Notice that the button does not call anti-spankers ridiculoous, JUST the law. As in I do respect those who are anti-spankers in home discipline, but I think that it was ridiculous to make it downright illegal
. In this matter it is not justified to force everyone to go your way.
Take the time to read the rest of this with thought, and you may understand why. I know it's boatloads of text, but then again this is
a complex and highly debated issue.
One thing I want to add first, is that the law I speak of prohbits ANY form of corporal punishment, which in my opinion is even more ridiculous than if it prohbited only spanking...Because any normative form of corporal punishment when reasonably given is not that harmful if at all. But the thing is, the law is often talked about as an "anti-spanking law" because spanking is the most common form of cp in the world. And in my opinion, the least harmful form. Therefore that is what I'm going to address here.A law that prohibits parents from spanking their own children
is useless and harmful though that's not the only reason why the law is ridiculous. But let me dig into this useless/harmful point first anyway.
Please realize how we already have laws to enable reporting and preventing child abuse, so we don't need a prohibition of corporal discipline that only seemingly surpasses the concept and is not harmful in it's most common way of use. As for it being in order to prevent child abuse...If a child does not feel abused by getting spanked, the child will not start feeling so just because some men in power wrote words on paper. If a child feels abused by getting spanked, it shows and would be reported and prevented even without a law against all corporal punishment or spanking in particular.
Also, the practice has ancient origins and tons of positive results, so those who really believe in spanking and see it works on their kid, will not give it up. The law is useless
On the contrary, the law's existence may cause trouble to happy families or even break them, because children are not capable of considering/understanding the full consequenses of their actions and can now report their parents for giving an appropriate spanking or milder corporal punishment for a good reason. They're children; they do stuff to see what happens and they push their boundries for the fun of it – they don't necessarely feel abused or seek any real revenge. The law just gives them another possibility to cause serious trouble by being brats. Also the law enables an anti-spanker neighbour to break a happy family by reporting a pro-spanking family even if the children don't suffer of it and don't want to be seperated or any trouble for their parents. Also, those who do spank their child in abusive way, will now try to covert it, making it that much harder to be revealed than it was when they thought they could do it rather openly. The law is harmful
.EDITION AFTER DEBATES:
These studies were not made to encourage people to CP their children, but to point out that the law against it is not justified.
Here, let me point out quotes from this www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-st…
article on recent researches:"Gunnoe’s findings, announced this week: “The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data.”
Those who were physically disciplined performed better than those who weren’t in a whole series of categories, including school grades, an optimistic outlook on life, the willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college, Gunnoe found. And they performed no worse than those who weren’t spanked in areas like early sexual activity, getting into fights, and becoming depressed. She found little difference between the sexes or races.""Another study published in the Akron Law Review last year examined criminal records and found that children raised where a legal ban on parental corporal punishment is in effect are much more likely to be involved in crime.""Since the spanking ban, child abuse rates in Sweden have exploded over 500 percent, according to police reports. Even just one year after the ban took effect, and after a massive government public education campaign, Fuller found that “not only were Swedish parents resorting to pushing, grabbing, and shoving more than U.S. parents, but they were also beating their children twice as often.”
After a decade of the ban, “rates of physical child abuse in Sweden had risen to three times the U.S. rate” and “from 1979 to 1994, Swedish children under seven endured an almost six-fold increase in physical abuse,” Fuller’s analysis revealed.""“Swedish teen violence skyrocketed in the early 1990s, when children that had grown up entirely under the spanking ban first became teenagers,” Fuller noted. “Preadolescents and teenagers under fifteen started becoming even more violent toward their peers. By 1994, the number of youth criminal assaults had increased by six times the 1984 rate.”""Gunnoe’s findings are being largely ignored by the U.S. media, but made a splash in British newspapers. It is not the first time her work has been bypassed by the press. Her 1997 work showing that customary spanking reduced aggression also went largely unreported.""Nor is she alone in her conclusions. Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California, Berkeley and her teams of professional researchers over a decade conducted what is considered the most extensive and methodologically thorough child development study yet done. They examined 164 families, tracking their children from age four to 14. Baumrind found that spanking can be helpful in certain contexts and discovered “no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.”""She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers.
As in climate change, politicians all over the world seem out of touch with the most rigorous science regarding parental discipline. The newest research could constitute powerful ammunition to parents rights activists seeking to reverse the global trend of intrusive governments muscling themselves between the rod and the child."
Now, do you STILL have the nerve to claim that anti-spanking law prevents child abuse, spanking is nothing but harmful and prohibtion law ís the right way to go?!EDITION ENDS!
In some countries the law isn't even enforced justly. So the law evidently exists only because powerful people who are wrong, love they just LOVE their power! I mean, not only do they keep the law up though barely anything gets reported, and judge the reported in utterly unjust way, but also - those new pro-studies have not been regarded by the goverments. You see why this law has been called "blanket injunction", and that's exactly what it is propably in all countries with a ban. Add to this the revealations of the recent pro-spanking studies. THE LAW IS RIDICULOUS!
So yay for countries who keep telling off those silly old "childrens' rights" activists with their prohibition desires, who obviously have no interest in children's welfare. If they did, they wouldn't demand goverments to prohibit corporal punishment just because it sounds nice, but instead they would demand them to work on their child protection services.EDITION ON 27/5/2012:
The reason why some children suffer actual abuse was and still is the disfunction of child protection services and lack of education for parents.
There was no call for a cp-prohibition law that could never work as anything but a blanket injunction. And by being that, it's also distracting the world's high and mighty from approaching the actual problem through actually effective way.
As in, now it's like "Oh, we don't need to throw money, energy and time into improving our child protection services because we have this brillilantly costless (or at least cheaper) prohibition law!!!11 YAY!!!11"
The law is doing nothing in the big picture, the key is the child protection services' quality and in education campaigns.
---> There are statistics on rates of child mortality by abuse.
Some countries that don't prohibit cp of children, have lower rate than those with the prohibition law. In other cases it's the other way around. This goes proving that this ridiculous cp-prohibbition law does NOT affect child wellfare, at all. It depends on child protection services and educational campaigns.
But of course the goverments have and are going to ignore that factual proof and tons of other just like it, because:
- Money rules the world.
- It's all about power with human beings.
- Trends are prefered over sense.
- Believing in fantasy is easier than facing reality.
Thank higher power for cultural differences. Like France not going for this law at all, Britain staying away from prohibition stage, and Finland signing in with the law but failing to carry it out in numerous ways. Like even after 30 years large number of children didn't even know that they've had new rights.
I mean, I'm convinced that less children would suffer and die if that blanket injunction of a law did not exsist to blind people from seeing where the real problems lie. But seeing to the cultural situation described in the above paragraph, maybe this world isn't completely doomed.EDITION ENDS!Here's why else the law is ridiculous:HOW COULD A NORMAL SPANKING POSSIBLY BE ABUSE?
I'm fully aware that any kind of hitting is technically classified as abuse. But we must think further than that and in a more complex way when the question is about discipline and something so crucial as what becomes of an individual human being. In those matters nothing
should be thought of in a black-and-white manner.
Spanking or any corporal punishment should not be the right of anyone but a child's parent or guardian who have the most intimate relationship with the child and most authority over him/her anyway. Which is likely why it was at one point banned from schools but allowed at home. And it should be common sense that spanking should not be the first solution because we should not want
to hit those we love. As in, we should first try other methods.
'To hit' is the base from which the words 'to beat' and 'to scmak' branch from, yet because there are those different definitons there is a fine line between what they are in practical level and thus thinkin all hitting is equally bad seems somewhat black-and-white thinking. They're both hitting but have a different affect, physically and through that mentally. Beating someone with a fist has a much angrier tone and feel to it than smacking the person, and it's also far more potential to cause serious injury than a smack is. Thus whereas both can be classified as abuse on practical terms, they are NOT exactly the same thing.
And when we take this to the extent of beating a child with a fist in the face or with an object all over his/her body VS. taking a child over one's knee and smackin their butt with an open hand...Those two are NOT The same thing. Also the first mentioned can never be done out of love, whereas the last mentioned can.
There was a time when spanking was delievered on the back (too) but eventually it became more traditional to be only on the buttlocks in order to avoid serious injury.
In those senses there is a fine line between spanking and abuse.."Modern psychology imagines itself superior to tried-n-true ancient wisdom when advoating to painless child-rearing. They "cleverly" overlook the numerous benefits of teaching children to associate pain with wrongdoing.
The following film clip demonstrates the use of spanking in the wrong way followed by the right way.
1.) The boy's father stands up for his son's right to fair treatment.
2.) The boy recognizes that his father loves and respects him.
3.) The boy knows his father punished him justly."
I was spanked as a very young child (3 or 4 years old), by my parents, but I'm emotionally and physically totally OK and love my parents to bits. And for centuries spanking children at home was allowed yet the world is not full of emotionally crippled, abusive, drunken or disturbed people who claim their problems sourcing from childhood spankings. How could this be if spanking was oh-so-traumatizing, harmful and useless for every human being? The answer: because there IS a way to spank a child without emotionally abusing them or causeing them emotional problems, but on the contrary do the child good.
So, seriosuly; it's not the spanking that is a problem. It's the way some people do it.
Some argue 'you tell your child not to hit people and yet you hit your child (if he/she hits people)'...
...I do see where that's coming from but again here comes the cruciality of explaining to your child that the world is not a black-and-white place, the society doesn't work in a black-and-white way. That a legal authority figure - the parent - to give a spanking as a punishment for a wrongdoing that could harm the child or his/her future (as in do an act of protection, 'tough love'), is not the same as to go around hitting people just because you're angry for not getting your way at the playground (as in to do an act of selfish violence.)
Naturally, chidren of just any age could not possibly understand such things so it would be pointless to explain them to them, which is why, first of all, you should not spank a 2-year old or so but wait until the child'sstarted to understand the concept of right and wrong and show signs of knowing when he/she has done wrong.
And I doubt there is a child who hsan't been hit by another child once or twice in their young life. So they know how it feels, and if the parent hits in a spanking manner appropriately and with love, it does not feel the same. Hence, there's a different feel to a thing done with love than it done with pure anger. And it makes a difference in emotional level. If a child is incapable of feeling a difference between tones of voice or touch, or incapable of feeling love where it exists, he or she may have some emotional disabilities and have more troubles in life. (No offense intended to anyone.)
Let's also remark that the first thing that happens to a human being only seconds after birth, is being hit. So that we would breathe
. ← Point when combined to how billions of children been spanked are not messed up: Not all hitting is of evil. Not all tears are of evil. Which means that not all pain is of evil.
But regardless of what's done to a new-born, it is NOT reasonable to smack an infant! Seriously, I heard someone has spanked (more or less) her 6-months old infant and I say that is insanity. A new-born was hit to make him/her breathe - there was no other way, and it happened at the moment when it did not yet have much sense of physical existence thus it didn't negatively affect it. But from that moment on, no hitting a living creature who has not yet developed a sense of self nor ability to understand!
I think customary
spanking becomes abuse only if used on children way too young (such as infants), too often (like daily), or for minor offenses. But then, those kind of uses would no longer even be normative and reasonable spanking. And normative, reasonable spanking is all I'm supporting with all this. And against those kind of unreasonable, as in abusive levels we alredy had laws for. A prohibition was not needed.
In a matter such as this that is utterly individual all the way to the results of which most proven positive, people shouldn't put their personal feelings into a law and robb other people off the right to openly ptactice their own personal feelings and belief. Spanking is not like stealing or killing which practices can have only negative consequences.
I've always loved United Kingdom as a country and culture. Them not trying to force everyone to believe in modern psychology but instead sticking to the respect of individuality and the rights to practice ancient wisdom if an individual so wishes, makes me love the country and culture all the more. Not to mention that UK recognized and spread those highly important recent researches all over their newspapers. Even if currently UK considers only very mild spanking/cp legal, the point is it at least is
legal instead of prohibited. UK is trying to be constructive and remains respctive to family affairs and more or less to individuality. I think they're a good example to the world although I may not view the matter exactly their way.
Now follows my personal views and beliefs that goverments around the world currently may or may not agree with:"SHOULD PARENTS SPANK THEIR CHILDREN OVER THE KNEE AND ON THE BARE BOTTOM?"
Over-the-knee, yes, as the position creates the most sense of security in every way as it passes also the warmth and some degree of gentelness from the parent to the child, instead of just the firmness and pain. Also, there's a lot of physical abuse in life done out of hatred for no good reason that happens in relatively distant contact with the person who hits you, so the close physical contact as an entity when spanked with love for a protective/educational purpose, is important.
As for baring the bottom, I would not say 'should' because it's not as if everything depended on that. But would not prohibit it either unlike many would, claiming that it would embarass/humiliate the child. Generally spoken, a child under 11-12 probably won't think of it as embarrassing because they don't have the sense of or as deeply rooted mindset about nudity as preteens and teenagers do. In fact, in a NORMAL parent/child relationship that nudity theme should not be an issue anyway because no child/pre-teen/teen should be thinking about it in any sexual manner when the spanker is his/her parent.
As for baring the bottom being humiliating for a child? I don't think that either when it comes to a child not yet a pre-teen/teen. Because for all I've understood the humiliation sense usually sources from not wishing to be treated like a child. And again, a child under 11-12 usually does feel like a child anyway, sometimes even pre-teens do. Their hormones and mindset haven't yet developed that crucially.EDITION AFTER COMMENTS:
Sexually developed or not, the "rules" of nudity have never said that a parent seeing you naked is embarassing/taboo. Heck, it would be insane if they did; your parent saw you naked when you were born, when they bathed you, when they helped you undress and dress, and when they wiped your butt/between your legs untill you learned to do it yourself... Even after those skills were learned your parents likely have needed you completely or partially naked to take care of an illness or a wound.
As in, in a healthy parent/child relationship any amount of nudity in front of each other should not cause feelings of embarassement, to a child who's too young to associate nudity with anything else but a parental act of caring and is not yet confused with a changing body. A pre-teen or a teen might get embarrased by full nudity because of the confusion with changing body and to some degree because their brain connects nudity with sexuality, but again in a healthy parent/child relationship merely baring the buttlocks should not be embarrassing to a (pre)-teen either. Especially when in the over-the-knee position which I strongly encourage as the only position used, the changing/sexual-themed genital area is not exposed much if at all.
In a normal parent/child relationship a punishment spanking on the bare bottom is an act of parental caring the same as all those others from the past and current times which usually have imprinted into the child's emotional system in the sense that nudity+parent(+touch) is natural and OK, and not embarrassing.
That's why to begin with a bare-bottom spanking should not be a no-no. Just important to remember that your child is an individual and knowing him/her is the key to knowing if baring that butt is harmful or not. Usually it should not be.!EDITION ENDS!
So, just make your choice by whatever you think gets the message through without causing bruises or other long-lasting wounds, or psychological damage to your child.
But if the child won't mind, what's the point? See, I said they probably don't mind in a negatively affecting sense. But they prefer clothed because on the bare it will hurt so much more, and thus likely feel it as part of that authority the parent tries to remind them of with the spanking. Hence, you punish your child for a purpose, your child should not get to decide how much it should hurt. And the only reason I can think of for anyone want to spank the bare bottom is exactly that it will sting much more. And that, I think should come relative to the seriousness of the offense; the amount of pain you think is necessary for the child to associate with the offense in question.
With teenagers, I would generally not recommend baring their bottom but only if the offense has been particularly childish. Because I believe a child deserves to be treated whatever age they behave like. If the spanking-worthy offense was a typical teenage bs they pulled, there is no reason to degrade them with a flashback from a childhood. Teenagers after all are seeking independence and often imagine themselves as oh-so-grown-up. But if the spanking-worthy offense was incredibly childish, there is a reason to give that flashback to childhood punishments. Chances are they won't repeat that childish offense when they know it's gonna lead to extremely unpleasent consequence - in other words they actually matured a little inside.
So I would strongly advice using only and only the over-the-knee position even if using belt and no matter what the age of the child, and I generally speaking support the bare-bottom extent but advice to consider it individually because such a detail can not be automatically applied to be good for everyone. Knowing your child is the key while it is important to remember that the main goal should not be the amount of pain and the point of spanking is not to humiliate your child but to redirect and educate them with love and respect.
Which leads me to my final statement: NEVER in front of siblings/their friends/other people in general or so that others can hear it. I mean the spanking as it is. Because human nature is in essence about power and taking control - which is why children who aren't disciplined or have weak parents end up becoming tyrants in the household, in worst cases to the extent of kicking their parents if they don't do what the child demands. ("Nanny 911" anyone?)
So, a human of age at which he/she has reached somewhat developed sense of self (which starts forming at as early as the age of 1,5 years) will start desiring power, and thus does feel humiliated if others wittness them crying and squirming in extremely submissive situation - especially if it's about punishment. Even knowing that others may receive the same treatment does not make a difference. It's bad enough that others will find out about it by noticing the discomfort of sitting down. Hence my point that spanking should not be about humiliating but of teaching with love and respect.