Post a response:
|
THIS COMES FROM A PREVIOUS POST: In general, I think that "spanking" (bending a child over, removing his clothing, and repeatedly striking the bare buttocks of) young people after the age that they have developed the ability to reason (and to be reasoned with) is counterproductive. It serves little or no real use and is likely to cause more harm than good. BUT -- when dealing with very young children (up to the age of around 4 or 5) reasoning does not work well (if at all). So, in the case of behaviors that could cause serious bodily harm to them (being hit by a car, scalding themselves with falling pots from stoves, for example) physical punishment can be very effective in eliminating the dangerous behaviors when it is done immediately after the undesired behavior (but if more than a few minutes have passed after the behavior, the effect is lost) at least, according to the best evidence available. A child up to the age of 4 or 5 will usually avoid behaviors that he/she has been physically punished for (if the physical punishment is immediate and the child clearly associates it with the behavior). BUT -- and this is essential -- the punishment should not cause any real physical harm to the child -- no bruising, no broken bones, no long-term physical damage. So what would a "mild" physical punishment be? There are experts who recommend a quick blow to the buttocks of the standing child, with an open hand, accompanied by a loud "NO!" This has been shown to work to discourage behaviors in very young children. The argument that using corporal punishment always makes the child think that violence is an acceptable way to deal with resolving conflicts with others ignores a number of realities and lacks nuance. In fact, if young people came to believe that a single swat on the behind were the acceptable way to resolve the majority of conflicts between individuals, then I think that society in general would see a lot LESS really serious violence. Imagine two men arguing in a bar. One decides to physically attack the other in an effort to dominate him. So he swats the other, with an open hand, on the other's buttocks. Which the other then reciprocates. They continue doing this until one or the other gives in. Wouldn't that be better than a fist fight? Whether people will "put two and two together" by my suggesting that a single swat on the clothed buttocks of a very young child immediately following the child having done something that threatens its life, equates to my supporting the use of force or violence to control a child's body so that I may perform sexual acts on the child only for my pleasure is, I believe, unlikely. Above I said, in effect: "I don't think that my post will cause people think that I am in favor of violence against children." I was wrong. Several posters have attacked me for "being in favor of beating children," which is false. What I am in favor of (in rare cases) I have stated above. Those who wish to accuse me of "being in favor of beating children" please include a link to this post. Thank you. M. Even when you are very clear, there are those who will twist and distort what you say. Why is that? |