Spanking, continued

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:17 am

A thought crossed my mind, are people who resort to physcial discipline more likely to in an abusive relationship with their spouse/partner?

The reason I thought of this is that if someone (not everyone) can intentionally hurt (or cause pain to) a small child what stops them from doing the same to an adult, someone they are in a relationship with?

No, I am not saying anyone here does this, I do not know, but the idea of someone being able to separate corporal punishment and spousal abuse doesn't sit well for me, I can't understand how someone can claim that they can discipline a child with pain but that they do not do the same to an adult who displeases them.

one of my most sorrowful memories is of when a friend and I were debating something. We both were upset, and had got to the point of yelling at each other, she pointed her finger at me and I swung my hand up to point my finger back at her, but she thought i was going to hit her so she recoiled back to portect herself. Immediately I felt so awful, she actually thought I was going to hit her, I almost started to cry.

We both stopped acting stupid and began talking about why she felt I was going to phyicially attack her.

It must be horrifying to have been hit before by someone you trust, someone who hit you because you displeased them.

Even today, when I think about that argument and how she thought I was going to strike her I feel soo awful, ashamed that somehow I brought the argument to a point where she began to fear me hitting her. This for me, is one of my most shameful moments.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:23 am

No, I am not saying anyone here does this, I do not know, but the idea of someone being able to separate corporal punishment and spousal abuse doesn't sit well for me, I can't understand how someone can claim that they can discipline a child with pain but that they do not do the same to an adult who displeases them.

I think it also depends on whether you're spanking them to train them through _pain_ (even mild pain, such as Evan's 'stinging slaps') or training them through the expression of your displeasure and disapproval as a parent.

The 'swats on the rear' that everyone keeps mentioning fall into the latter category, I think; they've got nothing to do with pain. The trouble is for those who get the line blurred - both adults who deliver pain when it's not necessary, and children who perceive the chastisement as violence and are subconsciously trained to believe that violence is the best way to solve problems.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 7:16 pm

Here's my two cents on the issue.

My father happened to serve in Viet Nam, and went through Boot Camp beforehand.

When he came back, he unfortunately treated his young son (me) like I was going through boot. There was a lot of screaming, a lot of making me feel very bad for not doing what he wanted.

Put simply, don't treat your children like your raising little soldiers. All it does is make them want to go find Drill Instructors and beat them to death with lead pipes.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 7:21 pm

Lead pipes seem to be a recurring theme with male bulldrekkers and their respective fathers.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 7:25 pm

DV8 wrote: Lead pipes seem to be a recurring theme with male bulldrekkers and their respective fathers.

No no, wouldn't hurt my dad. My dad's about the nicest guy ever to come out of Galesburg. I'd go hurt the Drill Sargeant who turned my dad into an asshole for a number of my formative years.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 7:29 pm

Lektrogirl wrote: No, I am not saying anyone here does this, I do not know, but the idea of someone being able to separate corporal punishment and spousal abuse doesn't sit well for me, I can't understand how someone can claim that they can discipline a child with pain but that they do not do the same to an adult who displeases them.

I think there's a serious flaw in your logic, here. You're bahaving as if everyone who uses physical discipline is out-of-control. And that's just not true. My parents spanked me, until they realized it wasn't working. And they never did it from anger or loss of control; they did it because they thought it would work. [Which it did, on my older brother.] So the reason they never, say, spanked each other - at least, not in the disciplinary sense - is because it simply wouldn't work. If my father laid a hand on my mother, he'd...saw his arms off, I think.

Dad didn't /like/ spanking us. It wasn't something he did for fun. He did it because it's what he was taught to do. When they realized it wasn't working for me, they changed tactics. [To something that worked even less well: talking to me, and letting me ask questions.]

So don't think that just because you're the sort of person who spanks his kids, you're also going to be the sort of person who just hits people to solve problems. Those are people who /beat/ their kids. No matter what you may think of spanking, I think it's probably a good idea if we at least acknowledge that the people who do it aren't evil.

Lektrogirl wrote: Even today, when I think about that argument and how she thought I was going to strike her I feel soo awful, ashamed that somehow I brought the argument to a point where she began to fear me hitting her. This for me, is one of my most shameful moments.

A lot is starting to make sense to me. You really, really, absolutely abhor violence, don't you, in all its forms? At least, against non-criminals. You see no place for violence in the world, do you?

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:02 pm

A lot is starting to make sense to me. You really, really, absolutely abhor violence, don't you, in all its forms? At least, against non-criminals. You see no place for violence in the world, do you?

32, I'm not sure what tone you meant this as, but yes, you are correct. Violence, even against criminals is wrong. I know you are going to think that I contradicted myself, but I never said that that boy in Singapore should have been beat, I just have a problem with how the American government intravened on his behalf. My point about the boy was that if someone is willing to commit a crime they should be ready for the punishment and not expect special treatment, or they shouldn't try to beg for a reduced sentence.

32, do you think I am being childish for not believing in violence? Surely, I know the world isn't perfect, the world will always have violence, but at the same time it's good (in my opinion) that some people abhor violence.

Sometimes when I hear someone describe the way they were beat I take the time to imagine how it must have felt. I don't pretend to know how it is to be beaten, but I do know how it feels to have something crappy happen, and so sometimes I can empathize with certain people. Being an innocent victim of a violent crime is unbelievable, many people will never recover from it, I know.

And since I am not the only person who has experienced something violent I cringe at the thought of it happening to another person. I honestly feel heartache for people who have to go home after being attacked, they have to wake up in the morning and try to live their llives, they have to try to get on with their lives, but it is soo difficult.

This is why I hate violent criminals, and why I have absolutely no sympathy for them. But that being said, I do not wish violence upon violent criminals. I would like violent criminals to removed from society, if they decided to live an anti-social life (by being a violent criminal) then why try to reintroduce them into society after their prison sentence? Why risk it? Why must people who are not violent criminals put up with people with violent criminal backgrounds?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:18 pm

Lektrogirl wrote:
A lot is starting to make sense to me. You really, really, absolutely abhor violence, don't you, in all its forms? At least, against non-criminals. You see no place for violence in the world, do you?
32, I'm not sure what tone you meant this as, but yes, you are correct.

Well, if I had to name the tone, it would be somewhere between "puzzled" and "enlightened." I find the idea itself a little strange, but at least I'm beginning to understand how you feel.

Violence, even against criminals is wrong. I know you are going to think that I contradicted myself, but I never said that that boy in Singapore should have been beat, I just had a problem with how the American government intravened on his behalf.

Well, I do think you're contradicting yourself, yes. Is it not right for someone to intervene if they see something wrong happening? [Let's leave the insane hypocracy of the US government objecting to this action out of it for the moment.]

Also, they had every right to step in. It is incredibly common, in international relations, to not allow punishments against your own citizens that they could not face in their own country. It is a little like France refusing extradition of American criminals if they are going to face the possibility of the death sentance.

My point about the boy was that if someone is willing to commit a crime they should be ready for the punishment and not expect special treatment, or they shouldn't try to beg for a reduced sentence.

What if you don't agree with the "rightness" of the law? Or the rightness of the punishment? I'm not challenging, just inquiring.

32, do you think I am being childish for not believe in violence? Surely, I know the world isn't perfect, the world will always have violence, but at the same time it's good (in my opinion) that some people abhor violence.

I do think you're being childish for not believing in violence, yes; violence will always and should always have a role in human relations. It is the ultimate last step. If you want to get through a door that I am blocking, you can ask me to move. If I refuse, you can try to convince me to move. If I refuse, you can try to threaten me into moving. If I refuse, you can attempt to sneak through. If I stop you, all that is left is the use of force. Without it, we lose a number of options we could otherwise have for getting what we want. In addition, unless everyone abandons violence, it is crippling to abandon it yourself. They will always be able to triumph over you, because they have an option you do not.

At the same time, I agree that it's good that some people - like yourself - abhor violence. There are far too many people in the world who escalate immediately from desire to force, and the world needs a balance; Hitler on one side, Ghandhi on the other.

This is why I hate violent criminals, and why I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

I know a fellow who's a violent criminal. His mother drank when she was pregnant with him, and he, as a consequence, has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. He is senselessly violent. He will simply be talking to you one moment, and then attack you the next, for no reason. He likes it.

He didn't ask for this. He didn't do anything wrong. His affliction was forced on him by someone else's responsibility. True, he hasn't sought treatment, but that itself is part of his affliction.

Can you feel no sympathy for persons like this? What about violent criminals who themselves are victims of violent crime? Can you feel no sympathy for someone who was beaten every day by their father and who themselves turns to violence?

I would like violent criminals to removed from society, if they decided to live an anti-social life (by being a violent criminal) then why try to reintroduce them into society after their prison sentence?

Is that, then, the reason behind prison? To keep violence away from the nonviolent populace?

∞ · Post by **∞** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:37 pm

Cazmonster wrote: No no, wouldn't hurt my dad. My dad's about the nicest guy ever to come out of Galesburg. I'd go hurt the Drill Sargeant who turned my dad into an asshole for a number of my formative years.

Technically, the comment still stands, though. Lead pipes and bulldrekker fathers are a combo in some way or another.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:19 am

Also, Lektro, you obviously have some basic assumptions that are very different from mine:

Some people think spanking = violence. I don't. They can coincide, but don't have to.
Some people think spanking = pain. It usually does, but not always. It's also about getting attention.
Some people think pain = violence. Not always. Ask sinsual.

These things certainly can and do overlap, but to make the blanket assumption that one neccesitates the other is a mistake.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 7:03 am

Very good clarifications there, Bethy... there doesn't have to be a link between any of the elements, necessarily.

I do think you're being childish for not believing in violence, yes; violence will always and should always have a role in human relations.

I don't know that I'd say childish, myself. Perhaps 'naive' or 'idealistic' or 'wrongheaded'. As you say, 32, we're always going to have violence as part of society. We are, after all, animals. Using every tool at our disposal to achieve our ends isn't necessarily barbaric or primitive; one could easily say it's just efficient.

(And whether or not you believe in violence... does violence believe in you?)

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 11:45 am

Jestyr wrote:
3278 wrote:I do think you're being childish for not believing in violence, yes; violence will always and should always have a role in human relations.
I don't know that I'd say childish, myself. Perhaps 'naive' or 'idealistic' or 'wrongheaded'. As you say, 32, we're always going to have violence as part of society. We are, after all, animals. Using every tool at our disposal to achieve our ends isn't necessarily barbaric or primitive; one could easily say it's just efficient.

Well, I wouldn't have said childish, either, but she said it first.

I would agree more with naive than with childish; after all, children believe quite firmly in violence quite often.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:31 pm

Wherever possible, in fact.

Lektro, I'd still be interested to know if you consider any physical gesture to be 'violence' if it makes contact with the other person. Beating your child is violence, yes. But as Bethy pointed out - and others have before him - spanking is not necessarily intended to deliver pain. Sometimes it's merely a physical expression of parental disapproval.

I suppose I'm just interested to know where you consider 'violence' to begin.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 2:23 pm

Violence starts as soon as you say, "Eat glass and die", or something to that effect. Violence isn't simply swinging a fist into someone's head, chest or genitalia, there's a lot more to it than that. Physical violence is just an aspect of the whole picture.

Hell, I'm violent on these forums all the monkey time, slightly less so with the monkey intervention, which seems to be working.

Psychological violence can be far worse than any damn fist if you play your cards right. There is a reason that I have a lot of people who are very scared of me, and it's not because I go around to their houses with crowbars (or, lead pipes for their fathers as the case may be), but because when push comes to shove, I can be what many have reffered to as evil.

I find it funny, many others don't.

I've had people in tears, and even developing psychological disfunctions because of hoops that I've made them jump through. I'm not a nice person, period. Sometimes I've even told someone moments before I do something horrid that I'm going to go and do it. Still manages to hit home, just another way of lowering the guard.

Do I run out and hit a lot of people? Hell no. I hardly touch anyone, for various resons. One is that no one in their right mind will fight me, because I'm well built, and the other is that a punch only lasts until it heals. Stealing someone's girlfriend and convincing her that their old boyfriend of how ever many years is pure scum that isn't worth of the heal of their boot and that they should flee to higher ground lasts a lot longer, and when they try to speak out against her saviour, their entire social group crumbles.

That was fun.

Violence isn't a punch, as that can be bloody well merciful. Where does the line of violence start, and I mean really start? And can you claim that you're not violent when you draw the bow string back to the origins?

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 2:36 pm

Well, that's true, but psychological violence is even harder to define than physical violence. I've seen people involved in interpersonal relationships that I'd consider horrifically destructive, but they don't seem to really suffer at all.

I guess the difference is that when it comes to physical violence, our nerve endings respond to pretty much the same stimuli, in pretty much the same way. (With the exception of differing thresholds, obviously.) Pain is pretty much pain, whichever way you look at it, and most people can agree on definitions of what pain and physical violence are; the only debate seems to be about where the arbitrary boundary lies.

Psychological/emotional violence, on the other hand, is (IMO) a /lot/ more variable, just because human personalities vary so widely.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 2:53 pm

Physical violence is very variable also. I've hit people in passing and thought nothing of it, and beaten arms and bon against others without being violent in my workings. Pain thresholds and intent change that also.

It's just as hard to define, only people like to think that violence is simple and easy to measure. Psychological violence isn't explored as easily, because just about everyone has dished it out and it's not something that a lot of people feel comfortable with exploring. Coul dbe other reasons, but that's my take. No one wants to admit to being a bastard if they can help it.

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:16 pm

I don't know that I'd say childish, myself. Perhaps 'naive' or 'idealistic' or 'wrongheaded'.

Naive I can handle, idealistic I would say is a compliment, but wrongheaded? You’d consider it wrongheaded to not believe in violence? So you are stating that my opinion is wrong?!

(And whether or not you believe in violence... does violence believe in you?)

What the heck does that mean?

I would agree more with naive than with childish; after all, children believe quite firmly in violence quite often.

Not all children, but yes, I get your point.

Lektro, I'd still be interested to know if you consider any physical gesture to be 'violence' if it makes contact with the other person.

No, I don’t consider any physical gesture to be violent, someone can push me and I won’t get upset, it depends on the purpose or feelings behind it. This is one of the reasons why I have not formed an opinion of the fight clubbing that Elf does, that and the facts that not only does it not consider an innocent victim, but both people are willing participants in it.

Physical violence is just an aspect of the whole picture.

Well, on this board I am only talking about physcial violence for now.

Psychological violence can be far worse than any damn fist if you play your cards right.

I agree, in fact I would say that at times the physical can be just one aspect of the broader psychological attack on a person.

Violence isn't a punch, as that can be bloody well merciful. Where does the line of violence start, and I mean really start? And can you claim that you're not violent when you draw the bow string back to the origins?

I understand what you mean, and yes, I can say that I am not violent.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:51 pm

Naive I can handle, idealistic I would say is a compliment, but wrongheaded? You’d consider it wrongheaded to not believe in violence? So you are stating that my opinion is wrong?!

I don't think you are being wrongheaded in this case. I think idealistic is much more suited. However...

It is very possible for opinions to be wrongheaded. When you hold opinions that run counter to presented facts and experienced reality or when you hold opinions that will lead to unnecessary harm or loss... I think those opinions can rightly be construed as wrongheaded.

And aside from that... wrongheaded is simply one person's opinion of your opinion. They are just as valid in thinking that as you are in having your thought in the first place.

Sorry to go on, but you just seemed so indignant that she would voice an opinion about your opinion. That's what happens when you speak your mind.

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 9:00 pm

Okay, well, I took "wrongheaded" to mean something a bit different. We can move on past it though, no problem.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 10:26 pm

Naive I can handle, idealistic I would say is a compliment, but wrongheaded? You’d consider it wrongheaded to not believe in violence? So you are stating that my opinion is wrong?!

Well, Bethy covered this one nicely, and was much more coherent in the process.

Incidentally, I didn't say I thought you /were/ wrongheaded, just that that was a way of construing your opinion. Me personally; I'm still formulating an opinion about the whole thing.

(And whether or not you believe in violence... does violence believe in you?)
What the heck does that mean?

It means that it's a part of modern society; you can't make it go away by wishing it away. And whether or not you're a pacifist, it can still (as you've found out) happen to you.

No, I don’t consider any physical gesture to be violent, someone can push me and I won’t get upset, it depends on the purpose or feelings behind it.

Okay. So what about a parent spanking a child, where the parent is not doing it to 'train their child through pain' but as a gesture of their disapproval to signify to the child that they've done the wrong thing?

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 10:51 am

Maybe we sould define what "spanking" is (as seen by each person). We could be running around in circles and not even realize it.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:24 pm

32, do you think I am being childish for not believing in violence? Surely, I know the world isn't perfect, the world will always have violence, but at the same time it's good (in my opinion) that some people abhor violence.

I thought about that for a few minutes...at first I wrote it off as kinda stupid or nieve....but then after thinking about it, I realized exactly how much that does make sense. I mean, I'm a big supporter of the death penatly, and for looser laws on the treatment of violent prisoners.....but maybe I only feel that way because I know there are people like you to balance everything out. As long as there are both extremes, niether way will become too powerful.....If the world was ruled by people like me...it's almost certain that society would crumble into some sort of dictatorship that ruled with an iron fist. And if there were no supporters of violence in America...well then basicly there would be no more America left. But with both forces working against each other, everything stays in balance....yin and yang, or whatever. So thanks for changing my opinion on that, and giving me something to think about and roll around in my head for the next few days.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 1:38 am

PM wrote:it's almost certain that society would crumble into some sort of dictatorship that ruled with an iron fist.

Too late.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 1:42 am

haha true...but I was saying more along the lines of another Hitler or sumthing

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 2:21 am

PMWrestler wrote: haha true...but I was saying more along the lines of another Hitler or sumthing

Oh yeah, because a dictator that's obvious about it does so much more damage.