Is hitting your kids child abuse?

[YT2095]

Are you assuming that since it works with your daughter then that implies it would work with all children? Is there a need to put your child to tears?

 

I`m an advocate of the philosophy that "you catch more flies with honey than you will with a hammer", and at this age there is no such thing as a Naughty child, only a badly programed one.

 

as for your last question, that was answered perfectly by DrP above.

if you actually Listen to a good many parents talking to their kids, it mostly consists of Command and directives, they are being talked AT not TO.

it`s more important to teach them How to think rather than What to think and 9 times out of 10 they`ll get it right and behave correctly without a single Order being barked at them.

I care how she feels and I show this, in turn she cares how I feel and also shows this.

 

no weapons needed

[Pete]

I think you may be mis-understanding him a little being fair here

Nah. I was just being a wisenheimer. I didn't get any sleep last night so I'm cranky.

[YT2095]

 

 

Your wife seems to disagree with you slightly as she administers physical punishment. ?

 

meh, she shouts at me all the time too, I ignore her as well

[Mr Skeptic]

One problem with a ban on corporal punishment, is that parents then resort to use emotional punishment. This can also result in mental disorders for kids, and in fact is more likely to IMHO.

[DrP]

, can you please name one example in the animal kingdom BESIDES humans where rape happens?

 

 

I think maybe dogs and cats???......and maybe elephants?. I saw a nature program about some massive bull elephant that broke some poor young girly elephants leg after chasing her round for hours. I thought that was akin to rape (and maybe paedophilia) - although it seemed to be encourage by the other older femails in the heard.

 

I was going to type "animal rape" into google to get some more info, but I'm at work and I don't want my network manager to think I'm some kind of weirdo pervert into violent beastianity. I may look it up when I get home.

[iNow]

So what is it that you pacifist "Don't lay a finger on the precious children!" parents do in order to prevent those bullies from ever letting them lay their filthy hand on your kid? Suppose your kid comes home and tells you that the school bully is out to get him and he's scared? What do you plan on doing when that happens?

 

They would probably give them Prozac so they don't get depressed about getting beaten up.

 

 

While I appreciate your point, and am pretty sure we agree, it's important to also recognize that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Responsible parenting sometimes includes the exertion of ones physical dominance. However, far too many parents cross into that (subjective area I will call the) extreme zone where the hitting is not responsible and is instead more of an expression of personal frustration and feelings of failure as a parent.

 

That's not something we should support, so don't get me wrong, even though I find most arguments for blanket bans to be ridiculous.

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

I think maybe dogs and cats???......and maybe elephants?. I saw a nature program about some massive bull elephant that broke some poor young girly elephants leg after chasing her round for hours. I thought that was akin to rape (and maybe paedophilia) - although it seemed to be encourage by the other older femails in the heard.

We need to be careful about the definition. In the animal kingdom, normal reproduction often resembles what we consider rape. Different thread topic, maybe.

 

The counter point to my question which I'd considered before asking it is sharks. The male literally bites the female around the neck, spins her face down into the sediment on the sea floor, then inserts his penis as she struggles against him. Sharks were the first animals to evolve a penis and to have internal fertilization, btw.

 

 

I was going to type "animal rape" into google to get some more info, but I'm at work and I don't want my network manager to think I'm some kind of weirdo pervert into violent beastianity. I may look it up when I get home.

 

I'm somewhat disturbed just imagining what will appear in the search results.

Edited August 26, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

I've always thought that hitting your kids in anger, when you wouldn't normally do it, is abuse. More important, though more subtle, these "I've had enough" based physical punishments are borderline abuse - again, if it's not part of your normal array of punishments, then you're just venting - which means abuse when it's physical.

 

That said, I try not to "vent" and try to be more consistent. I do strongly believe in physical domination, but careful to confuse that with physical manhandling or beating. I haven't hit either of my children in years - 15 and 12 - and they both deserve it, even - instead I represent a line they will not cross.

 

We, as parents, have a duty to show that line and teach our children about physical mastery. We have a duty to teach our little ones how to deal with the big bad world. So I don't sugar coat it for them; might makes right.

[SkepticLance]

Like iNow, I am not going to google 'animal rape.' There would be 20,000 porno sites appearing and you would never get rid of all of them!

 

However, I did see a TV documentary some time ago on animal behaviour that made the point that rape in the animal kingdom was actually very common. Chimps carry out rape, for example.

 

Rape among humans mostly is only done by a minority. I suspect that about 1 in 10 guys are capable of rape. The rest of us respect and care for our fairer half, and would even put ourselves at risk to save them from that other 1 in 10. The major exception is wartime, when young randy soldiers over-run an enemy community. Since the women are the hated enemy and hence 'less than human', they are raped by men who are pillars of the community at home.

 

I have to say, though, that YT's daughter cannot be taken as typical of all children. There are plenty of kids who kick over the traces often and severely. Normal human genetic variability guarantees that this will happen. Simply talking to those kids in a stern but loving way will not achieve anything. More drastic measures are needed. Not anything resulting in physical damage, but the short, sharp administration of pain often is the only effective way of altering their behaviour, short of drugs.

[DrP]

Like iNow, I am not going to google 'animal rape.'

 

 

Yea, I finally decided against that one too..

[Sayonara]

When you are classifying abuse, I would have thought that the intention is more pertinent than the mechanism.

 

For example, a slap to correct behaviour is not going to be considered "abuse" by anyone but the most shrill bleeding heart. However if the slapping is systematic and regular, and serves no purpose other than to cause physical suffering and the associated trauma, then it's clearly a different matter.

[halogirl]

i agree with sayonara, there is a difference between discipline and abuse. my parents did resort to spanking every now and then(when i was being a real twerp) but the important thing to remember is where and how often. hitting a child in public is cruel and stupid, hitting a child multiple times for an offense is a bad idea, and hitting a child anywhere aside from the rump, is definitely abuse, just being spanked is humiliating, i'll bet everyone remembers how upsetting it is, it didn't even hurt so it really isn't necessary to hit a kid very hard. it really is just plain cruel and abusive to do that over nothing, i feel it is really important to make sure you try everything else before resorting to that. and seriously it should only be done when they've done something that is definitely wrong and that they definitely knew was wrong. spanking a kid for stealing is probably reasonable, but hitting the kid more then once, or really hard, or on some other part of the body is abusive.

[Pete]

While I appreciate your point, and am pretty sure we agree, it's important to also recognize that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Responsible parenting sometimes includes the exertion of ones physical dominance. However, far too many parents cross into that (subjective area I will call the) extreme zone where the hitting is not responsible and is instead more of an expression of personal frustration and feelings of failure as a parent.

I agree. That's kinda why I posted that message the other day asking people to please distinguish between beating and spanking.

 

Pete

[stevo247]

I tend to look at these things from a biologist's viewpoint. If we look at other mammals, we find that mild physical admonishment is very common - indeed quite normal. A cuff with a paw, or even a bite, is used to provide negative reinforcement for undesirable behaviour, and especially behaviour that leads to the offspring entering a dangerous situation.

 

That's an interesting observation.

 

Not too long ago, I turned to see our youngest cat chewing through the power cord of my wifes computer. Instinctively, I swatted her and yelled No! That's one of the few times I can recall ever hitting one of our pets. I'm not sure if she learned not to chew through the $80 replacement cord, but she did avoid me for quite a while.

 

In regards to child rearing, I wonder what type of parenting would correspond to a “cuff with the paw or even a bite” and under what circumstances would it be considered appropriate. For example, I could see a child suddenly start to run out into the street, and a mother instinctively grab and swat him with a firm “No! Don't ever do that again! “

 

But the issue of a child rearing practice that utilizes corporal punishment and “spanking” surely takes this to another level. Is a mother acting instinctively when she slaps her two year old when he throws food on the floor. Don't most people eventually learn not to throw food on the floor through other methods like imitation? What about the high percentage of parents (63% in one study) that spank their children before the age of one. I can't imagine that they're driven by instinct. More than likely, frustration.

 

I also wonder about the fact that humans can utilize language to convey a message, where animals are limited to their use of behavior. Using language to convey disapproval, actually seems more akin to “mild admonishment”.

 

“The word "spanking" itself for many people suggests particular virtues (e.g., mildness, judiciousness, caring intent)--and certainly not inherent to the act of slapping somebody on the buttocks, that are not actually contained in its literal meaning.”

http://nospank.net/johnson2.htm

 

There is a great variability in the severity of spanking, as well as the context in which it is administered, and how often it is done. I think you would agree that when you start adding belts and paddles, you've moved beyond anything that resembles “mild admonishment” of the young in the animal kingdom.

Edited August 27, 2008 by stevo247

[booker]

Family abuse.

 

There had developed a certain kind of abusive behavior such that parents of good intent and children are under the threat of separation, financial ruin, and incarceration by those who claim superior understanding should they apply disiplinary rules of their own.

 

Did this abusive behavior result from bad upbringing by their parents?

Does this behavior result from the observation of sadistic parents?

[DrP]

For example, a slap to correct behaviour is not going to be considered "abuse" by anyone but the most shrill bleeding heart. However if the slapping is systematic and regular, and serves no purpose other than to cause physical suffering and the associated trauma, then it's clearly a different matter.

 

 

This is my sentiment entirely. AND I have respect for those who wish to try rearing a child without the use of physical punishment. However, it's not just a few bleeding hearts that see it as extreame - If things continue the way they are it will soon be totally ilegal to administer even the what seems like the most reasonable of normal parental correction (Like Stevo's example of the cub in danger getting a swat fronm the mother) Spare the rod- - spoil the child was the old saying.

 

 

......................................................................................................

 

I think (and I feel sorry for these people) that in cases where people have suffered in some way (like if they were abused or they have been victims of crime or have lost a child to a road accident) they can't let it go and feel they have to compaign about it untill every thing swings to the opposite extreame.

 

Example 1 - a mother loses here child to a road accident (tragic!) - she then pushes her local council to build unnessassary traffic calming scemes and install speed cameras down her road - then spends half her life standing out side glaring at drivers and shouting at them to slow down hatefully. No-one has the guts to say to her that she's gone too far because they know she must be in pain and they feel sorry for her, BUT, for all her campaining and shouting, people will still get killed in accidents (ACCIDENTS!!! NOT INTENTIONAL KILLINGS!!). Result - all the normal law abiding people who would be driving safely anyway are inconvenienced by shit traffic calming crap and occasionally fined for doing 35 on camera and the real idiots who she should be angry at ignore the traffic calming (treating it as extra fun, like ooh! Chicanes now!!) and continue to **** things up for everyone else. They give her two fingers as they drive by and she gets even more bitter and angry at ALL drivers because she is BLINDED by her own tragedy.

 

 

Example 2 - A person is abused (Terrible!) - and when older campaigns continuously to make spanking ileagle. If they succeed all they do is stop the law abiding good parents who only administer spanking under the proper good parenting guidlines for spanking (which is harmless). The real child abusers and beaters will carry on abusing because they care sod all for the law anyway.

 

 

Anyway - sorry for the rant - nearly over.

 

Down our road a drunk teenager stole a car and wrecked a house doing about 80mph. All the old biddies in the village see this as absolute proof that we need trafic calming and speed cameras. BS!!!! The drunk teenager will still nick a car and drive at 80, whilst the rest of us have to put up with the shitty traffic calming. NO-ONE DARE speak out against it otherwise they are obviously criminals themselves that also drivwe at 80 through the village and thus shall be victimised from henceforth. Morons!

Edited August 27, 2008 by DrP

[YT2095]

it seems yet again, another case of folks caring more about their Rights rather than their Responsibilities.

[D H]

Like iNow, I am not going to google 'animal rape.'

So make your search a bit more scientific then, such as googling "sexual coercion in non-human animal species" -- no porn sites on the first ten pages -- and plenty of examples of coercive sex among non-human animal species, including beetles that have taken rape to an extreme, chimps, and dolphins, who are downright nasty when it comes to rape and apparently engage in homosexual nasal sex when they can't get any.

[stevo247]

While I appreciate your point, and am pretty sure we agree, it's important to also recognize that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Responsible parenting sometimes includes the exertion of ones physical dominance. However, far too many parents cross into that (subjective area I will call the) extreme zone where the hitting is not responsible and is instead more of an expression of personal frustration and feelings of failure as a parent.

 

I agree. That's kinda why I posted that message the other day asking people to please distinguish between beating and spanking.

 

I don't think that spanking and beating are necessarily clear and distinct separate entities. If you were to hire a babysitter and informed her that she could use “spanking” but not beating, could you be sure that you were both on the same page? There could be an awful lot of slapping, smacking, belts, spoons and what not that can come into play under the umbrella of “spanking”. Clearly the issues of severity, context, and frequency need to be addressed to determine whether a particular form of spanking behavior is harmful or not.

 

I can understand how it may be considered appropriate to instinctively swat at a child in response to a dangerous situation. For example, if they suddenly start to run out into the road, or sticking a fork into an electrical outlet etc.. The jolt of such a rare parental response may in fact convey the utmost seriousness of a particular dangerous behavior. It's interesting that the seemingly instinctive physical response to a dangerous situation by a parent (possibly even agreeable to conscience), is the particular situational response that is used to justify the right to “spank” in a multitude of contexts , under a wide spectrum of severity, with a highly variable rate of frequency.

 

Proponents of spanking define it as one or two swats with an open hand on a childs bottom. Is that the scope of what we are talking about in terms of severity?

Edited August 28, 2008 by stevo247

[SkepticLance]

A suggestion for a definition of acceptable.

We all know that a smack can raise a red mark which quickly fades. Beating tends to leave welts or bruises that do not.

 

I suggest that 'acceptable' smacking is anything that cannot be detected by a doctor 24 hours later. Anything that leaves any kind of a mark detectable by said doctor after 24 hours is a beating and unacceptable. This definition may not be perfect, but at least gives a handle for enforcing this rule.

[Pete]

I don't think that spanking and beating are necessarily clear and distinct separate entities. If you were to hire a babysitter and informed her that she could use “spanking” but not beating, could you be sure that you were both on the same page?

Well I'm not a parent so I can't say for sure what I'd do. But I imagine that I wouldn't allow anybody except me and the mother to spank the child.

There could be an awful lot of slapping, smacking, belts, spoons and what not that can come into play under the umbrella of “spanking”. Clearly the issues of severity, context, and frequency need to be addressed to determine whether a particular form of spanking behavior is harmful or not.

If you said it was okay to spank the child if there are extreme situations which require it and they hit the kid with wooden dowel then to me its the same thing as the babysitter abusing the child. Misunderstandings are not acceptable excuses in my book. That's one reason I wouldn't let anyone except me and mom span them. Perhaps even I would be naughty and mommy would have to spank me too! Yikes!! See what you people got me thinking!!

I can understand how it may be considered appropriate to instinctively swat at a child in response to a dangerous situation.

Me too.

Proponents of spanking define it as one or two swats with an open hand on a childs bottom. Is that the scope of what we are talking about in terms of severity?

I don't think I could answer that not having ever had kids and it being a long time since I was one myself. I would hazard to guess that the older the child the more immune they are to a light open hand pat and would thus require more pressure etc.

 

Thank God I don't have kids. I'll never have to be in a position to put my money where my mouth is.

 

Pete

[layman77]

One of the problems with many studies into the effects of physical punishment is that they tend to look at extremes. I am not aware of any rigorous scientific study into the effects of mild physical punishment on children. I seriously doubt that it would show any harm.

 

No, take a look at this one

 

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L3ScJ5FZTYrQyQHcf5Ljy1r29qWGDXSzfVQK8M6Fhl450jP1JkdB!1521901969?docId=5000287889

 

it seems yet again, another case of folks caring more about their Rights rather than their Responsibilities.

 

As far as I know, there is no law stating you must discipline your children. There are plenty of spoiled children, mainly Rich ones that are now adults, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, etc. But there is nothing that say you must discipline them, not that I approve of not doing so, but it doesn't mean you have to hit them.

We are too animals. What would EVER make you think otherwise?

 

 

You're missing the point. Yes, we are mammals and have the same physical characteristics. We have hair, sweat glands, three middle ear bones, but one thing makes us more distinct then animals, our reasoning abilities. Animals leave their extrement wherever they care to, eat their meat raw, and eat carrion sometimes, getting rabies.

 

To claim that it's ok to hit kids because animals do it is crazy. Do you use the same justification for eating your meat raw because animals don't, there's a chance you won't get worms or salmonella from doing it does that make it perfectly safe?

 

Well, leaving aside for the moment that we kill more animals as a species than any other animal on the planet, can you please name one example in the animal kingdom BESIDES humans where rape happens?

 

Take a look at this, sometimes animals rape HUMANS:

 

http://faithallen.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/recovering-from-childhood-animal-rape/

 

 

 

Humans are not separate from nature, so again, I'm not sure of your point.

 

Actually, no. Note the distinction between man-made and natural objects, which is often pointed out. There's no way, without human intervention that all the metal and uranium and other materials will assemble themselves into a nuclear power plant. It requires human intervention.

 

Likewise, when lightning hits a tree and starts a fire, that's natural, it doesn't require humans at all to make it happen. But, when a human flicks a cigarette into the brush and starts a fire that isn't natural, because it requires a human to make a cig and light it, it wouldn't have happened without humans to do it.

 

 

 

 

I don't know what you mean by instinct, but I agree that we should always be looking for better solutions. Regardless, there are times when hitting is not abuse. It's simple really. A calm assertive leader who leverages their physical dominance to take charge is not the same as an incompetent parent who takes out their frustrations on the child.

 

 

"Leverage your physical dominance to take charge" What a great way to parent, scare them into it. How about explaining the dangers and why they shouldn't do it, perhaps even showing them why and how serious it is, instead of hitting them and hoping they'll understand

Edited August 28, 2008 by layman77
multiple post merged

[iNow]

You're living in a world of fairy dust and magical unicorns, my friend. We are animals. Sometimes physicality is required to shock the nervous system and bring greater impact. Your raw meat example is too silly for me to even respond to. Further, regardless if we can or cannot build a nuclear power plant, we are still part of nature.

[ParanoiA]

"Leverage your physical dominance to take charge" What a great way to parent, scare them into it. How about explaining the dangers and why they shouldn't do it, perhaps even showing them why and how serious it is, instead of hitting them and hoping they'll understand

 

You want me to lecture a 2 year old why they shouldn't put a fork in a light socket? Aside from the language barrier, I'm pretty sure any charade I perform is only going end up being entertainment for the moment, and inspiration for the accident later.

 

Acknowledging the utility value of our nature and instincts isn't a wholesale sellout of reason. Shame is a useful tool for molding behavior that humans use on each other instinctively, yet seems cruel when we see it on film; think Carrie. Shunning others from the group is good too, and again emotionally, mentally cruel. Pain, spanking, is part of the skill set. And like any of them, can be abused.

[layman77]

You're living in a world of fairy dust and magical unicorns, my friend. We are animals. Sometimes physicality is required to shock the nervous system and bring greater impact. Your raw meat example is too silly for me to even respond to. Further, regardless if we can or cannot build a nuclear power plant, we are still part of nature.

 

When was the last time you heard of a "natural" nuclear power plant. Yet, they said it was ok to hit because animals do it. You're avoiding the argument, ad hominem is they call it.

 

If shock is ok, to teach someone that something isn't acceptable then why isn't it ok for your boss to hit you at work, or for them to whip an inmate or soldier, they would have made the same arguments when it was alllowed, you think that it's a perfectly acceptable form of punishment, the same as they did, yet now it's been completely banned in most places.

 

Fact is, it's only a matter of time before it's banned, children are the only ones left you can hit legally hit and get away with.

 

You want me to lecture a 2 year old why they shouldn't put a fork in a light socket?

 

Well, no, put some covers on the sockets! And keep them away from those dangers, like a good parent should! Don't hit him because he walks out into the street. It's your fault you let him in the first place. You shouldn't have let him out someplace where he could get hurt, then you hit him for it?! And all that hitting them will teach them is fear, they have to understand why it's wrong. You're going to a hit child who can't even understand your words and expect him to know what it means.

 

 

Aside from the language barrier, I'm pretty sure any charade I perform is only going end up being entertainment for the moment, and inspiration for the accident later.

 

And hitting him that young will teach him nothing but fear and aggression and to solve his problems by hitting. Imagine if he sees another child put his fingers in the socket, and he hits him like you did. What about other problems that will be solved by hitting, maybe someone took his toy away, hit. Maybe he doesn't like someone or someone, hit!

 

Acknowledging the utility value of our nature and instincts isn't a wholesale sellout of reason. Shame is a useful tool for molding behavior that humans use on each other instinctively, yet seems cruel when we see it on film; think Carrie. Shunning others from the group is good too, and again emotionally, mentally cruel. Pain, spanking, is part of the skill set. And like any of them, can be abused.

 

Refer to the study I liked to above, a little bit is no good either.

Edited August 29, 2008 by layman77
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

To layman

 

I do not think anyone here is going to support child abuse, though the definition may be argued. And very few are going to dispute the idea that a minimal physical act like a smack on the bottom is some kind of harmful abuse.

 

The comparison to animals is given because we are animals, and we still behave according to our genetic programming in the form of instinct. If higher animals such as chimps control their offspring according to instinct with a smack, and bearing in mind that we share 98% of our genes with chimps, it is highly probable that we share the same instinct.

 

Chimps and humans both have behaviour that results partly from millions of years of evolution. Evolution does not work to cause harm. And if that evolution leads to an instinct to chastise offspring with a smack, it is seriously unlikely that the smack will cause serious harm.

 

Humans behave according to instinct as well as learning. If you do not believe me, think of how a person, anywhere in the world, any time in history, responds when a baby smiles at them. Pure instinct!

 

Your reference 'questia' has two flaws in terms of this argument.

1. We cannot access it all anyway.

2. It refers only to adolescents. I would not approve of physical punishment for adolescents. If it is needed by then, it is already too late. Simple physical punishment should be given, and only lightly and only when appropriate, to children - not adolescents.

 

There are only two methods that work on adolescents, who have not been disciplined as kids.

1. Time. By the time they get to 30, most adolescents are starting to come right!

2. Lock em up or kill em. If this don't seem acceptable, refer to 1. above.