What form of discipline should be used at home?

[Sappho de Miranda]

Can't fault anything said by Voice of Time. Perhaps, and this is a minor point, I would have given more emphasis on growing mutual respect between parents and child.

As to spanking... many women enjoy spanking. It's a sexual fetish and a rather tame one at that. And between consenting adults, irrespective of their motives, there is nothing wrong with it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Can't fault anything said by Voice of Time. Perhaps, and this is a minor point, I would have given more emphasis on growing mutual respect between parents and child.

As to spanking... many women enjoy spanking. It's a sexual fetish and a rather tame one at that. And between consenting adults, irrespective of their motives, there is nothing wrong with it.

I do realise that. It was just a bit of facetiousness because I thought he was being facetious. I mean, what was the OP really about? Disciplining children, or adult fetishes?

[The Voice of Time]

Can't fault anything said by Voice of Time. Perhaps, and this is a minor point, I would have given more emphasis on growing mutual respect between parents and child.

As to spanking... many women enjoy spanking. It's a sexual fetish and a rather tame one at that. And between consenting adults, irrespective of their motives, there is nothing wrong with it.

When talking about respect I think it's most important that you exemplify what you mean. That was what I did, and my main point weren't the first words of the paragraphs but the details they laid out. Repect can mean so many things and so I find it important to focus on what exactly you are aiminig at achieving.

[Blaggard]

Some people think there is an easy answer to everything. The same people believe in magic, the same people don't live in the real world. Sometimes there are ways and means that you can understand sometimes there are not, to place your hand in only what you know is the highest from of knavery. You should be ashamed of yourself for your ignorance. Get over it and grow up, nothing is as simple as you seem to think it is. The better way is to accept that you just don't know it all and when you are agreeing with others who you think know it all, your shame grows.

No one is that right who is not a god unto themselves, you agree with a god, you place yourself into the hazard and a fools reward is all you will get.

[Gee]

Philosophy Explorer;

You seem to have three different topics mixed into one. As Sappho de Miranda noted, spanking in a sexual context is actually a fetish. It has nothing at all to do with discipline and only uses the idea of discipline to add context to the play. Probably the worst thing that someone could do is to take the idea of discipline, in this context, seriously as that could cause too serious a reaction and someone could get hurt.

Another example like this that I witnessed many years ago, is a game of jealousy that is occasionally played by married couples. In this instance I was sitting in a bar with a male friend when a fight looked like it was going to break out between two men over a woman. After watching for a few minutes, my friend slid out of his seat and walked over to the potential fight. He talked to them and the couple left. When my friend returned, he explained that this particular couple like to play the game of jealousy. They come into the bar, have a good time, then the wife starts to flirt outrageously with a third party. Hubby gets jealous and threatens everyone; his testosterone jacks up, and he drags his wife out of the bar. Then they go home and have mad passionate hot sex.

My friend explained that they have been doing this for years. The only time there is a problem is when the third party takes it seriously and believes that he must defend the woman. Then it could become dangerous, which was why he intervened. He knew the couple well and told me that they were very much in love, but they liked to play at jealousy because it intensified the experience. It was a game, but all players needed to recognize that it was a game and that no one was going to get hurt.

There was a book written, I think in the 70's, called "Games People Play". I don't know if you can still find it, but it is a worthy read and explains much of this.

Abusive relationships are an entirely different story as they are NOT a game. I have worked with many young women, who are in abusive relationships and think this has to do with power. All people are attracted to power, but what we see as power makes the difference. Wealthy men, socially connected men, football heroes, warriors, and intelligent men like professors, have no problem attracting women.

But the women that I worked with saw power as being a physical or mental ability to dominate and cause pain. They generally came from families with an abusive parent. So if a man is cruel or can beat the hell out of her, then he is a MAN, but if he is kind and respectful and gentle, then he is a wimp. She might love the wimp, but she will love him like a brother, whereas the abuser will float her boat, turn on all the lights, and send her estrogen screaming because he is powerful, and therefore a protector. It is a kind of schizoid idea, but power represents protection.

She will often actually push his buttons until he blows. Now one can say that her behavior is relative to her wanting discipline, but I don't think so. Discipline is used to change someone's behavior, but she is not looking for change, she is looking for validation of their relationship. I think that she is testing his strength, his power, because in her mind -- his discipline, or abuse, represents their connection in the same way that kindness, affection, trust, and respect represents a different kind of connection.

The third way that discipline has been noted in this thread is as regards children, and I think that Voice of Time did a wonderful job explaining those issues. But I would also state that physical discipline is sometimes necessary. In my house, physical discipline was reserved for occasions when other discipline did not work and the activity could cause serious harm as in the following examples:

I know a man, who at the age of four, was fascinated with lighters. He had been disciplined and discouraged, but one morning he woke up early and went through his mother's purse. Although she normally used butane lighters, someone had given her a beautiful shiny Zippo. When he got it to light, he dropped it in fear, but a Zippo does not go out when dropped. His grandmother's house burned down, his uncle was burned pretty badly, and the man still feels guilty to this day. My thought is that smacking his little butt and giving him a terror of lighters might have been preferable.

Back in the day when I was nursing my babies, one of them grew teeth at four months. Since the baby was actually biting me, I was running out of milk because of the pain. So I called my Grandmother for her advice. She told me to smack the baby in the back of the head whenever she bit. I thought that was unreasonable, but my Grandmother argued that it was better to teach the baby not to bite than to have my milk dry up and the baby starve to death. I ended up changing her to bottle feeding, but my Grandmother had a point. Before bottles were available, a baby that used mom as a chew toy would end up starving to death. One can not reason with a baby.

So I think that physical discipline can be necessary, and it may be unreasonable to raise a child to believe that pain is not a natural part of life -- because it is.

Gee

[Philosophy Explorer]

Hi Gee,

You pointed out that my thread could be interpreted at least three different ways. My overall goal is to get a good conversation going which is happening for this thread. I should point out that while this thread is concerned with what primarily goes on at home, you brought up two examples of what can go on at the bar.

I like to leave some wriggle room in my threads so as to avoid ruling out response. I think it helps to engender a more relaxed type of conversation. Besides if there are any questions, you have me around to help answer.

PhilX

[Gee]

Hi Gee,

You pointed out that my thread could be interpreted at least three different ways. My overall goal is to get a good conversation going which is happening for this thread. I should point out that while this thread is concerned with what primarily goes on at home, you brought up two examples of what can go on at the bar.

One example at a bar, but it could easily have happened at a house party.

Gee

[The Voice of Time]

I know a man, who at the age of four, was fascinated with lighters. He had been disciplined and discouraged, but one morning he woke up early and went through his mother's purse. Although she normally used butane lighters, someone had given her a beautiful shiny Zippo. When he got it to light, he dropped it in fear, but a Zippo does not go out when dropped. His grandmother's house burned down, his uncle was burned pretty badly, and the man still feels guilty to this day. My thought is that smacking his little butt and giving him a terror of lighters might have been preferable.

Back in the day when I was nursing my babies, one of them grew teeth at four months. Since the baby was actually biting me, I was running out of milk because of the pain. So I called my Grandmother for her advice. She told me to smack the baby in the back of the head whenever she bit. I thought that was unreasonable, but my Grandmother argued that it was better to teach the baby not to bite than to have my milk dry up and the baby starve to death. I ended up changing her to bottle feeding, but my Grandmother had a point. Before bottles were available, a baby that used mom as a chew toy would end up starving to death. One can not reason with a baby.

So I think that physical discipline can be necessary, and it may be unreasonable to raise a child to believe that pain is not a natural part of life -- because it is.

Gee

The problem with arguments like that is that they presume only an either/or. Why must you hit? Why is it important to hit instead of talking to, or just say "no!" in a firm voice, or just smack with the tip pf your fingers their mouth when they do so or pinch their lip? Why hit them in the head or the butt?

When you so easily jump to mindless violence you are not actually targeting the problem, but targeting the baby or 4-yo him- or herself! So the question is whether you want to solve the problem or just have a reason to be mean.

[Gee]

The problem with arguments like that is that they presume only an either/or. Why must you hit? Why is it important to hit instead of talking to, or just say "no!" in a firm voice, or just smack with the tip pf your fingers their mouth when they do so or pinch their lip?

First I would like to say that pinching a baby's lip is a bad idea. It is too easy to accidently hurt them that way -- especially if mom has nails. Then I would like to clarify that talking to a baby, or reasoning with a baby, of four months is ridiculous as they have no idea of what you are saying. Smacking a baby with your finger on the mouth or cheek is often how one wakes the baby up and stimulates them to feed, so I don't think that would have the hoped for results. Saying "No!" in a firm voice is not very effective unless the voice is very scary. So you think that scaring them is a better idea?

Babies find it very interesting when they bite mom and make her jump. Of course, they have no idea that they are causing her pain and won't be able to truly understand that concept until they are almost five years old. You assume that hitting is a first resort. It takes time to grow teeth and it takes time to damage a nipple to the point where it will not release milk. Hitting is a last resort.

Why hit them in the head or the butt?

If you are nursing a baby and they bite you, trying to pull them away only makes them clamp down and causes more pain. On the other hand, a smack to the back of the head causes them to react similarly by releasing and pulling away. Pull them off, they bite down; push them in, they back off. It is very simple.

Why smack a toddler's butt? I have seen too many people smack a small hand or wrist when it was reaching for something dangerous -- like the cord to a hot iron. When you are frightened, it is just too easy to hit harder than you mean to, and little hands and wrists are fragile. If you hit a butt harder than you mean to, you are unlikely to cause damage.

When my children were grown, they confessed that they used to laugh about my "spankings" because they didn't really hurt. I asked them, "So why did you cry?" They admitted that if I was angry enough to spank them, then they must have been really bad. That is why they cried.

Gee

[The Voice of Time]

First I would like to say that pinching a baby's lip is a bad idea. It is too easy to accidently hurt them that way -- especially if mom has nails.

If you pinch that hard you are obviously pinching too hard! It's only easy if you're stupid!

Then I would like to clarify that talking to a baby, or reasoning with a baby, of four months is ridiculous as they have no idea of what you are saying.

Of course it's ridiculous, so why did you assume I meant a four month old baby you idiot! I meant the 4 YEARS old, which are supposed to know language unless you've neglected to give them enough vocal exposure. You talked about 2 kids so I answered for 2.

Smacking a baby with your finger on the mouth or cheek is often how one wakes the baby up and stimulates them to feed, so I don't think that would have the hoped for results.

You smack your baby to get it to eat? Well I understand that you might take your hand and very weakly flip their cheeks or something to wake it up, but seems strange you would do that on their month, that's unnecessary. Also, if all you get is a "I want to eat" response, then obviously you've done it wrong. I was thinking about when they are sucking the tits, that if they bite you smack them with your fingers or pinch them until they stop. While hitting their head might work, hitting somebody's heading is really bad, that's the place you're NOT supposed to hit people. Especially a young baby with an undeveloped skull. Hit them where the problem is, and only just enough to get the right response.

Saying "No!" in a firm voice is not very effective unless the voice is very scary. So you think that scaring them is a better idea?

You're taking it to the extreme, again, why on Earth would you suppose that instead of the obvious middle way? You can always do it more than once if the first time doesn't work. Saying "no!" is about building association to the word "no" and showing them unfriendliness in voice and facial expression. It works because human beings react to the aesthetics of your voice and your facial expression. Which is why yelling near kids is a bad idea.

Babies find it very interesting when they bite mom and make her jump. Of course, they have no idea that they are causing her pain and won't be able to truly understand that concept until they are almost five years old. You assume that hitting is a first resort. It takes time to grow teeth and it takes time to damage a nipple to the point where it will not release milk. Hitting is a last resort.

I don't agree here, if smacking counts as hitting, I would say you should start doing it as soon as possible, so they get what they are doing wrong as soon as possible. But hitting them in the head should count for a very special situation, certainly not this one. Hitting their bum might not be damaging, and yeah, it doesn't "hurt" as much, but for punishment, it doesn't actually target the situation, and that might be a confusing element. Especially if you use it for everything. I also fail to understand how effective it should be without using much force and avoiding outright "smacking" the butt, but if it works and is barely hitting them then I can't say much more against it.

If you are nursing a baby and they bite you, trying to pull them away only makes them clamp down and causes more pain. On the other hand, a smack to the back of the head causes them to react similarly by releasing and pulling away. Pull them off, they bite down; push them in, they back off. It is very simple.

Have you considered it might be because you momentarily pull them out of consciousness? Take a finger inside their mouth to make them feel irritated seems much better. Force their teeth away if necessary.

Why smack a toddler's butt? I have seen too many people smack a small hand or wrist when it was reaching for something dangerous -- like the cord to a hot iron. When you are frightened, it is just too easy to hit harder than you mean to, and little hands and wrists are fragile. If you hit a butt harder than you mean to, you are unlikely to cause damage.

I'd say you should avoid hitting harder than you mean to, to begin with. Perhaps a course in self-control is wanted?

When my children were grown, they confessed that they used to laugh about my "spankings" because they didn't really hurt. I asked them, "So why did you cry?" They admitted that if I was angry enough to spank them, then they must have been really bad. That is why they cried.

Obviously. Your hand spanking them is a "hand of anger", so it's still totally not cool to do that, and laughing at something bad is often a sign of psychological injury, it's a way of coping. Where I grew up I met a lot of children who had grown up in traumatized relations, and they had a tendency of laughing at each others tantrums or problems because they lived in a world where this was the only way to cope with it. It's was totally bizarre to watch, it was like those movies where some maniac laughs at their evil plan.

It's not about the pain, unless the pain is extremely high. It's about the whole situation. When you spank somebody with a "hand of anger" and they believe your anger, you as the victim have 3 simultaneous experiences: 1) bad intent, that the other person is going to do bad things to you, so you get scared by the prospect, 2) the anger is magnified as the hand makes them alert and they absorb much more of your mean behavior, so your hand acts as a catalyst of terror, and 3) that you in fact act unfriendly and this complicates the idea of you. While the last one is necessary because else a lack of understanding of relational dynamics leads to unbalanced behavior, like greed, mischief and so forth, but the two first are most certainly gonna be very ineffective as they pose more problems than alternative means which can solve the same problem you targeted.

[cladking]

Most children rarely need punishment. Starting at a very young age they need to learn the meaning of the word "no" and this will involve an unpleasant rap and saying "no" firmly. It is absolutely critical that you never rescind a punishment or allow the behavior to continue early in this training. Once a child knows "no" then simply saying the word is usually sufficient. When they get about two or three years old they'll probably ask you not to rap or spank them any more. Just make a bargain that you never will again providing they accept another punishment. In my opinion this new punishment should just bwe sufficient to get their attention and get them to modify their behavior, ie- a short time out or being sent to their room.

My experience is limited to some naturally good kids and some will, no doubt, need a firmer hand or additional correction. The biggest thing is to not relent so don't punish unless you're willing to follow through. They must learn that no always means no and that it's never "cute" to misbehave. This doesn't mean they have to be "whupped" each time they misbehave but that they must change their behavior when you say no. Kids learn from example so try to set a good example and try to let them do anything they want within the boundaries you set.

This works in my experience.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I've never heard of anyone slapping a baby on the cheek to wake it or get it to feed. Some people have weird ideas about babies. I've also never heard of a baby starving to death because it was left alone to sleep and wake up in its own time. I also wouldn't be so sure a four month old doesn't know what you are saying. They are extremely clever little creatures.

[The Voice of Time]

I've also never heard of a baby starving to death because it was left alone to sleep and wake up in its own time.

I also thought this was a little weird, but if you are a busy person which schedule everything then you might have feeding schedules. Non-working moms probably don't have this problem though.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I've also never heard of a baby starving to death because it was left alone to sleep and wake up in its own time.

I also thought this was a little weird, but if you are a busy person which schedule everything then you might have feeding schedules. Non-working moms probably don't have this problem though.

Babies are a full time 24/7 job.

[The Voice of Time]

Well that's a matter of opinion x)

It's not unusual for women in Norway to get back to work quite early, but I'm not sure how early. I just know that it's been quite a big political cause of my political party, and Trondheim the municipality I live in now has gone through with it: that all children aged 1 should be able to attend kindergarten. Presumably so that the women can work, since the mothers don't go to kindergarten WITH their child.

But that can be a difference in either local or national cultures.