I'm one of those who flinches anytime I see a parent swat their child (abuse) in public, or even threaten them (abuse), and I'll occasionally have words with the parent if I'm especially taken aback. Of course their response is always one of indignance: "don't you tell me how to raise my fucking kid" and such. Some people just can't handle the responsibility of parenthood at the expense of their children.

PT,

"For the young child this distinction (sex vs. violence) just does not exist."

Exactly.

(so if you were disagreeing with me, I'm not sure where?)

"I'm speaking here of only the borderline cases that Msit and bubbaette referred to. "

Part of the problem is, how do you define borderline?

And, again, why do we have *no* sense of borderline in sexual abuse, but we do in physical abuse?

I wish to state--there may be a fine reason for the spectrum. I just (as usual) need the question answered.

It is quite possible that a brief sexual touch to a 2-year-old is no more or less traumatic than a spank. Does that make the sexual touch less bad, or the spank worse?

ptboya

Well, I agree that this is like pornography, and that area, for regulation, law, oversight, sucks big time (bad pun alert). There is little or no consensus about what the gray areas of pornography are, and consequently we are embarrassingly ineffectual in grappling with the issue. It becomes political.

Unless we are willing to put some parameters around child abuse, even if slightly contrived, our ability to protect children and to affect their lives is very limited.

Kurt,

Yes. I get ill. And have had the same lecture given when I intervene.

It's comforting knowing I'm not the only one. (g)

I don't know guys. One of my sisters has never spanked her kids -- she gives then "time-outs". Another used the rubber band sparingly, as I mentioned earlier. My third sister will use an occasional swat on the but.

The fist sister, who uses only time outs, has a daughter who must be physically restrained during her time outs, or there's no such thing. This neice, though she's never had a spanking, will hit other kids and has an ungodly screech when she doesn't get her way. Her brother is practically the same -- unruly and quite unpleasant to be around.

My other sisters' kids are well-behaved, listen to their parents, and can usually be trusted. Personally, I think letting a child run amok with no respect for his parents or others is child abuse that has lasting effect as the child grows older.

It will be helpful if we do not confuse common varieties of parenting style with "abuse"...let's not trivialize a severe problem. Anal intercourse with a two year old is sexual abuse...spanking is a parenting style and not per se abuse.

Bubba,

"Personally, I think letting a child run amok with no respect for his parents or others is child abuse that has lasting effect as the child grows older."

No argument. It doesn't ever require spanking, though.

I'm not arguing that *not* hitting your kid is a guarantee of a healthy upbringing.

But too many people equate hitting with discipline. Nothing to do with it, in fact.

PP,

"Anal intercourse with a two year old is sexual abuse...spanking is a parenting style and not per se abuse."

Yes, but you just took ONE end of the sexual abuse spectrum and compared it to the OTHER end of the physical abuse spectrum.

My question was sexual touching of a two year old compared to a spank.

Bring up anal intercourse and then lets compare it to a parent who has lost control with an angry willful toddler and starts whaling away, whacking at hands, face, body, pushing them against the wall.

If you find one okay and the other not--why?

And would the two-year-old be okay with one and not the other?

And if you find neither of them okay, then let's just stick to comparing relevant points on the spectrum.

Does hitting a child, or any other person for that matter, command respect?

Kurt,

Now see, I'm off to the shrink and it gets interesting. (g)

Hold the fort, guy.

To me, the concept of teaching a child *anything* by hitting them other than "big and powerful wins out" is a pointless exercise.

PP reMessage #206

Well, yes, that was my original point. If *everything* is within the domain of child abuse, then it becomes impossible to differentiate the heinious from the uncomfortable. Impossible to define harm with any degree of conviction.

Cal

I may not be the best judge cause I have no children. However, I found out the first day when my little black beast came to live with me that positive reinforcement/praise or treats for doing well gets much better results than smacking the poor pup.

PP:

It seems to me that physical abuse constitutes any act of violence inflicted onto any party by another. This would, of course, include spanking. If spanking is a 'parenting style', then it's an abusive parenting style and should be changed. Children have just as much right to their personal space and well-being as anyone, and to think otherwise is demeaning.

Kurt...you make good points about physical punishment and respect...however, child rearing is a complex activity that can , at least in most cases, be judged by results...many children are spanked but are yet loving and mature adults who maintain close relationships with their parents...there are no simple ansewers here...I just do not think that spanking alone is child abuse. In my own case, I never spanked or hit...my oldest is 6' 5'', 215 pounds...we talk, we do not hit. This style is not what some prefer...most parents think they raise their children the "right" way...I suppose we all can't be right.

Spanking (of a young child) should not automatically be classified as child abuse, but it can certainly be abusive if indulged in too frequently. I believe that, on rare occasions, it can still serve as a useful corrective with many (not all) children. Time outs are certainly to be preferred in most instances.

Re. 202 -

Wrt sexual touching or non-sexual spanking of a two year old child, it's not what the child thinks of the contact (after all, the kid's only two years old, come on!), it's what's in the *parent's* mind that may constitute the problem.

Kurt

Does hitting command respect? Depends on your milieu. Certainly not here. But other places require a physical act of violence, as do other people. Ask a cop, or a bouncer.

As for children, I'll be self-revelatory. I was given the belt as a child. Usually for particularly heinous acts (I hit my brother with a 2x4, punched holes in the wall with a hammer, scared my mother with live locusts, burned the back steps down). It was not regular. But it was an issue. At least with my Dad (my Mom tried to spank, but that was hilarious - she didn't have the heart).

And I feared him up until I was 15, when physical stuff was not really appropriate. And, honestly, at a time when I was running wild (they were divorced), that fear 1) gave my Mom some leverage she otherwise would not have had and 2) kept a bit of a lid on my extracurriculars.

The upshot being, I guess I'm an example of someone who received occasional - not regular - physical punishment, and it seemed reasonable at the time, as it does now. Catholic neighborhood. It was a quick and effective way to maintain order.

"we talk, we do not hit. This style is not what some prefer"

This is true, unfortunately, and seems strange to me. Do these parents not value the intelligence of their children, or their capacity to learn through communication? I agree with Cal that 'might is right' isn't really the best message to deliver (it may have worked for Ragnarok, but that was some time ago). And, yes, I've known families who routinely engaged in knock-down drag-out brawls who otherwise got along...does that make the brawls any more acceptable? I agree there are no simple answers or solutions, and I expect there will be small parents doing ugly things as long as humans walk the earth. Just don't ask me to approve.

And just how screwed up are you 109?

Personal testimony please.

Really, though, the issue for me is less in the area of physical violence anymore, as I said, we can define with somewhat more clarity, what constitutes abuse, or at least arrive at some consensus.

The area totally out of control for me, wrt definitional, is emotional abuse. I can envision a child who was never hit, but who is a basket case because of the *way* he/she was manipulated or even controlled verbally by parents. The most vivid example of such insidiousness is Nurse Rachet in One Flew over the Cucko's Nest. Now that is a scary person, and infinitely more difficult to observe or identify.

Kurt...from a personal view, we are on the same page...during the teenage years one must be able to infuence thru interpersonal communication, and "spanking" does not encourage the development of this. Also, I find the striking of a child by an adult to be humliating to all, and ineffective in both the short and long term. Most do not agree with me, and I am not fool enough to advise others.

109:

Believe it or not, I worked as a bouncer a few years back. Got hit a few times, but never hit anyone. A good defensive sleeper hold is much more effective, safe, and humiliating to the other party.

Bubbaette...

Perception of the child is *often* the key, whatever is in the minds of the adult. Identically appearing situations can cause markedly different results...mostly because any definition by objective means falls short when describing subjective responses.

CG...

I understand you to be saying that society's moral distinctions between sex and violence cause people to think sexual abuse is worse. This interpretation, while valid, doesn't address the victims' problems. Of course, abuse of any kind is traumatic, you and I know that first-hand. I'm just saying, and this is backed up by discusions I've had with a shrink friend with years of experience treating abuse victims, is that the workthrough is often (let's say...on average) more difficult for sexually abused people because of the confusion engendered by the pleasure factor.

MsIt

My screwed-up-edness is for others to determine. That is the beauty of an inability to reflect on oneself.

I am now officially late for the shrink.

", it's not what the child thinks of the contact (after all, the kid's only two years old, come on!), "

Yes, actually, it is.

As I said, one of the more important things a child has to learn is about his or her boundaries. Either of these is a boundary invasion to a child and is shocking. If you subtly give the message that hitting is okay, what happens then?

I agree that not all physical abuse causes long-term emotional damage.

But if touching a two-year-old's penis is sexual abuse, then why isn't spanking a two-year-old physical abuse?

It is our comfort with physical violence that I'm questioning.

Kurt--I completely agree with 217.

Kurt

Retraction. Cops and prison guards.

Ms IT

You can tell from the results. When a friend of mine is angry or upset, he speaks in a Massachusetts accent just like his dad's. He used to berate himself in a Mass accent (unintentional) when something went wrong til I told him to stop talking to my friend like that. It's almost like he was verbally abusing himself before his dad could get around to it.

Pt,

"I'm just saying, and this is backed up by discusions I've had with a shrink friend with years of experience treating abuse victims, is that the workthrough is often (let's say...on average) more difficult for sexually abused people because of the confusion engendered by the pleasure factor.'

I'm not sure I agree. Remember, too, that sexual abuse often causes you to have problems with sex, among other things, so you're likely to visit a shrink.

If you don't end up a violent criminal, physical abuse gives you problems with anger and control (either fearing anger or giving into it). Less likely to visit shrink. So numbers may be skewed.

Bubbaette, et al

It's too late if we wait til they're grown up. The murky part comes in trying to define it to protect children, to include as a form of child abuse.

For many of us, we will live to find out if we are "right" by the quality of adult relations we have with our offspring...I encourage all to listen more than spout within the confines of child rearing philosophies and styles.

Ms,

It's actually the same rules.

Respect a child's boundaries. The problems with emotional abuse come when this doesn't occur. Either by abusive neglect (giving them no boundaries) or some form of overcontrol.

Ms IT

I agree it's too late when the proof's in the pudding. Maybe we're back to talking about merit-based licensure for prospective parents.

109:

Cops and prison guards undergo thorough training designed to allow them to restrain a violent offender efficiently. If things go awry, they are equipped with mace, stun-guns and the like, the implementation of which is also prescribed and rehearsed. Personally, I have no respect for a cop who needlessly oversteps those boundaries.

No one has yet to clearly articulate what constitutes emotional abuse. I think it's becoming necessary.

Kurt,

That's funny--I was just having a conversation the other day in which I said cops should be like parents. And right now, more of them are like abusive parents than I'd like.

Kurt

You asked - does hitting command respect? The answer, for many hittees, is yes. Especially criminals.

Moreover, it commands respect when you hit in self-defense, or to defend another. It commands respect even to hit when needlessly provoked. I know the "Destry Rides Again" credo of no violence. It is a nice credo to have, but I think it is a minority view, and for most people, they can think of many situations where a good smack is appropriate and commands respect. I got no real beef with that, although I am a complete physical coward and prefer groveling and sand in my face.

Re. 223 -

CalGal -

I suspect that traditional spanking of a child as young as two years old, or one who who is much older than ten years old is is not a good idea for reasons that don't justify/condemn physical punishment as a whole.

But why would a rare swat on the rear be any more objectionable than, say, pulling the child by the arm, or holding his/her chin to make the child pay attention, or any other physical contact or restraint that the child might object to? Note also that I absolutely do no condone striking a child in any other way.

ahem: 'do not'

109:

I tend to doubt that many criminals have much 'respect' for the cops that beat them. They may submit, but I doubt any real lesson is learned. Defensive violence is the only time violence is in any way appropriate, and I'm all too aware of the fact that that's a minority POV (hence my three golden rules of defensive violence: eyes, throat, & testicles...saves all that stupid puffing and posturing time).

Um, I have a question?

What if we ever have to go to war again? I mean, who will fight if you people get your way?

This country has been made and kept great by the generations of children raised by the law of the switch and belt. You want to raise a bunch of ninnies? A bunch of hugging, feel good cherubs with ideals and dreams that will never happen or come true?

I say this will be death of us. This and, the recents attempts at getting people to eat less bacon. We won WWII because of bacon.

Kurt

I disagree, but it may be a definitional problem. I tend to doubt that most hardened criminals have respect for anything, but, to the extent they do respect something, it is probably a physical deterrent.

Your position on violence is laudable, if not easily transferrable. I always took Pop's advice - "look, you are going to get you ass kciked. It is inevitable. So, hit him at the beginning as hard as you can, and then, you'll have gotten one good shot in." He was right.

UCS:

Ah, bacon. You know, in the late 17th century, strips of pork fat wrapped in muslin were affixed to the heads of psychiatric patients in order to draw the demons out of their brains and into the cloaven-beast's meat. The strips were then quickly fried so as to seal the offending spirits in forever. When somebody discovered that the strips also made a tasty treat, the world's love affair with bacon was born. Sweet, sweet bacon.

Um...sorry.

Okey dokey

what *do* you do with the six year old when your tried reasoning, tried lecturing, tried time out but would have to physically restrain her, tried revoking privileges which will only work as long as you have her physically in your sight? This is a child who's never been spanked.

UCS

Your post may very well be ironic, but I agree - we are raising ninnies. But that is what you get from a generation of folks who were saved from service by the bomb, only to grow up and protest against it.

I sat in as an ump for my nephew's t-ball game. They don't keep score. Self-esteem in spades.

Bubber

I'd lock her in her room.

Or spank her. The shock will last or three months and then you won't have to get into pain later.

Or, sell her.

bubbaette:

Destroy her television.

109109,

Ninnies is right, I'd like to see some Montesory School pansies compete in a rugby match against some New Zealanders....

mmm....bacon....

What I do is refuse to babysit ever again, at least til she's 21.

UCS

I've got my dough on St. Dirk Bogarde of the Holy Poker.

Is this a "how to" thread?

bubbaette,

Another viable alternative is to just let her have her way, for now, and then punish her later, when she's old enough to really appreciate it.

Bubbalah

In that instance, what you're dealing with is a child who has been given no limits, doesn't know the meaning of the word "no", and has learned how to get her way by acting out. It's pitiful. Nothing you do will fix that, the task is up to her parents. Not babysitting the child until she's 21 is the wisest course of action, IMHO.

cllrdr,

Or a How "Not" To Thread, depending on what kind of counrty you want to be living in when you're old and gray.

Just call me a "bleeding-heart liberal" (almost an endearment as far as some Fraysters are concerned) but it seems to me that love and serious consideration work every time - unless you're dealing with a clinical psychotic. My boyfriend and I have been key figures in the life of a single-mother friend of ours. The child (adopted) who we've known since she was 1 1/2 is currently 9. Her mother has done a magnificent job of raising her. The most important element has been the fact that she has always treated her daughter as a human being rather than a fashion acessory. As a result, there's a bond between adult and child that cannot be broken by anyone or anything. It sounds simple but it's not. Child-rearing is a full-time occupation. The rewards, however, are incalculably wonderful.I don't think she has ever had to raise a hand against her daughter -- save for a minor swat in extreme circumstances. When the child crosses the line, she is deprived of privileges. This deprivation is far more devestating than any physical altercation. More important -- it works.

Those who arbitrarily reject spanking fail to acknowledge that:

1) It's nearly impossible to actually injure a child this way.

2) Children will *not* pick up this behavior to inflict on other children, which is not the case with other forms of physical restraint or correction that a parent might use.

3) When used judiciously and only on occasions of egregious misbehavior, it can assist in forming a impressionable child's moral sensibilities.

Diva

In this case I fear you are right. For the parents, "no" means "well maybe, if you act obnoxious enough". The real shame is that the girl is a genius. She's 9 now and has outgrown two music teachers, can play any instrument she touches and sings like an angel. I just can't stand to be around her.

I'd say there's a wee bit of conflation going on here. Is child abuse really comparable to punishment of criminals? C'mon guys, y'all need a swift kick. Abuse of children is in a totally different category than disciplining, though the bounds of one may encroach on the other. Discipline is sometimes used to justify physical abuse...but never sexual abuse.

I agree with Msit that emotional abuse must be defined. It is the emotional aspects of all abuse that remain long after the physical abuse has healed.

Thomas:

My rejection of spanking is anything but arbitrary. Also, your first two points are irrelevant, while your third may be true. The problem is that the moral impression is skewed.

Mondaugen,

What about the bacon?

Re. 256 -

Really? I've never heard of any epidemics of schoolyard spankings. Wrt to injury to the child, an insensate brute might injure a child by spanking, but I'm referring to concerned parents, not humanoid beasts.

To me emotional abuse is the constant undermining of the child's self-esteem. I hesitate to use the term self-esteem, since it's been so over-used lately, but a parent shouldn't assert authority by crushing the kid's spirit.

The thing that makes me cringe about seeing parents "discipline" their kids in public is not the smack on the butt for the kid who's acting out in the check-out line, but to hear a parent holler at an already timid child -- "you're so stupid", or "can't you do anything right", or hollering at the kid in front of his friends.

Kurt -

Could you elaborate on how you feel the moral universe of a child is skewed if spanking is *ever* employed in his or her upbringing, since it does not encourage violence?

Bubber

You hit the nail on the head. If you know your parents love you and support you, you are better equipped when they take a swat or you incur their wrath. Of course, many abusers constantly pledge their love, but I'm talking practiced and preached within the context of moderate corporal punishment.

Cellar,

Exactly. Nice post, btw.

Diva,

I agree--as a parent, there is much you can do to fix the child Bubba describes. As a babysitter, stay the heck away.

Niner,

"Of course, many abusers constantly pledge their love, but I'm talking practiced and preached within the context of moderate corporal punishment."

And just how exactly do you *know* your parents love you if they hit you?

I understand what you're saying, but what parents think their kids know and what they actually know about love are often quite different.

PT,

Blows my mind, still, to see you say "Discipline is sometimes used to justify physical abuse...but never sexual abuse."

I would say that your dad thought he was disciplining you.

I wonder about what what people think of 'shaming' a child who has *wilfully* mistreated other children, damaged property, or clearly behaved in an unacceptable manner.

Is it *always* wrong? Is it sometimes justified when an otherwise normal child misbehaves? Or is there some right for a person never to be embarrassed by his or her actions, regardless of what they are, throughout childhood *and* adulthood?

109

I think you see that kind of thing in spouse abuse as well, where the abusers says things like "you're nothing" "nobody else would have you", and "look what you made me do to you now". People often wonder why abused spouses stay with their abusers. I suspect part of the answer is they've been brainwashed into believing they're getting what they deserve.

Same with an emotionally abused child -- they're afraid to say or do anything that might set off another torrent of abuse -- like if they can just learn to act or talk or look right, their parent will be happy and approving. Then you're afraid to try anything for fear of making a mistake and live by little increments of thought and movement waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Cal

No doubt, you risk when you choose a physical course of action. I guess there is no guarantee that the child will know. Where I grew up, all I can offer is that we all pretty much got hit - not abused, but hit on occasion - and, as far as I knew, we took it with the territory. FWIW, which may not be a whole lot.

Bubb:

#225 is SPOOKY!

My dad had little Italian pet names for each of us kids. My younger brother, who has always been neurotically averse to manual labor, and so would never finish any chore if he could get away, was known as "mezza coola" (half-ass). We, of course, knew what it meant, but none of my bro's friends did, and we would never interpret for them. So, when he was about 10 he acquired the nickname "Mezz", and he always hated it. He's 34 now, and most of his friends still call him "Mezz".

Cat touched on something (probably accidentally), when he said that we are all abused. I guess it depends upon your point of reference: Bubb's friend's talking to himself is surely evidence of a father who used belittlement as a "parenting" tool, and there were obviously some serious self-esteem problems as a result.

My dad used spanking, but only with me. I was the oldest boy out of 6 kids, and I truly believe that what kept my younger siblings in line was seeing what happened to me when I got out of line.(My older sister never did anything wrong, so the lesson would have been wasted on her). And, as in Niner's family it was a very effective control tool. When Joey got swatted, *everyone* would be an angel for a week. At a pretty early age, I realized my role as the family example, and even relished it. My father would always do something special for me within a few hours of a good spanking, and I truly never feared him, nor did I hold a grudge. I don't believe I suffered any ill effects from the spankings. Go figure.

Tommy,

"I wonder about what what people think of 'shaming' a child who has *wilfully* mistreated other children, damaged property, or clearly behaved in an unacceptable manner."

There's a difference between shaming and providing consequences for inappropriate behavior.

Another CalGal parenting mantra: "I love you, I'm not happy with your behavior right this very moment."

JoeZan

Sorry dude, I think it's kinda shitty that your dad used you as the whipping boy for your sibs.

Tommy,

BTW, I agree with Kurt's assessment of #1 and #2 of Message #253, but I don't see that it can assist in a way that will help develop a child's moral sensibilities.

Certainly not in any way that can't be accomplished without spanking.

Niner,

"No doubt, you risk when you choose a physical course of action. "

Yes. You do. As you say, it is possible to be physically abused but not emotionally abused and grow up reasonably fine. (o llamaloving nippleclamped sex lawyer)

However, since it's also possible that, as a parent, you can get out of control and do the wrong thing, why risk? This is a child we're talking about.

Why not just decide not to hit and teach discipline, self-control, and boundaries the difficult way--with patience and consistency?

Remember every time you spank your child, you're taking the easy way out. There is *always* a better way.

Joe,

I'm with bubba.

What's amazing is how many people can cheerfully describe childhood experiences that didn't bother them that get me ill.

Niner's story didn't thrill me all that much either.

I'm sorry, but I really think our comfort with violence has to do with some of this casual acceptance of physically hurting children. For any reason.

I suspect that people who are adamantly opposed to spanking under any circumstance base this assumption on the idea that all corporal punishment is nothing more than a relic of a dark and evil past that should be rejected asap. 'Enlightened' people will begat 'enlightened' children, and our mammalian heritage will be replaced by a new age of progressive societal cooperation which will find a sufficient grounding on the newest ideas, which can be relied upon to be better than the ideas they are replacing. Well, I'm here to say that it's not quite that simple.

Re. 270 -

CalGal -

Well, if you have the money to take the kid to a shrink, that might qualify as the 'better way' that you can rely upon. Guess it's just too bad for the rest of us that most of America isn't that well to do.

Oh? Enlighten us, ThomasD. Your parents didn't beat you and you're still screwed up?

Thomas

Do you spank your children, and if so, for what type of offenses?

Tommy,

"Well, if you have the money to take the kid to a shrink, that might qualify as the 'better way' that you can rely upon. "

It's because I don't *want* my kid to need a shrink that I don't spank him. You can't imagine I rush my kid to the shrink when he disobeys me.

No.

*I* rush to the shrink when my kid disobeys me.

Seriously, I'm just saying that consistent discipline and loving behavior will accomplish far more than spanking.

You're right, though. Not everyone can afford a shrink.

Only us rich single moms.

(ZAP!!!!!)

Re. 274 -

bubbaette -

As a matter of fact, my parents didn't lay a finger on me after the age of five. Sorry about my slightly cynical approach to the trendiest ideas.

Tommy,

I don't think not hitting your children is a trendy idea. In fact, recently, some shrinks are starting to feel that parents who are too lax with their kids *should* spank them. Which is stupid, but puts *you* on the trendy side of the spectrum, sugarpie.

Bubb / CalGal:

I won't argue with your feelings about what people's motivations may be - nor would I defend my dad's actions. In fact, were I to be privy to another family's secrets, and observed a *different* dad doing the same thing, I would most certainly (understanding what I do now about child-rearing), be horrified. But I am in a different world than I was in as a child.

This is what I meant by "it depends on your point of reference". Then, it was not unusual for me, or anyone in my Catholic neighborhood, to witness other children getting spanked, smacked accross the face, etc., by any number of adults,for minor transgressions. Compared to most of the kids I knew, my dad was downright tame, and that's not an exageration.

TomD

okey dokey

JoeZan

I know what you mean. I think my mom used physical punishment with a bit more zeal and enjoyment than was necessary or desirable. I don't think that I'm irreparably screwed up and I don't smack my neices and nephews. Instead I spoil them terribly so their parents have to deal with it when they get home. The worst thing I ever did was teach my 3-year old neice how to make a noise like she was coughing up a hair ball cause her dad was teaching her to be all prissy.

Re. 278 -

CalGal -

If you can successfully raise children without ever raising your hand to them, then you certainly have my congratulations. Many people are not so, shall we say, 'resourceful', and I was just trying to point out that there still is a place in discipline (a necessarily infrequent place for a positive effect, it most be noted) for spanking for some people for some children.

Sorry to interrupt, but, since everyone is here, could you do me a favor and check your e-mails to see if you have a message from Slate? I got a message a little while ago, expressing the managements regrets that I have chosen to end my script to Slate (which I didn't), and I'm wondering if anyone else got one.

Thomas

Cal *talked right over me* (pushy P) and so you probably didn't hear me.

Do you spank your children and if so, for what types of offenses?

This borders on the myopic. Again, the focus is on observable behaviors. The parent hits, the parent touches, the parent yells.

There are far deeper consequences to subtle emotional relations between parents and children than what any of you touch on. The unhealthy symbiotic relationships that can form, dependencies that create unhappy, insecure, passive-aggressive people.

I call them wet bunnies, these people, they can suck the life out of you faster than you can say boo. They raise children who either want to kill them or themselves. And it's almost impossible to see until the kids are older, certainly teens, often adults.

Some forms of physical violence are kinder than many forms of emotional abuse.

Tommy,

So, basically, parents who are too busy or uninvolved to focus hard on their child's upbringing are the ones that should be spanking?

Sorry.

In fact, if you *are* going to spank your kids, it should never be in anger and always be consistent. IOW, requires the same work as I'm talking about.

But most parents use spanking as the easy way out.

(BTW, I expect a nod for that "single mom" zap, dammit. You sat up and begged for it with that "doing well" crack, no?)

Ms IT

I gave my definition of emotional abuse a ways back, but the discussion is still about whether spanking is child abuse.

Re. 284 -

Diva -

I don't have any children, but have four siblings that have a total of 16, so I get all kinds of input on various approaches of managing children. If I could afford not to, I wouldn't spank a child, but I would keep it in reserve for *very* exceptional misbehavior. Almost a last resort, actually.

My parents did not spank me. Not because they thought spanking was always wrong, but because hitting me made me completely uncooperative. When I was about four I was playing at a friend's house two doors down from us. We were apparently too loud for the mother's telephone conversation. I was closest to her and she leaned down and swatted me. I was completely shocked and then I was furious. I went and gathered my toys and headed for the door. She leaned away from the phone and said "I'm not mad, you don't have to go home I just want you guys to quiet down". I gave her my best superior look and told her I was not allowed to play with people who hit.

Ms,

I was, in fact, the first one to bring up emotional abuse some time ago.

I'm not arguing with your point.

What I'm saying is that to rate and rank the abuses is ridiculous.

Sexual abuse is *not* worse than physical abuse. Which is *not* worse than emotional abuse.

And if one has a spectrum, it seems important to realize that they all do.

If I lose it with Spawn and scream at him, I've abused him emotionally. If I go back later when I'm calm and tell him that, even *if* he disobeyed me, I had no business screaming at him, I've reset his notions of what is acceptable behavior. Provided I don't create a cycle of scream/apologize/scream/apologize, the emotional abuse won't have long lasting impact.

If, OTOH, I scream at him and then later tell him that I wouldn't scream if he weren't such a little shit, then I haven't reset his standards and the abuse lasts.

And this is such a little thing compared to what abuse goes on. Many really sick people are parents. But many otherwise normal people are seriously abusing their kids emotionally (or physically) with *no* clue that they're being inappropriate. These are the ones that worry me.

Re. 286 -

CalGal -

See 288 for my personal attitude about spanking. If you believe that the average parent is untrustworthy enough to abuse it if not absolutely prohibited from spanking at all, there is a kinda sorta logic to this absolutist attitude, but I don't agree with it because I think most parents aren't quite that lacking in common sense.

Folks:

Uh...Message #283, PLEASE?

Re. 289 -

CristinO -

Well, it wasn't *your* parent that hit you. Plus, from what you say, it didn't sound like a spanking anyway. Also, this woman apparently had different ground rules for her family than your parents had for you, which you weren't accustomed to. So she certainly shouldn't have swatted you for a number of reasons.

CG: The first two things that come to mind for me are soft incest and placing the child in the role of comforter/companion/confidante which is an emotional abuse.

Nope, JoeZan, nothing in the e-mail. Do you suppose the FV is pushing you out of the nest? ;-)

Zan

No.

Calgal et al

But I do think there are rankings of abuse. I disagree that they are horrendous on the same order. I don't know what the continuum is, but I would argue that some types of sexual abuse and emotional abuse far outweight physical abuses. For one thing, they can be carried much farther and allow the child to continue existing. When physical abuse gets too extreme, the child is broken, physically, and can die.

Bubbaette

Yes, I saw and agree with your comments. I was afk for a while.

Dang...I KNEW it!

!!!Sob....

Chris,

Oh, yes.

Nothing gets me more nauseous than the little boy who is told, on the death of his father, "You're the man of the house, now."

FUCK that. And that's one most people do.

To say nothing of the single mother who shares her worries about money, etc., with her kids.

It's funny you call that "soft" incest--I've always called it "emotional incest"--elevating a child to an adult on an emotional, rather than sexual, level. Equally inappropriate, in many ways.

Tommy - As you know I have been a foster parent for quite some time. I have had kids in my home with severe behavioral problems. I can tell you that there is never a situation where a child has to be hit. If you believe that there are situations where it is necessary, you should attend parenting classes before having children or keeping your neices and nephews for an extended period. Hitting is simply not necessary. Ever.

Joe

Nope, sorry.

Thomas

Ah, okay. (Sixteen nieces and nephews? Wow, you must go broke at Christmas!) I'm comforted by knowing that you would consider spanking as a very last resort. So what would you consider very exceptional misbehavior, and how would spanking correct the misbehavior, and prevent it from reoccurring?