Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well, if the type of material is the problem with what kids see, wouldn't a good solution be to make sure that there was pornographic/erotic content of good quality, that focused on the consensual and emotional facets of sexuality, as well?Oh right, nobody dares put that in the movies, or TV productions, or even a bare breast at a televised gala, because the censorship people have those areas pinned down. Or otherwise put: small-scale productions in the form of video clips supported by pervs is ALL that is available. The people who would consume porn of a more positive bent are convinced that they act more responsibly by not consuming any porn.
I think it's more that nobody would bother purchasing only such products. As mentioned up thread, we're a capitalist society and humans are hard wired (no pun intended) to respond to sex. That means that the media is catering to demand, not trying to force supply. When the media does attempt to force supply, it usually comes out as an over earnest documentary that rarely, if ever, achieves commercial success.
Anyway, the acceptance of the ramifications of the theory of natural selection (which is where all this being walking gonads comes from) does, indeed, imply a tarnishing of the nobility of the human condition.A minority of people in the U.S. accept those ramifications, which maybe says something about people's need to think of themselves as "cool."
In case I was being unclear, I think we're a bunch of animals, one species among many. As far as that goes, we're pretty cool, what with our opposable thumbs and our large brains, but that's a far-cry from previous visions of our nobility.
I think the long march to civilization in large part has involved mankind's overcoming his natural nature. For good or bad, we'd've never gotten here if we spent all of our time playing with ourselves.
At the same time, we are all heirs to physiology, and, in our case, that means a serious urge to copulate pretty much non-stop. Sex is, all at once, a source for great physical pleasure, a potential causer of horrendous problems and the means by which our species happens to replicate. Being able to enjoy sex with much lessened chances of having your junk rot off and the ability to choose when and where to procreate seems to me a no-brainer in its awesomeness.
@Pres man: I have purposefully stayed away from 2 Girls & a Cup, and I'll make sure and do the same with your Hawaiian chimp frog, you smut-peddler. :)
|
My take on dealing with children is this: It is simple, but difficult:
1. Set reasonable expectations
2. Explain the consequences should those expectations not be met
3. Follow through when appropriate
4. Ensure child knows you still love them, it is the behavior that is unacceptableI think I fall down most frequently at #3; it shockingly easy to do with a full-time job, etc. I'm a pretty firm believer that one full-time parent (be it father or mother) is highly desirable if circumstances allow...
Agree 100%, including the difficulty (and necessity) of point 3. Never negotiate with terrorists :)
I think it's more that nobody would bother purchasing only such products. As mentioned up thread, we're a capitalist society and humans are hard wired (no pun intended) to respond to sex. That means that the media is catering to demand, not trying to force supply. When the media does attempt to force supply, it usually comes out as an over earnest documentary that rarely, if ever, achieves commercial success.
Well, if the type of material is the problem with what kids see, wouldn't a good solution be to make sure that there was pornographic/erotic content of good quality, that focused on the consensual and emotional facets of sexuality, as well?Oh right, nobody dares put that in the movies, or TV productions, or even a bare breast at a televised gala, because the censorship people have those areas pinned down. Or otherwise put: small-scale productions in the form of video clips supported by pervs is ALL that is available. The people who would consume porn of a more positive bent are convinced that they act more responsibly by not consuming any porn.
Anything vaguely resembling sex beyond kissing is censored today. Anyone watching porn is considered to be a bad person (tm). A whole segment of the population is working tirelessly to "clean" every sort of communications there is. Even a naked breast gets a ridiculous response.
It wasn't always so. A good example is the movie Titanic, made in 1997 or so, where Kate Winslet is shown naked in detail, followed by a scene where it is very clear that they had sex. Even that would not be possible today. Give it ten years or so, and holding hands will be considered indecent.
Sum total: if you censor everything that is vaguely reflective of a normal and healthy sexuality, only that which is very different and exploitative will remain, because that ALWAYS remains. If you keep saying "sex sells", why do not movies and such show any? You don't need to make it documentaries and other crap.
I am not suggesting their viewpoint is "right", merely that is how some may feel. The first step to finding a solution to a disagreement is to understand where the other person is coming from. Treating them as ignorant, superstitious, dogmatic fools isn't going to lead to a solution.
While some might have said 'stopped reading here', I will note that there is a degree of agreement in regards to understanding where originating viewpoints differ, and why; in many cases, there is plenty of room to differ and vast amounts of territory to wander in pursuit of compromise. With this in mind, there are a substantial number of, if you will, 'that side', who ARE ignorant, superstitious, dogmatic fools who will cling to their Bibles, Guns, Authoritarianism, and Self-Affirming Superiority, especially inclined towards doing exactly as I described in my prior example. My vantage point is somewhat skewed, if only due to the irksome frequency with which I've encountered said individuals in my line of work. It's a joy when I meet someone who is willing to explain that they have a view, believe others should feel the same way, can express why in ways that aren't anchored purely in theology, and can supply genuine justification for their vantage point, while understanding why others may feel differently and are willing to refrain from attempts at ad hominem. Unfortunately, that is also depressingly rare.
Look, as a white male, I can look around my society and say, "Why are all the women and minorities complaining so much. Why don't they suck it up like I do and deal." But that is because as a white male, I don't notice the problems they have because the system works for me.
Which would, to put it succinctly, explain why your views differ from mine as a black male (with just enough Native American for spice) who grew up traveling due to military family, viewing American society from a slightly externalized vantage point after living overseas for a good portion of his life. I have a personal belief that triumph is sweetest when earned without victim-hood, and as such avoid any and all things that would result in such circumstances; nevertheless, there are structural things that skew the results as though loaded dice and marked cards. Most of them are societal, structurally inserted in ways that would seem non-noteworthy until examined for what they are. The average white guy might wonder why a moderately affluent family of another ethnicity would avoid, say, a specific popular store chain that they normally frequent, assuming that the service is good enough for them - they might not have had the experience of being followed from one end of the store to another, unsubtly, by employees, or been addressed with a disdainful disregard. They may be more enlightened than their peers and not see what the big deal is about some other ethnic group moving into their neighborhood, but that's because they don't necessarily pay attention to the casual jokes and slurs some of their less-aware neighbors bandy about, or the subtext behind the bemoaning of property value perils. These are things not the fault of the average white guy, but as a rule are problems he's not going to encounter due to their structural nature. He doesn't have to put up with generic expectations of thuggish stereotyping, gender-troping of emotional irrationality coupled with monthly bleeding, orientation-assumptions of being a lisping limp-wristed weakling (or overweight, over-muscled, mullet-bearing hambeasts), theological paranoia about differing cultural laws and the expectation that the whole family models dynamite vests between plotting American deaths, or even positive things like math-ability, innate seductiveness, or martial arts prowess.
Okay, maybe that wasn't so succinct.
Of course, societal pressure to act a certain way when dealing with sexual matters isn't the same thing, but people that have a different approach than society at large feel marginalized, targeted, and under attack. Whether this is true or not, it is how they feel. Just ask homosexuals, they will tell you that society telling everyone that they should be heterosexual makes them feel marginalized.
This is one where I take not so much umbrage as issue.
I'll curtail the original rant-explosion that was previously pending, and suffice to say that I get sick and bloody well tired of the Christian Nation societal pressures, as a non-Christian. I don't want Christians to die in fires, or to be thrown to lions; I want the ones who are sanctimonious antagonists to keep their religion (or more accurately, their religiousity) out of my face, my space, and my mailbox.
Similarly, I want those I share an ethnicity with to put BET behind them, to stop acting like the stereotypes they've embraced, and help bring about the end of horrible implication that enunciating letters, dressing halfway decently, maintaining employment, and not getting into trouble with the law every other day is somehow 'acting white' - if that was what acting white was, then COPS would be a hell of a lot more boring when set in the South, where the tornado magnet dwellers roam free and blow up their shacks making methamphetamine. My homosexual peers don't want to be treated like generic comedy figures meant only to shore up the self-esteems of homely heterosexual women, for one, but also to be free to love whom they love, and receive the same legal benefits as are presumed to be held by the average heterosexual couple - the right to designate inheritance and insurance rewards to those whom they love and whom would most suffer in their loss, to be able to be at hand when tragedy arises, to receive the same considerational courtesies extended in matters of love and visas to this country, and any other number of subtle things taken for granted by people like yourself and myself who aren't mentally or orientationaly wired in that way. They also would like to be taken seriously, and seethe as much at the flamboyantly flaming queens as I do at pants-sagging ugly-shades-wearing grill-having morons with a stack of babymamas and a criminal record who spout nonsense about being 'hard'.
Marginalization happens in many ways. It most punishes those that resist it.
While we as a society have started to make improvements in the same-sex area, we are moving away from presenting humans as thinking rational beings capable of self control. Instead we push the idea that humans are just a bunch of walking sexual organs looking to connect with anything they can. I think we have lost some of the nobility of the human condition and now view ourselves as nothing more than a bunch of less hairy apes looking to jerk off with a frog.
Here, however, is where I especially take umbrage with the implied concept, and not with you - not that I have taken umbrage with you about anything save that avatar, gah*!
In your statement you, intentionally or otherwise, infer the conceit that self-control is explicitly tied to self-denial. This is not entirely accurate. Self-denial can be a PART of self-control, but it does not comprise the entirety of that concept - self-control is as much about allowing yourself indulgence as it is knowing when and where to stop. Our nobility is not inherent in being humans, nor in self-deprivation; it is what we do with our humanity, and our base human nature, sometimes in spite of it. For every Mother Teresa we have a Marquis de Sade. For every Caligula, we have a Catherine the Great. We've had Hitler and Hippies, Freedom Riders and Fascists, Celebrants and Communists and all points in between, spurred on and struck by the human condition, and their ig-/nobility wasn't based on who or what they stuck their junk in/had stuck in their junk.
The argument, more and more, appears to come down to "STOP LIKING THAT ACTIVITY UNLESS YOU ARE MAKING BABIES". Not because they dislike sex, as the Duggars clearly demonstrate, but because if dogma does not control the breeding rate and patterns, then there is an ecstatic experience that requires no theological mandate that cannot be kept controlled...and Fates forbid they find a way to have all the enjoyment, and less of the burden that is typically resultant. Gratification that doesn't carry the mandate of an additional 15-18 year investment is obviously cause for control-freaks to have a bit of a freak-out. The tragedy, to me, is the absolutism involved - the ability to manage population without the inherent complication of fornication regulation as an aggravation makes for vexation as altercation after altercation without cessation results over escalation of confrontation instead elation.
Just because people don't want people gettin' their freak on unless it's FOR spawning.
Sum total: if you censor everything that is vaguely reflective of a normal and healthy sexuality, only that which is very different and exploitative will remain, because that ALWAYS remains. If you keep saying "sex sells", why do not movies and such show any? You don't need to make it documentaries and other crap.
Your extrapolation is flawed due to an inherent misinterpretation of the premise.
'Sex sells' is not 'people balling in the open is highly profitable'.
'Sex sells' is 'this product draw the attention of the highly desirable members of the (same/opposite) gender that you are seeing in this advertisement, implying that you too will gain this gravitational pull and be rendered irresistible, thereby ensuring that you will have lots of sex'.
Alternately, 'the PROMISE of sex sells'.
It's why you have half-naked bimbos in beer commercials.
It's why diet Coke had the obligatory construction worker.
It's why certain European sports cars are referred as midlife crisis genital enhancers.
It's why push-up bras and plastic surgery and shallow and vapid and...
I'll stop. Sorry, it's something of a favored topic and major rant-source.
Sum total: if you censor everything that is vaguely reflective of a normal and healthy sexuality, only that which is very different and exploitative will remain, because that ALWAYS remains. If you keep saying "sex sells", why do not movies and such show any? You don't need to make it documentaries and other crap.Your extrapolation is flawed due to an inherent misinterpretation of the premise.
'Sex sells' is not 'people balling in the open is highly profitable'.
'Sex sells' is 'this product draw the attention of the highly desirable members of the (same/opposite) gender that you are seeing in this advertisement, implying that you too will gain this gravitational pull and be rendered irresistible, thereby ensuring that you will have lots of sex'.
Alternately, 'the PROMISE of sex sells'.
It's why you have half-naked bimbos in beer commercials.
It's why diet Coke had the obligatory construction worker.
It's why certain European sports cars are referred as midlife crisis genital enhancers.
It's why push-up bras and plastic surgery and shallow and vapid and...
I'll stop. Sorry, it's something of a favored topic and major rant-source.
I note that you not once answered my question, which was about censorship and the effects of it on portrayals of healthy sex. If you want examples to where sex is used to sell the product, try Grey's anatomy. IIRC, the shtupping percentage of episodes is way over 75%. It exists. But how come not more TV-series and movies feature sex? Generally, it's because the censorship policies make sure the product then has to be shown late at night, or only to 18/21+ olds, meaning it loses sales, i.e. not much is made.
To then complain about deviant porn being the only thing available is pretty sad.
|
Question 36. Your child is rampaging and screaming its head off in a fancy restaurant, knocking the wine off of nearby tables, and throwing silverware at the other patrons. What do you do?
(A) Yell at the child and threaten consequences you have no intention of fulfilling
(B) Beat the child into unconsciousness
(C) Smile embarrassedly at the other patrons, as if to say, "Kids will be kids!"
(D) Threaten the other patrons if they complain
(E) Other (describe in a brief essay)You are seriously saying you'd apply corporeal punishment (or is it "enhanced child-rearing techniques" nowdays?) just because you pushed a child to sit through a boring restaurant visit when the child was tired and unfocused?
... wow.
I'd like to answer this with a hearty hell yes. First off the child is throwing things at people. Unless I had never established that you don't throw things at people (unlikely) I'd take him into the restroom and spank him for acting like a brat and threaten to spank him more if he didn't quiet down. And I love your giving the child excuses, he's tired and unfocused and you took him somewhere boring. Oh no, Your right, that will never ever happen again in his childhood so I shouldn't punish him harshly.
Wow. I would say it's enough to just go home again. If you beat children, you lose all the more nuanced ways of influence you have over them. And seriously, don't take a kid to a restaurant unless it is 1) old enough, 2) wants to go, or 3) is currently in pretty good shape. If you do, and the kid acts up, blame yourself.
Sometimes you gotta beat some sense into their snot-ridden skulls.
|
|
Wow. I would say it's enough to just go home again. If you beat children, you lose all the more nuanced ways of influence you have over them. And seriously, don't take a kid to a restaurant unless it is 1) old enough, 2) wants to go, or 3) is currently in pretty good shape. If you do, and the kid acts up, blame yourself.
a) No you don't, b)spanking isn't beating.
If I took him to the restaurant it's because I wanted to go there, my kid would know better than to act up and going home capitulates to the child since his behavior clearly says he doesn't want to be there.
Don't make me get up and come beat you!
This is going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me!
Go into your father's bureau and bring me his belt!
|
|
There is a difference between a spanking and beating. Spankings are generally only useful for getting the attention of small children that are nevertheless old enough to understand what behavior the spanking is intended to correct, and should never be done in anger. I also believe that slapping a child's hand as they're reaching for a hot pot or stovetop is perfectly appropriate.
You may not believe in spankings, but to equate a spanking, which is generally a swat on the bottom, to a beating is, to me, rather combative and overly judgemental.
It is the duty of a parent to establish boundaries of good behavior for their children, and expectations that their children meet certain standards of behavior. Children will have to do things they don't want to do their entire lives. Part of raising children into good adults is teaching them how to act with grace and maturity even when they're not doing something they absolutely want to do.
|
|
There is a difference between a spanking and beating. Spankings are generally only useful for getting the attention of small children that are nevertheless old enough to understand what behavior the spanking is intended to correct. I also believe that slapping a child's hand as they're reaching for a hot pot or stovetop is perfectly appropriate.
You may not believe in spankings, but to equate a spanking, which is generally a swat on the bottom, to a beating is, to me, rather combative and overly judgemental.
It is the duty of a parent to establish boundaries of good behavior for their children, and expectations that their children meet certain standards of behavior. Children will have to do things they don't want to do their entire lives. Part of raising children into good adults is teaching them how to act with grace and maturity even when they're not doing something they absolutely want to do.
+1
Wow. I would say it's enough to just go home again. If you beat children, you lose all the more nuanced ways of influence you have over them. And seriously, don't take a kid to a restaurant unless it is 1) old enough, 2) wants to go, or 3) is currently in pretty good shape. If you do, and the kid acts up, blame yourself.a) No you don't, b)spanking isn't beating.
If I took him to the restaurant it's because I wanted to go there, my kid would know better than to act up and going home capitulates to the child since his behavior clearly says he doesn't want to be there.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I just have to weigh in here.
If you have to spank your child (and where exactly is the line between spanking and beating?) you've also lost (in reference to your assertion that you've capitulated to your child) - so has the child, so you both end up losing.There are so many other ways to discipline an unruly child other than laying hands on it, if you resort to corporeal punishment you've essentially admitted that you're at your wits end and have to resort to the crudest ways of getting the child's attention.
Research shows, though, that people who have been disciplined this way are more likely to continue the pattern with their own kids and who then knows when the line between spanking and beating is crossed?
|
|
Wow. I would say it's enough to just go home again. If you beat children, you lose all the more nuanced ways of influence you have over them. And seriously, don't take a kid to a restaurant unless it is 1) old enough, 2) wants to go, or 3) is currently in pretty good shape. If you do, and the kid acts up, blame yourself.a) No you don't, b)spanking isn't beating.
If I took him to the restaurant it's because I wanted to go there, my kid would know better than to act up and going home capitulates to the child since his behavior clearly says he doesn't want to be there.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I just have to weigh in here.
If you have to spank your child (and where exactly is the line between spanking and beating?) you've also lost (in reference to your assertion that you've capitulated to your child) - so has the child, so you both end up losing.
There are so many other ways to discipline an unruly child other than laying hands on it, if you resort to corporeal punishment you've essentially admitted that you're at your wits end and have to resort to the crudest ways of getting the child's attention.
Research shows, though, that people who have been disciplined this way are more likely to continue the pattern with their own kids and who then knows when the line between spanking and beating is crossed?
It's a pretty simple line to draw, honestly. I have been spanked. I have never been beaten. I would agree, though, that if you can't see that line, you should probably not spank your children.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I just have to weigh in here.
If you have to spank your child (and where exactly is the line between spanking and beating?) you've also lost (in reference to your assertion that you've capitulated to your child) - so has the child, so you both end up losing.
There are so many other ways to discipline an unruly child other than laying hands on it, if you resort to corporeal punishment you've essentially admitted that you're at your wits end and have to resort to the crudest ways of getting the child's attention.
Research shows, though, that people who have been disciplined this way are more likely to continue the pattern with their own kids and who then knows when the line between spanking and beating is crossed?
I don't understand this. How is it a capitulation to a misbehaving child if you smack him? It's not about saving face, it's about asserting authority.
I'm not necessarily in favor of physical discipline, but your line of reasoning isn't apparent to me.
I note that you not once answered my question, which was about censorship and the effects of it on portrayals of healthy sex. If you want examples to where sex is used to sell the product, try Grey's anatomy. IIRC, the shtupping percentage of episodes is way over 75%. It exists. But how come not more TV-series and movies feature sex? Generally, it's because the censorship policies make sure the product then has to be shown late at night, or only to 18/21+ olds, meaning it loses sales, i.e. not much is made.Sum total: if you censor everything that is vaguely reflective of a normal and healthy sexuality, only that which is very different and exploitative will remain, because that ALWAYS remains. If you keep saying "sex sells", why do not movies and such show any? You don't need to make it documentaries and other crap.Your extrapolation is flawed due to an inherent misinterpretation of the premise.
'Sex sells' is not 'people balling in the open is highly profitable'.
'Sex sells' is 'this product draw the attention of the highly desirable members of the (same/opposite) gender that you are seeing in this advertisement, implying that you too will gain this gravitational pull and be rendered irresistible, thereby ensuring that you will have lots of sex'.
Alternately, 'the PROMISE of sex sells'.
It's why you have half-naked bimbos in beer commercials.
It's why diet Coke had the obligatory construction worker.
It's why certain European sports cars are referred as midlife crisis genital enhancers.
It's why push-up bras and plastic surgery and shallow and vapid and...
I'll stop. Sorry, it's something of a favored topic and major rant-source.
My point to you had nothing to do with those, as for the most part my apathy towards the complainant platitudes was overcome by the clear and blatant misinterpretation of 'sex sells'. However, if you would prefer to have that matter addressed, then consider the following.
1) The explicitly spelled-out definition I utilized covers and addresses your complaint/kvetch about censorship, because if you truly desire that level of pedantry, there's a greater than 75% show quotient of titillation, product placement, or inference of the aforementioned existing purely for the purposes of prurient stimulation. We could start listing off shows in sequence, but the last thing I want to do is derail this thread further into 'here's the fetish fuel/perversion potential targeted towards the main and periphery demographics' a la attempting to 'disprove' Rule 34. 'Sex Sells' does not implicitly mean 'THERE WILL BE ON-SCREEN EXPLICIT NOOKIE'.
2) Those self-same censorship policies are why you see so much tertiary titillation, paraphernalia paraphilia, and fleeting fetish-shots in shows, even in shows that are not deliberately targeting a demographic. Frequently, these are called 'parental bonuses'. The vast majority of the concept of 'Sex Sells' ties into the notion of the product/service increasing the purchaser's sexual viability - what you are interpreting as the meaning applies to a much smaller, though still significant, numerical value by comparison.
To then complain about deviant porn being the only thing available is pretty sad.
On this front we agree, but that's predominantly because I'm a shameless smut-monger who has no qualms about such content in games, movies, comics, television, or other forms of media that are not targeted at a specifically younger demographic.
The negativity is a total bone-killer, though.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I just have to weigh in here.
If you have to spank your child (and where exactly is the line between spanking and beating?) you've also lost (in reference to your assertion that you've capitulated to your child) - so has the child, so you both end up losing.
There are so many other ways to discipline an unruly child other than laying hands on it, if you resort to corporeal punishment you've essentially admitted that you're at your wits end and have to resort to the crudest ways of getting the child's attention.
Research shows, though, that people who have been disciplined this way are more likely to continue the pattern with their own kids and who then knows when the line between spanking and beating is crossed?I don't understand this. How is it a capitulation to a misbehaving child if you smack him? It's not about saving face, it's about asserting authority.
I'm not necessarily in favor of physical discipline, but your line of reasoning isn't apparent to me.
It's not capitulation to a misbehaving child, it's capitulation to your own inability to discipline the child in other ways.
It's also a testament to the fact that maybe you haven't been able to assert your authority in other (non-physical) ways.If you take a "reward good behaviour" approach instead of "punish bad behaviour" the instances of bad behaviour should also drop significantly.
I have been spanked.
That's cuz you've been naughty. So very, very naughty.
I've been spanked. I've been beaten. I've been rewarded for good behavior. My siblings as well.
Even as a child I knew the difference between the 1st two.
None of us (7) have gone into the beating realm with our kids, and the rare spankings stopped pretty early on. I don't think any parent is proud of having to take it to that level.
And yes, as I became a better parent spankings became less frequent.
|
|
I'm just going to say this, Like Jess Door I've been spanked, I've never been beaten. Is spanking the only punishment to ever use, no. Is it sometimes an acceptable and appropriate, yes. In the scenario outlined above where the child is knocking over other peoples wine and throwing things at them. I'd get upset if I saw that going on at some other table and the kid didn't get spanked by his parents.
I'll also agree with Jess that if you can't tell the difference between spanking a kid and beating him, you shouldn't be doing it.
If what you want in the relationship to your child is a way to express your authority, I can only offer my condoleances.
Another, (in my eyes) better goal is to give your child enough love and attention to make them able to trust others and receive trust in return. I know, "they must learn that the world is not a friendly place" yadda yadda yadda. Believe me, they will get quite enough of the hardships without you smacking, beating, or spanking them. Violence is something you use against people who are your enemies, who want to hurt you, or the like. Your children?
|
|
If what you want in the relationship to your child is a way to express your authority, I can only offer my condoleances.
Another, (in my eyes) better goal is to give your child enough love and attention to make them able to trust others and receive trust in return. I know, "they must learn that the world is not a friendly place" yadda yadda yadda. Believe me, they will get quite enough of the hardships without you smacking, beating, or spanking them. Violence is something you use against people who are your enemies, who want to hurt you, or the like. Your children?
What I love about this is the condescending way it casually dismisses my upbringing as one of authority and without love or trust.
My parents spanked, they did so out of love. Maybe try not to be so dismissive of others ideas and choices.
If others choose to use violence against their own children, then yes, I will be dismissive. It shows a lack of imagination and an unwillingness to understand your child.
|
|
If the only tool in your parenting toolbox is yelling at your child or spanking your child, you've got some improving to do. This is not an either/or scenario.
Sometimes a spanking is appropriate. Sometimes not. Sometimes a reward is appropriate, sometimes not. Sometimes taking away a priviledge is appropriate. Sometimes not. Sometimes a speech is appropriate. Sometimes not. Sometimes indulgence is appropriate, sometimes not.
You are responsible for your child, and your child's behavior. This means you also have authority over them. This means you establish boundaries and expectations of their behavior.
Nobody has to use spankings in the discipline of their child, by any means. But not distinguishing between a spanking or a warning slap on the hand and a beating or violence against children is, in my opinion, more telling about you than about those that use spankings appropriately.
There. I'm done on that subject.
|
|
If the only tool in your parenting toolbox is yelling at your child or spanking your child, you've got some improving to do. This is not an either/or scenario.
Sometimes a spanking is appropriate. Sometimes not. Sometimes a reward is appropriate, sometimes not. Sometimes taking away a priviledge is appropriate. Sometimes not. Sometimes a speech is appropriate. Sometimes not. Sometimes indulgence is appropriate, sometimes not.
You are responsible for your child, and your child's behavior. This means you also have authority over them. This means you establish boundaries and expectations of their behavior.
Nobody has to use spankings in the discipline of their child, by any means. But not distinguishing between a spanking or a warning slap on the hand and a beating or violence against children is, in my opinion, more telling about you than about those that use spankings appropriately.
There. I'm done on that subject.
+10000 Jess I'd bet you'd make an awesome parent.
There's quite the large gulf between spanking and "doing violence".
And it's all in the intent.
It saddens me people don't understand that.
What I love about this is the way you lump "a spanking or a warning slap on the hand" (referring to when a child might hurt himself on a hot stove if you don't slap his hand) together, and on the other side "a beating or violence against children".
Spanking a child IS violence against children. A warning slap on the hand is not. Trying to equate the two is ridiculous.
And nobody uses spankings "appropriately". Just like nobody uses "enhanced interrogation techniques" appropriately.
What I think is more disturbing are the folks that contrive this "spanking = violence" garbage just so they can justify their own laziness in not disciplining their own children.
I think this more likely than any eye-opening moment of "clarity" or super-conscience.
I have friends, a married couple, that have a 4 year old boy.
They often invite me out to dinner with them, but I will not go.
Why? Becasue this child ends up running around the restraunt, sitting in vacant booths, walking up to strangers, etc. only to be yelled at accross the room with useless phrases like "First time!" or "You're making bad choices!". This happened when the child was 2. I asked the father if this happens often. His response is "He's 2. What am I supposed to do?". Spank him, I suggested. To which his mother raised a fit. I left it alone with, "Well you're his parents."
He's 4 now and still does this.
Being a parent isn't easy, but if you can't bring yourself to smack your kid's butt when he's clearly out of line, and everything you've tried failed, you'll end up with a ten year old like that, a teenager like that, and a broken adult like that.
Do us a favor, and don't breed. Save the tough choices for those that will make them.
/end rant.
Another, (in my eyes) better goal is to give your child enough love and attention to make them able to trust others and receive trust in return.
I used to teach 150 of those a year. Most of them received so much "loving attention" and so little discipline at home that they were useless, arrogant brats, egomaniacally glutted on unearned self-esteem and without any ability to focus, to DO anything for themselves, or to ackonwledge the legitimacy of anyone else's personhood.
I'd submit there's a middle ground. Kids need love and support and attention, without question. They need hard limits and discipline as well.
Either of the all-or-nothing approaches is failure.
It also seems like the "pro-spanking" advocates like to paint the opposing faction as just being namby-pampy advocates who would never discipline their kids. So no one side is really guilt-free of painting the opposition in a false light.
I just wonder, what do you do when the spanking fails? When the smack in the bottom doesn't prevent the kid from running around in the aforementioned restaurant example? Do you smack it again? Harder? More times? See where I'm going with this?
Also, if you have a kid that does that, then clearly you haven't taught it rules and boundaries at home, before going out to a restaurant, so if you'd have done that you shouldn't end up in said situation.
And please, enough of the "I was spanked as a kid and it didn't hurt me one bit as an adult! *twitch* *twitch*" "macho" nonsense. You're still spanking your kids... so as I said above, you're just continuing the pattern.
What I think is more disturbing are the folks that contrive this "spanking = violence" garbage just so they can justify their own laziness in not disciplining their own children.
Discipline requires spanking like it requires branding.
It also seems like the "pro-spanking" advocates like to paint the opposing faction as just being namby-pampy advocates who would never discipline their kids. So no one side is really guilt-free of painting the opposition in a false light.
I just wonder, what do you do when the spanking fails? When the smack in the bottom doesn't prevent the kid from running around in the aforementioned restaurant example? Do you smack it again? Harder? More times? See where I'm going with this?
Also, if you have a kid that does that, then clearly you haven't taught it rules and boundaries at home, before going out to a restaurant, so if you'd have done that you shouldn't end up in said situation.And please, enough of the "I was spanked as a kid and it didn't hurt me one bit as an adult! *twitch* *twitch*" "macho" nonsense. You're still spanking your kids... so as I said above, you're just continuing the pattern.
+ 1 million! =)
It also seems like the "pro-spanking" advocates like to paint the opposing faction as just being namby-pampy advocates who would never discipline their kids. So no one side is really guilt-free of painting the opposition in a false light.
Yes, exactly. Both extremes suck, and both start with the incorrect assumption that the other side is automatically "more" extreme.
I just wonder, what do you do when the spanking fails? When the smack in the bottom doesn't prevent the kid from running around in the aforementioned restaurant example?
No method is 100%. But a mild spanking for younger kids often gets results in situations where they just blatantly ignore your demands for them to take a "time out" or whatever. A slight physical sting can, as Jess put it, make them aware that it's time to pay attention.
|
|
Can you help me
Help me get out of this place
Slow sedation
Ain't my style ain't my face
Giving me a number
Nine, seven, eight
Gimme back my name
Crazy
but I don’t think that I can see
You can hear them
Only talkin? at me
Living on the outside
Looking inside to be free
Feel so good for awhile
You don't know why
Cry while you lie
You are true...you are
true...you are true
Save me
Is there nothing that I can use
Please believe me
Am I conforming to your views
Promise you anything
Watch me crying out to you
Crazy baby point of view
Point of view
Point of view
Point of view
Crazy.....crazy.....crazy.....crazy
Crazy.....a suitable
case for treatment
Crazy,crazy......just
a suitable case for
treatment
Crazy,crazy
Crazy....crazy.....crazy......etc.