thing. "I'm late for work, I don't see any traffic and I know that there is a high probability of me getting across the road unscathed if I run". We wouldn't give the same advice for children because that would instill a trait that would be unwanted through their formative years.
So 'doing the right thing' is just as subjective as the 'thing' in question, wouldn't you say?
I have seen many instances where a child is trying "not knowingly" to do something where real danger or harm could easily result. For instance touching the hot range coil, or trying to pull the handle of a pot from the range top, or in my kids case her insistence to touch the very hot wood stove. I follow the "animal rule", sometimes pain is necessary not so much as training but as a warning. I finally let the kid touch the wood stove but was right there because kids can sometimes not have the quickness to pull back, so she touched I pulled, she looked at me and we have all seen how the face melts when the pain slowly catches up to the young brain. From that point on when I said "No" she was far more cautious around things and stopped behavior that could be dangerous. Just my tcw.
edit: my point was that yes I did spank on the occasion where I thought to allow the action would be far more harmful than a whack on the butt.
I've noticed a lot of comments here show they identify with the punisher and punishment they got and agree they deserved it. It the same way people feel when they've been kidnapped and can't scape.
So I looked it up about people that are abused, and here is what I found:
For the past decade, Suzanne Adam has served as the YWCA Greenwich Director of Domestic Abuse Services.
Domestic abuse? In Greenwich? Well, here is a number to consider. Over the next year, YWCA Greenwich will spend about $2 million on a wide range of programs serving victims of domestic abuse. That's right ... $2 million. Greenwich Time took a Time Out with Adam to find out just how big the problem domestic abuse is in town, the various forms abuse can take and how to escape an abusive relationship.
Q: How big a problem is domestic abuse in Greenwich?
A: One is too many and we serve thousands of victims every year.
Q: What kinds of abuse are we talking about?
A: Domestic abuse is physical, emotional or sexual abuse, as well as intimidating and threatening behaviors taking place within the context of the family household. It may occur between adults, between adults and children, or between children.
It may be physical, emotional or sexual. However, it may present itself, abuse is never the fault of the victim. It is 100 percent the responsibility and choice of the abuser.
Physical abuse involves the use of any physical act to harm, frighten and gain control over another person. It includes not only the physical abuse that causes injuries requiring emergency medical care, but also any physical contact that aims to frighten and control: shoving, pushing down on a bed, preventing someone from moving by holding and breaking or damaging objects around the victim.
Most victims say emotional abuse is the cruelest form of abuse and that it hurts far more than physical abuse, leaving deeper wounds that take much longer to heal. It is also more difficult for victims to identify, leaving them vulnerable to others' judgment and possible disbelief.
Similarly, it is dangerously easy for victims to believe their abusers when they say, "it's in their head," or "it's their entire fault" or "you push my buttons and provoke me to act this way," causing the victims to feel responsible or deserving of the abuse.
Verbal abuse is a coercive method to exercise control over another person. It belittles and demeans through continuous verbal manipulation, unpredictable erratic behavior, game playing, and fear, which keeps the victim always off balance and in constant fear of possibly doing something wrong.
In many cases, it is so severe that it amounts to brainwashing.
Sexual abuse is not only rape, but includes forcing a person to perform sexual acts against his or her will, hurting sexual parts and treating the victim like a sex object. It is important to remember that rape is rape, even if the victim is married to the abuser.
More examples of abuse are: isolation from family and friends, withholding of money, using children, controlling finances. The victim may be left feeling scared, confused, dependent and insecure.
Q: Who are the victims?
A: Anyone can be a victim! Victims can be of any age, sex, race, culture, religion, education, employment or marital status. Although both men and women can be abused, most victims are women. Children in homes where there is domestic violence are more likely to be abused and/or neglected. Even if a child is not physically harmed, they may have emotional and behavior problems. Parents may think children do not know about the violence, but most of the time they do. Children often know what happened. They can feel helpless, scared and upset. They may also feel like the violence is their fault.
Violence in the home is dangerous for children. Children live with scary noises, yelling and hitting. They are afraid for their parents and themselves. Children feel bad that they cannot stop the abuse. If they try to stop the fight, they can be hurt. They can also be hurt by things that are thrown or weapons that are used. Children are harmed just by seeing and hearing the violence.
Q: Are there common events/issues that trigger domestic abuse?
A: There are three phases of the cycle of violence: the tension phase, the abuse episode, and the honeymoon phase. These phases could occur monthly, weekly or sporadically, but they repeat themselves forming the cycle of violence.
The abuser invariably will blame the victim for provoking the abuse, accusing her/him of some shortcoming or behavior (for example, sloppy housekeeping, being too fussy, awful cooking, too fat, too thin, hair too long, hair too short, always late, flirting), real or imagined, that "caused him to react abusively".
The honeymoon period, which usually follows the abusive episode, frequently finds the abuser apologizing profusely, promising never to do it again, and professing his/her undying love, bringing the victim flowers, and threatening suicide if she leaves him. This period may be simply an absence of violence and no real remorse. It may be the most dangerous phase of the cycle because it is during this period that the victim may be lured back into the relationship with new hopes for the relationship only to find the cycle beginning again.
Q: Is there an economic factor involved? Is domestic abuse a low income problem or is it an equal opportunity problem?
A: Domestic violence is an equal opportunity problem. However, finances can have an impact on domestic violence. Poverty, lack of control and feelings of powerlessness can lead to the perpetrator's perceived need to dominate family members. And this is linked to increased levels of mistreatment. During the recent plummet of world markets, those who abuse are more likely to express their feelings of frustration in more belligerent ways.
Many people who are normally calm were stressed by the financial meltdown and concerned that they were spiraling out of control. Those individuals could be emotionally at risk for harming their spouse, children, or elders under their care.
Q: Are there early warning signs that might indicate a relationship is turning abusive?
A: Yes, there are many. Including:
Feeling afraid of your partner most of the time.
Feeling that you can't do anything right.
Getting embarrassed by your partner's behavior toward you.
Believing that you deserve to be hurt or mistreated.
Avoiding topics or situations out of fear of angering your partner.
Q: Why do victims of domestic abuse often times tend to stay in abusive relationships?
A: The question that should be asked is why does the perpetrator continue to perpetrate violence? However, people who stay in abusive relationships undergo gradual steps of reasoning to reconcile the abuse in their minds. The reasons they stay may change as the abuse in the relationship progresses.
At first, people might stay because:
They love their partners
They believe their partners will change
They believe that they can control the abuse by doing things that their partners want; wearing certain clothes, keeping the house clean, keeping the children quiet...
They are embarrassed for their partners and themselves
They are afraid of what will happen if and when the police become involved
Later, people might stay because:
They love their partners but are increasingly confused by that love
They hope their partners will change or get help and believe their partner when they say they will change
They are under pressure from family and friends to stay
They believe their partners love and need them
They are afraid to be alone
They believe they can't support themselves
They are confused
They are increasingly scared of their partners' behavior
Finally, people might stay because:
FEAR: their partners have become incredibly powerful in their eyes
The partners threaten to kill them, the children, their families or their friends
They have developed low self-esteem
They believe that no one can help them
They believe that they cannot survive alone
They believe that no one will love them
They are very confused and feel guilty
They become depressed and immobile. Decisions are difficult and sometimes impossible to make.
They believe they have no options
They have developed serious physical and emotional problems
They become suicidal and/or homicidal
Q: What recourse do victims have? Are there, a top five things someone should do when they find themselves in an abusive relationship?
A: There are many options available to those who are being abused depending on their individual needs and circumstances. The best thing for someone to do is to call our 24-hour hotline at 203-622-0003 or come to the YWCA to meet with a counselor in person.
Some things to consider: Understand that you are not alone, document the abuse and call the hotline to learn about our options and to create a safety plan.
Q: What is a safety plan?
A: A plan developed between an advocate/counselor and a victim that contains specific activities for a victim to be safe from an abuser.
Safety planning is an essential step to be completed with all victims of domestic violence. It allows individualized planning for situations the victim and children or family may encounter regardless of what the victim decides to do about the relationship with the abuser. Age-appropriate Safety Planning is also important for child survivors/witnesses of domestic violence.
Safety planning examples:
1. Identify the safest way out of your house of your need to leave right away.
2. Inform your employee, childcare provider and schools of your situation.
3. Change the locks on your doors.
4. Mobilize your support network: friends, family, church etc.
5. Keep a cellular phone on your at all times. Program Domestic Abuse Services 24 hour hotline 203-622-0003 into your cell phone.
6. Have a place where can you keep your purse, car keys and some change to make a phone call so that you can grab them quickly.
7. Teach your children how to use the telephone to contact the police.
8. Create a code word you can use with friends, family and/or your children to alert them to call for help.
Q: How can the abused find help? What sort of programs/organizations/services are available to sufferers of domestic abuse?
A: In Greenwich, the Greenwich YWCA (and its Domestic Abuse Services) is the only agency licensed to treat victims of domestic violence; there are, however, agencies and programs to assist individuals throughout the state. They provide services specifically for victims of domestic violence and their children. Their services are confidential, and available to all individuals regardless of age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, class, or physical ability. They offer safety planning, advocacy, information, referrals, counseling, support groups and emergency shelter. You can be immediately connected with a program in your area by calling our toll free domestic violence hotline at 888-774-2900.
Q: On a more personal level, why are you doing what you do? What do you get out of working with those who have experienced abuse?
A: Domestic violence is one of the most pervasive of all social problems, affecting most of the population directly or indirectly. For some people, the thought of "happily ever after" might seem like a nice idea, but it's far from reality. For these people, the term "happily ever after" simply does not apply. There are millions of people in America that find themselves in domestic violence situations each year. These types of situations are not only unhappy and uncomfortable, but they are also downright dangerous. I do this work because I believe everyone has the right to live a life free of abuse. People have the right to be safe, the right to love and be loved and the right to be treated with respect.
I would think this applies to children even more so. Solitary
what does this have to do with spanking a child?
Quote from: "surly74"what does this have to do with spanking a child?
Spanking is
Quoteabuse is physical
is it not? Also it was in reference to those that have said here that they deserved it. :roll: Abuse is abuse, it doesn't have to be violent just to be abuse. It can just be verbal lul. :wink: Solitary
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).
Is not one simply a milder version of the other?
I can't wait to see the military using spanking to get discipline in the ranks. :shock: :rollin: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"I can't wait to see the military using spanking to get discipline in the ranks. :shock: :rollin: Solitary
The military no longer uses physical abuse...just verbal abuse.
Instead of, "get down and give me twenty," it's not, " bend over and get twenty," (unless you are a female that is. :shock: ) but " CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW MAGGOTS!" He! He! Solitary
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).
Is not one simply a milder version of the other?
no it's not.
If spanking is the same as a beating, then my truck is a vette.
:roll: [youtube:1uedjgmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjH0B7Ts-Ng[/youtube:1uedjgmk] It's not the same? Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "surly74"what does this have to do with spanking a child?
Spanking is Quoteabuse is physical
is it not? Also it was in reference to those that have said here that they deserved it. :roll: Abuse is abuse, it doesn't have to be violent just to be abuse. It can just be verbal lul. :wink: Solitary
abuse has been watered down to the point it has nearly lost all meaning. abuse can be anything now.
what are you saying? that verbally disciplining a child is verbal abuse?
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).
Is not one simply a milder version of the other?
As much as telling someone to fuck off is psychological abuse.
There is very much a common sense argument to be said for scales of behaviour/traits in debates like this. It's like saying pushing someone in the street is thus physical abuse. Sure, it's physical, but is it comparable to GBH? That seems to be the argument being perpetuated here by opponents of spanking, and its simply nonsensical. See below:
Quote from: "aitm"If spanking is the same as a beating, then my truck is a vette.
Exactly, and I agree with surly above as well.
If we're simply going to define anything remotely physical as 'abuse' then shit, there's really no point in this debate. I disagree with the idea that spanking a child to reinforce a distinct and necessary boundary equates to beating someone senseless with a baseball bat, but if people want to make that equivalence then so be it. The debate will forever be at an impasse.
Indeed, the only reply by opponents of the position I currently hold that has said something I've wanted to examine more is this:
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"I worked for two years on an inpatient child psychiatric unit with children with problems ranging from psychosis to mood and severe behavioral problems. Corporal punishment is not necessary to change behavior in even the most difficult children. There is clinical evidence that corporal punishment produces less desirable long-term results in conduct and behavior, particularly with increased aggression. Spanking gives parents a temporary feeling of control when they are frustrated with their child's behavior, which is the only positive result I can think of that comes from spanking.
Warrants more investigation.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "surly74"what does this have to do with spanking a child?
Spanking is Quoteabuse is physical
is it not? Also it was in reference to those that have said here that they deserved it. :roll: Abuse is abuse, it doesn't have to be violent just to be abuse. It can just be verbal lul. :wink: Solitary
abuse has been watered down to the point it has nearly lost all meaning. abuse can be anything now.
what are you saying? that verbally disciplining a child is verbal abuse?
Don't do that isn't verbal abuse, But if I say to you, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" and then spank you on the butt until it hurts and makes you afraid and cry, yes that is abuse. Do you even understand the difference? :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Don't do that isn't verbal abuse, But if I say to you, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" and then spank you on the butt until it hurts and makes you afraid and cry, yes that is abuse. Do you even understand the difference? :roll: Solitary
Cite precisely, referring to the thread, page number and post number, where anyone is inferring that this would be a positive and indeed supportable action.
Quote from: "Solitary"Don't do that isn't verbal abuse, But if I say to you, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" and then spank you on the butt until it hurts and makes you afraid and cry, yes that is abuse. Do you even understand the difference? :roll: Solitary
how old are we talking about here?
spanking is a little old for 16...i'd find something else, another method. calling a five year old a stupid fuck probably is useless. although it would be funny to hear them say "fuck fuck fuck" all day long. although a spanking would work. wouldn't want to use it too much as it would lose meaning.
Quote from: "surly74"it's lazy to throw out the lazy argument. it's much lazier parenting to give into a toddler or older who is throwing a tantrum instead of riding it out and dealing with it...but sometimes spanking is needed as a tool. it's much lazier to gloss over truly bad behaviour because steps weren't taken early on to instill respect.
spanking your child is not the same as beating your child.
parents want the fear of a spanking to correct the behaviour rather that actually deliver one. I don't know any normal parent that takes joy in spanking their child but those that have instilled a tool that the mere threat will take care of things. that is the exact opposite of lazy.
what works for one child doesn't necessarily mean it will work for another...even if they are siblings so if kids from the same family behave differently how can anyone expect one solution to the spanking debate for everyone?
Why is it lazy to hold that as an opinion? I hardly "threw the argument out", I put effort into wording it concisely.
Secondly, I didn't say anything about giving in nor glossing over bad behaviour. It is difficult to instill respect without striking a child, but definitely possible, and striking people to get them to do what you want is wrong, but it is easier than instilling respect and discipline without hitting. Of course spanking is a tool, and I don't think that any right-minded person enjoys hitting their child. That doesn't change the fact that it is a double standard to say that hitting people to get them to do what you want is wrong and then hitting your child because they're not behaving how you want. Does it work? Yes. Is it necessary? No.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).
It's also a mistake to equate spanking with "lapsing" into a behaviour. Young children do not pick up on social cues, neither do they understand fully or comprehend stern talking to's and firm dialogue. Sitting them on the naughty step is all well and good and probably could account for around 95% of corrective discipline (if utilised correctly, which often it isn't), but sometimes children need to understand that acting in a given way will earn them a physical rebuke. And again, this is not to be equated to beating them senseless, it is light but firm physical interaction to create clear and decisive boundaries that a talking to or isolation (eg. the naughty step) could not and wil not achieve. When they're older, then sure, of course, because they'll understand it better.
spanking a child when it runs through crowded traffic is, for me, preferable for setting the boundary than simply telling them no because they really have no clue as to what 'no' actually means unless there's an actual repurcussion for doing so.
Hypocritical behaviour I believe is unavoidable when it comes to being a parent because there are clear and defined rules for children that do [not] apply to adults and vice versa. Drinking for example. Telling a child it cannot drink whilst having a pint. Hypocritical? Perhaps, also legally enforcable.
Don't talk to strangers. Often we tell children this, yet adults do it all the time (pub, bar, whatever). Hypocritical, but then again, adult's understand the rules of engagement much better than children because they've become accustomed to the societal context to which they live.
Don't run in the road (when crossing at a crossing for example). Adults, again, are able to both understand the consequences of enacting such behaviour and also are guaging the risk/reward of doing such a thing. "I'm late for work, I don't see any traffic and I know that there is a high probability of me getting across the road unscathed if I run". We wouldn't give the same advice for children because that would instill a trait that would be unwanted through their formative years.
So 'doing the right thing' is just as subjective as the 'thing' in question, wouldn't you say?
I have not let beating become synonymous with spanking. I said striking and hitting, with no mention of how hard. Would the police be impressed if your excuse for common assault was that you did it more gently than normal? No. Likewise, hitting someone because you don't like what they are doing is wrong, even if you only hit them firmly instead of really hard, or you hit them on their bottom instead of their face. It is hitting.
It is not hypocritical to forbid children to do things that they are not old enough to do, as you didn't do them until you were old enough. How you communicate that to a child is for you to decide as a parent, but I prefer to think that I'd teach my children the reasons why drinking at a young age is bad rather than hitting them until they learn it as a behavioural pattern through negative physical reinforcement, even if I only hit them gently.
What is the "right thing" is subjective, but it tends to be commonly agreed on that hitting people for reasons other than self-defensem or other extraneous circumstances is wrong, and the law tends to agree with this as well. All "rights" and "wrongs" are subjective in this way, but there are lots of things that are generally considered to be unacceptable. If hitting someone is unacceptable, why is it then acceptable because they're too small to hit you back properly and they're your child? The justification that "it works", which is basically saying you get what you want, doesn't really justify it as acceptable, it says why people resort to it, but it doesn't explain away the double standard.
To reiterate, if I know something is wrong, then I will not resort to it occasionally because I can and it gets me what I want, doing so would be lazy. That applies to hitting people as much as anything else.
There really will never be consensus on this. People who grew up with the occasional swat and have used it understand exactly what it is and can easily see the difference between a spanking and a beating. It seems like people who have never experienced spanking must equate it with bloody beatings, shaking babies, slapping infants across the face and burning babies with cigarettes.
Quote from: "aitm"There really will never be consensus on this. People who grew up with the occasional swat and have used it understand exactly what it is and can easily see the difference between a spanking and a beating. It seems like people who have never experienced spanking must equate it with bloody beatings, shaking babies, slapping infants across the face and burning babies with cigarettes.
Actually, no I don't. I know plenty of people who've been spanked and I absolutely don't deny that it works, and I have also made no claim that it has serious effects on a child's wellbeing.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my posts actually have nothing to do with anything you've just said even though I am one of the people who wasn't spanked as a child.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "aitm"There really will never be consensus on this. People who grew up with the occasional swat and have used it understand exactly what it is and can easily see the difference between a spanking and a beating. It seems like people who have never experienced spanking must equate it with bloody beatings, shaking babies, slapping infants across the face and burning babies with cigarettes.
Actually, no I don't. I know plenty of people who've been spanked and I absolutely don't deny that it works, and I have also made no claim that it has serious effects on a child's wellbeing.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my posts actually have nothing to do with anything you've just said even though I am one of the people who wasn't spanked as a child.
you're excepted but only cause your av freaks me out......
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).
It's also a mistake to equate spanking with "lapsing" into a behaviour. Young children do not pick up on social cues, neither do they understand fully or comprehend stern talking to's and firm dialogue. Sitting them on the naughty step is all well and good and probably could account for around 95% of corrective discipline (if utilised correctly, which often it isn't), but sometimes children need to understand that acting in a given way will earn them a physical rebuke. And again, this is not to be equated to beating them senseless, it is light but firm physical interaction to create clear and decisive boundaries that a talking to or isolation (eg. the naughty step) could not and wil not achieve. When they're older, then sure, of course, because they'll understand it better.
spanking a child when it runs through crowded traffic is, for me, preferable for setting the boundary than simply telling them no because they really have no clue as to what 'no' actually means unless there's an actual repurcussion for doing so.
Hypocritical behaviour I believe is unavoidable when it comes to being a parent because there are clear and defined rules for children that do [not] apply to adults and vice versa. Drinking for example. Telling a child it cannot drink whilst having a pint. Hypocritical? Perhaps, also legally enforcable.
Don't talk to strangers. Often we tell children this, yet adults do it all the time (pub, bar, whatever). Hypocritical, but then again, adult's understand the rules of engagement much better than children because they've become accustomed to the societal context to which they live.
Don't run in the road (when crossing at a crossing for example). Adults, again, are able to both understand the consequences of enacting such behaviour and also are guaging the risk/reward of doing such a thing. "I'm late for work, I don't see any traffic and I know that there is a high probability of me getting across the road unscathed if I run". We wouldn't give the same advice for children because that would instill a trait that would be unwanted through their formative years.
So 'doing the right thing' is just as subjective as the 'thing' in question, wouldn't you say?
I have not let beating become synonymous with spanking. I said striking and hitting, with no mention of how hard. Would the police be impressed if your excuse for common assault was that you did it more gently than normal? No. Likewise, hitting someone because you don't like what they are doing is wrong, even if you only hit them firmly instead of really hard, or you hit them on their bottom instead of their face. It is hitting.
I'm disregarding the police anecdote becuase it skews the debate. This is about the acceptability and utility of spanking, not its legality.
However I do believe, as I iterate above, that a distinction on the force and context of the strike is all important; indeed, it is teh crux of the thesis. Disregarding it is actually what opponents of my position are propagating, not me.
But I think a lot of the above relies on the connotation implied by the word 'hitting'. I have no problem with the word hitting when referring to spanking as the words are effectively synonymous. However I think the context is what is more important than simply the spanking itself. I don't agree that hitting someone who is not your child and who you're not trying to discipline to reinforce a given behaviour equals the very same. I think they're two totally different games, although I understand that you will disagree.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"It is not hypocritical to forbid children to do things that they are not old enough to do, as you didn't do them until you were old enough. How you communicate that to a child is for you to decide as a parent, but I prefer to think that I'd teach my children the reasons why drinking at a young age is bad rather than hitting them until they learn it as a behavioural pattern through negative physical reinforcement, even if I only hit them gently.
Children are old enough to talk to strangers. Their ability to do so is not in question, rather the enforcement as to why it is bad.
I am with you 100% regarding the preferred methodology on learning processes to learn behaviour. However I depart from that juncture where it comes to my belief that a mixture is not neccearily a negative thing. Indeed, my preference would be to not utilise physical methods of behavioural reenforcement, but sometimes I believe it is necessary and a useful tool.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"What is the "right thing" is subjective, but it tends to be commonly agreed on that hitting people for reasons other than self-defensem or other extraneous circumstances is wrong, and the law tends to agree with this as well.
the law has also stipulated that one can spank their children so long as they don't leave a bruise (UK/EU). Again, I'm disregarding the legal position becuase it is not conducive to the debate at hand (as above).
Quote from: "SilentFutility"All "rights" and "wrongs" are subjective in this way, but there are lots of things that are generally considered to be unacceptable. If hitting someone is unacceptable, why is it then acceptable because they're too small to hit you back properly and they're your child? The justification that "it works", which is basically saying you get what you want, doesn't really justify it as acceptable, it says why people resort to it, but it doesn't explain away the double standard.
To reiterate, if I know something is wrong, then I will not resort to it occasionally because I can and it gets me what I want, doing so would be lazy. That applies to hitting people as much as anything else.
I disagree with your reiteration for reasons stated above. I believe that there is a good common sense case for examining cases on an individual basis utilising a scale of force and a mixture of both physical and non-physical behavioural reinforcement. I also don't want to cite argumentum ad populum re: 'generally considered unacceptable' as I know what you're trying to say and doing so would again obscure the debate.
The double standards only exist if we take your stance as given and assume that 'spanking is always wrong'. That is yet to be proven, or accepted. I think it is erroneous to insinuate that one is spanking a child simply becuase one can get away with it. I'm certainly not arguing that, and indeed, as with the differentiation in force used, I've also stressed the context of the spanking is as if not more important. Thus I think equating spanking to hitting someone on the street is not conducive to the debate either (not inferring that you're doing that, but others appear to be).
As I stated above, the only post that has caused me to examine this stance is the one by GSO where he indicated some scientific literature as to the efficacy of both/ all methods in various combinations. This, ultimately, is 100% more preferable than personal anecdote and opinion, and obscuring any sense of a sliding scale by saying that anything remotely physical equates to abuse. The true double standard exists when we don't assume this position to be universal to all behaviours, physical or simply verbal.
That said, I'm done with this debate as right off the bat I can see that it will be an impasse across the board.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "Solitary"Don't do that isn't verbal abuse, But if I say to you, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" and then spank you on the butt until it hurts and makes you afraid and cry, yes that is abuse. Do you even understand the difference? :roll: Solitary
Cite precisely, referring to the thread, page number and post number, where anyone is inferring that this would be a positive and indeed supportable action.
I didn't say there was :-s . I was showing the difference between saying, "Don't do that" as verbal discipline and Saying, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" in response to "abuse has been watered down to the point it has nearly lost all meaning. abuse can be anything now." Abuse by definition is: misuse, mistreat, attack with words, mistreatment, and coarse and insulting speech as used here so often. There is a big difference between discipline and abuse, and it seems like there are people here that don't understand the difference. How come the military can have discipline without physical abuse?
My older son got so out of control one time when he was around ten years old I slapped him in the face to calm him down. So I read up on why he was so out of control---the advice was to let him do anything he wanted as long as he didn't hurt himself or wreck everything. The reason he got the way he was, was because I was being too strict with him. I took the advice and after week of hell for me and my wife he calmed down and wasn't so angry and frustrated anymore. You want to spank your kids or think its OK for someone else to spank their kids fine. I think it is unproductive self satisfying physical abuse by parents that can't control their own frustrations by trying to control their child to fit into a mold of what they think their child's behavior should be like. Of course now days you can get an expert and give them Ritalin. Solitary
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"That said, I'm done with this debate as right off the bat I can see that it will be an impasse across the board.
Good move, this is about the third time this forum has had this debate and it always comes to this. At least there was no shit flinging this time.
Remember this: GOD is my ultimate authority / judge, and HE says to punish a rebellious child with a spanking. :shock: Again, the bible is correct. :wink: :lol:
You all deserve a good spanking---call 888-Dominatrix. :popcorn: Solitary
What science says:
Spanking can get kids to behave in a hurry, but new research suggests it can do more harm than good to their noggins. The study, involving hundreds of U.S. children, showed the more a child was spanked the lower his or her IQ compared with others. "All parents want smart children," said study researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire. "This research shows that avoiding spanking and correcting misbehavior in other ways can help that happen." One might ask, however, whether children who are spanked tend to come from backgrounds in which education opportunities are less or inherited intelligence lower. But while the results only show an association -
But while the results only show an association between spanking and intelligence, Straus says his methodology and the fact that he took into account other factors that could be at play (such as parents' socioeconomic status) make a good case for a causal link. "You can't say it proves it, but I think it rules out so many other alternatives; I am convinced that spanking does cause a slowdown in a child's development of mental abilities," Straus told LiveScience. Intelligence quotients Straus and his colleague Mallie Paschall of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland studied nationally representative samples of two age groups: 806 children ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9.
The researchers tested the kids' IQs initially and then four years later. Both groups of kids got smarter after four years. But the 2- to 4-year-olds who were spanked scored 5 points lower on the IQ test than those not spanked. For children ages 5 to 9, the spanked ones scored on average 2.8 points lower than their unspanked counterparts. The results, he said, were statistically significant. And they held even after accounting for parental education, income, cognitive stimulation by parents and other factors that could affect children's mental abilities. Straus will present the study results, along with research on the relationship between average national IQ and prevalence of spanking around the world, Friday at the 14th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, in San Diego, Calif. Spanking science -
Well now we know why some people are in favor of spanking that were spanked as children. :shock: :rollin: 8-[ [-( :P Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "Solitary"Don't do that isn't verbal abuse, But if I say to you, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" and then spank you on the butt until it hurts and makes you afraid and cry, yes that is abuse. Do you even understand the difference? :roll: Solitary
Cite precisely, referring to the thread, page number and post number, where anyone is inferring that this would be a positive and indeed supportable action.
I didn't say there was :-s . I was showing the difference between saying, "Don't do that" as verbal discipline and Saying, "stop that you stupid fuck! Your never going to amount to anything!" in response to "abuse has been watered down to the point it has nearly lost all meaning. abuse can be anything now." Abuse by definition is: misuse, mistreat, attack with words, mistreatment, and coarse and insulting speech as used here so often. There is a big difference between discipline and abuse, and it seems like there are people here that don't understand the difference. How come the military can have discipline without physical abuse?
Sorry I thought you were inferring that that was surly's (our) stance on the subject when really you've just iterated our (my) opinion on the matter re: sliding scale of action through contexts.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"That said, I'm done with this debate as right off the bat I can see that it will be an impasse across the board.
Good move, this is about the third time this forum has had this debate and it always comes to this. At least there was no shit flinging this time.
True dat.
Saw this come up a couple of years ago after I joined and I steered clear. Loads of folk were at each others throats when really they should have just been posting pictures of boobies.
True dat.
:-D I'm glad you said that. I was just unwrapping my spiked paddle. :lol: Solitary
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).
Is not one simply a milder version of the other?
no it's not.
And yet, the crux of the distinction seems to revolve around the method and force with which the physical punishment is applied. All the while denying any similarity at all and claiming that opponents are equating the two when they actually class the two in the same broad category of corporal punishment and are already fully aware of the obvious differences.
A mild form of corporal punishment is still corporal punishment, correct?
Quote from: WitchSabrinahmmm............... I wonder how harsh is 'harsh'. We could spend hours figuring this out.
I disagree that spanking would lead to health problems in adulthood, but it could possibly lead to emotional or psychological problems. I personally disagree with spanking. There are more constructive ways to punish children than spanking, despite what traditionalists state. After all, there is a reason that an old dog never learns new tricks.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "surly74"no it's not.
And yet, the crux of the distinction seems to revolve around the method and force with which the physical punishment is applied. All the while denying any similarity at all and claiming that opponents are equating the two when they actually class the two in the same broad category of corporal punishment and are already fully aware of the obvious differences.
A mild form of corporal punishment is still corporal punishment, correct?
sure call it whaterver you want...
I have one opinion you have another. i don't really care if what i may do occasionaly, you call corporal punishment.
As long as the law doesn't call it corporal punishment, you can get away with applying it to your children. Same with raising them religiously; as long as the law doesn't see it as child abuse, you can keep doing it.
Quote from: "Solitary"Remember this: GOD is my ultimate authority / judge, and HE says to punish a rebellious child with a spanking. :shock: Again, the bible is correct. :wink: :lol:
You all deserve a good spanking---call 888-Dominatrix. :popcorn: Solitary
What science says:
Spanking can get kids to behave in a hurry, but new research suggests it can do more harm than good to their noggins. The study, involving hundreds of U.S. children, showed the more a child was spanked the lower his or her IQ compared with others. "All parents want smart children," said study researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire. "This research shows that avoiding spanking and correcting misbehavior in other ways can help that happen." One might ask, however, whether children who are spanked tend to come from backgrounds in which education opportunities are less or inherited intelligence lower. But while the results only show an association -
But while the results only show an association between spanking and intelligence, Straus says his methodology and the fact that he took into account other factors that could be at play (such as parents' socioeconomic status) make a good case for a causal link. "You can't say it proves it, but I think it rules out so many other alternatives; I am convinced that spanking does cause a slowdown in a child's development of mental abilities," Straus told LiveScience. Intelligence quotients Straus and his colleague Mallie Paschall of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland studied nationally representative samples of two age groups: 806 children ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9.
The researchers tested the kids' IQs initially and then four years later. Both groups of kids got smarter after four years. But the 2- to 4-year-olds who were spanked scored 5 points lower on the IQ test than those not spanked. For children ages 5 to 9, the spanked ones scored on average 2.8 points lower than their unspanked counterparts. The results, he said, were statistically significant. And they held even after accounting for parental education, income, cognitive stimulation by parents and other factors that could affect children's mental abilities. Straus will present the study results, along with research on the relationship between average national IQ and prevalence of spanking around the world, Friday at the 14th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, in San Diego, Calif. Spanking science -
Well now we know why some people are in favor of spanking that were spanked as children. :shock: :rollin: 8-[ [-( :P Solitary
Interesting piece of science. I wonder what the reason is that children who are spanked score lower on those tests. Whether it's a physical consequence of spanking (which seems unlikely) or a mental one (which would be my guess).
Do you have a link to the original article?
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "Solitary"Remember this: GOD is my ultimate authority / judge, and HE says to punish a rebellious child with a spanking. :shock: Again, the bible is correct. :wink: :lol:
You all deserve a good spanking---call 888-Dominatrix. :popcorn: Solitary
What science says:
Spanking can get kids to behave in a hurry, but new research suggests it can do more harm than good to their noggins. The study, involving hundreds of U.S. children, showed the more a child was spanked the lower his or her IQ compared with others. "All parents want smart children," said study researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire. "This research shows that avoiding spanking and correcting misbehavior in other ways can help that happen." One might ask, however, whether children who are spanked tend to come from backgrounds in which education opportunities are less or inherited intelligence lower. But while the results only show an association -
But while the results only show an association between spanking and intelligence, Straus says his methodology and the fact that he took into account other factors that could be at play (such as parents' socioeconomic status) make a good case for a causal link. "You can't say it proves it, but I think it rules out so many other alternatives; I am convinced that spanking does cause a slowdown in a child's development of mental abilities," Straus told LiveScience. Intelligence quotients Straus and his colleague Mallie Paschall of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland studied nationally representative samples of two age groups: 806 children ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9.
The researchers tested the kids' IQs initially and then four years later. Both groups of kids got smarter after four years. But the 2- to 4-year-olds who were spanked scored 5 points lower on the IQ test than those not spanked. For children ages 5 to 9, the spanked ones scored on average 2.8 points lower than their unspanked counterparts. The results, he said, were statistically significant. And they held even after accounting for parental education, income, cognitive stimulation by parents and other factors that could affect children's mental abilities. Straus will present the study results, along with research on the relationship between average national IQ and prevalence of spanking around the world, Friday at the 14th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, in San Diego, Calif. Spanking science -
Well now we know why some people are in favor of spanking that were spanked as children. :shock: :rollin: 8-[ [-( :P Solitary
Interesting piece of science. I wonder what the reason is that children who are spanked score lower on those tests. Whether it's a physical consequence of spanking (which seems unlikely) or a mental one (which would be my guess).
Do you have a link to the original article?
Maybe stupid children need more spanking. Because they're stupid.
You'd assume the research would have compensated for that. But maybe not. I don't know, maybe we can have a look if we get the original article.
If you take two random groups, spank half of them when they do something wrong, and don't spank the other when they do something wrong, and then after a few years the one group has a higher average IQ, it would be reasonable to assume the spanking has something to do with it.
They did say they compensated for socio-economic circumstances, so I think they probably compensated for the naturally stupid as well.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "surly74"no it's not.
And yet, the crux of the distinction seems to revolve around the method and force with which the physical punishment is applied. All the while denying any similarity at all and claiming that opponents are equating the two when they actually class the two in the same broad category of corporal punishment and are already fully aware of the obvious differences.
A mild form of corporal punishment is still corporal punishment, correct?
sure call it whaterver you want...
I have one opinion you have another. i don't really care if what i may do occasionaly, you call corporal punishment.
Finally. Awesome. We were sort of drifting into "it's a relationship, not a religion" territory there.
I think what is in disagreement here is what is considered as spanking. A spanking that doesn't cause physical harm or gross pain is spanking in my opinion, but when it is violently done and causes bodily harm, terror, or the idea that to get your way is to use physical violence is OK, I think it is very harmful, even when it is just spanking and includes verbal abuse. Solitary
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"[spoil:3nl2klje]Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I also disagree. You've let 'beating' become synonomous with 'spanking' which I believe is an error (although this may have simply been a typing error).
It's also a mistake to equate spanking with "lapsing" into a behaviour. Young children do not pick up on social cues, neither do they understand fully or comprehend stern talking to's and firm dialogue. Sitting them on the naughty step is all well and good and probably could account for around 95% of corrective discipline (if utilised correctly, which often it isn't), but sometimes children need to understand that acting in a given way will earn them a physical rebuke. And again, this is not to be equated to beating them senseless, it is light but firm physical interaction to create clear and decisive boundaries that a talking to or isolation (eg. the naughty step) could not and wil not achieve. When they're older, then sure, of course, because they'll understand it better.
spanking a child when it runs through crowded traffic is, for me, preferable for setting the boundary than simply telling them no because they really have no clue as to what 'no' actually means unless there's an actual repurcussion for doing so.
Hypocritical behaviour I believe is unavoidable when it comes to being a parent because there are clear and defined rules for children that do [not] apply to adults and vice versa. Drinking for example. Telling a child it cannot drink whilst having a pint. Hypocritical? Perhaps, also legally enforcable.
Don't talk to strangers. Often we tell children this, yet adults do it all the time (pub, bar, whatever). Hypocritical, but then again, adult's understand the rules of engagement much better than children because they've become accustomed to the societal context to which they live.
Don't run in the road (when crossing at a crossing for example). Adults, again, are able to both understand the consequences of enacting such behaviour and also are guaging the risk/reward of doing such a thing. "I'm late for work, I don't see any traffic and I know that there is a high probability of me getting across the road unscathed if I run". We wouldn't give the same advice for children because that would instill a trait that would be unwanted through their formative years.
So 'doing the right thing' is just as subjective as the 'thing' in question, wouldn't you say?
I have not let beating become synonymous with spanking. I said striking and hitting, with no mention of how hard. Would the police be impressed if your excuse for common assault was that you did it more gently than normal? No. Likewise, hitting someone because you don't like what they are doing is wrong, even if you only hit them firmly instead of really hard, or you hit them on their bottom instead of their face. It is hitting.
I'm disregarding the police anecdote becuase it skews the debate. This is about the acceptability and utility of spanking, not its legality.
However I do believe, as I iterate above, that a distinction on the force and context of the strike is all important; indeed, it is teh crux of the thesis. Disregarding it is actually what opponents of my position are propagating, not me.
But I think a lot of the above relies on the connotation implied by the word 'hitting'. I have no problem with the word hitting when referring to spanking as the words are effectively synonymous. However I think the context is what is more important than simply the spanking itself. I don't agree that hitting someone who is not your child and who you're not trying to discipline to reinforce a given behaviour equals the very same. I think they're two totally different games, although I understand that you will disagree.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"It is not hypocritical to forbid children to do things that they are not old enough to do, as you didn't do them until you were old enough. How you communicate that to a child is for you to decide as a parent, but I prefer to think that I'd teach my children the reasons why drinking at a young age is bad rather than hitting them until they learn it as a behavioural pattern through negative physical reinforcement, even if I only hit them gently.
Children are old enough to talk to strangers. Their ability to do so is not in question, rather the enforcement as to why it is bad.
I am with you 100% regarding the preferred methodology on learning processes to learn behaviour. However I depart from that juncture where it comes to my belief that a mixture is not neccearily a negative thing. Indeed, my preference would be to not utilise physical methods of behavioural reenforcement, but sometimes I believe it is necessary and a useful tool.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"What is the "right thing" is subjective, but it tends to be commonly agreed on that hitting people for reasons other than self-defensem or other extraneous circumstances is wrong, and the law tends to agree with this as well.
the law has also stipulated that one can spank their children so long as they don't leave a bruise (UK/EU). Again, I'm disregarding the legal position becuase it is not conducive to the debate at hand (as above).
Quote from: "SilentFutility"All "rights" and "wrongs" are subjective in this way, but there are lots of things that are generally considered to be unacceptable. If hitting someone is unacceptable, why is it then acceptable because they're too small to hit you back properly and they're your child? The justification that "it works", which is basically saying you get what you want, doesn't really justify it as acceptable, it says why people resort to it, but it doesn't explain away the double standard.
To reiterate, if I know something is wrong, then I will not resort to it occasionally because I can and it gets me what I want, doing so would be lazy. That applies to hitting people as much as anything else.
I disagree with your reiteration for reasons stated above. I believe that there is a good common sense case for examining cases on an individual basis utilising a scale of force and a mixture of both physical and non-physical behavioural reinforcement. I also don't want to cite argumentum ad populum re: 'generally considered unacceptable' as I know what you're trying to say and doing so would again obscure the debate.
The double standards only exist if we take your stance as given and assume that 'spanking is always wrong'. That is yet to be proven, or accepted. I think it is erroneous to insinuate that one is spanking a child simply becuase one can get away with it. I'm certainly not arguing that, and indeed, as with the differentiation in force used, I've also stressed the context of the spanking is as if not more important. Thus I think equating spanking to hitting someone on the street is not conducive to the debate either (not inferring that you're doing that, but others appear to be).
As I stated above, the only post that has caused me to examine this stance is the one by GSO where he indicated some scientific literature as to the efficacy of both/ all methods in various combinations. This, ultimately, is 100% more preferable than personal anecdote and opinion, and obscuring any sense of a sliding scale by saying that anything remotely physical equates to abuse. The true double standard exists when we don't assume this position to be universal to all behaviours, physical or simply verbal.[/spoil:3nl2klje]
That said, I'm done with this debate as right off the bat I can see that it will be an impasse across the board.
Fair enough.
To add a few words, I'm not actually trying to argue that it should be illegal. I think that the main point on which we disagree is whether or not it is a necessary tool, to which I'd say no; plenty of children are successfully raised without being spanked/hit/whatever we're calling it now. If it isn't necessary and it is a horrible thing to do, why do it? The answer: sometimes it is a lot easier than any other alternative.