What form of discipline should be used at home?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I think many people believe that discipline is needed to maintain a stable home environment. If so, then what form is best? Does spanking, e.g., work? I pick this form because I've personally known a couple of women that like to be spanked and I mean spanked hard. This makes me wonder what can be done to help children grow up?

What have you to say?

PhilX

[Blaggard]

Crucifixion for even minor offences, nail 'em up, nail 'em up I say! nail some sense into them! Wonderful race the Romans.

Ok seriously though for some verbal reasoning works, for some spanking works, the idea that physical reprimanding will not work is to me a little odd. Use whatever you like: an Englishman's home is his castle, avoid abuse mental or otherwise, and we all know mental abuse is worse than physical (physical woes heal, ok we're not talking about leaving a scar physically, mental scars take much longer), and you will be on the right side of the law, if not the ethics committee of modern PC.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Spanking' doesn't work on children any more than it does on adults. I've found that the best behaved children are those who are never hit, and I'm not talking about those awful 'passive parents' either. There are ways to convey boundaries without physical abuse.
Btw, are you sure those women really enjoy being 'spanked', or are they just pretending to because they think it pleases their partner?

[Philosophy Explorer]

'Spanking' doesn't work on children any more than it does on adults. I've found that the best behaved children are those who are never hit, and I'm not talking about those awful 'passive parents' either. There are ways to convey boundaries without physical abuse.
Btw, are you sure those women really enjoy being 'spanked', or are they just pretending to because they think it pleases their partner?

I'm 100% sure they like to be spanked.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Spanking' doesn't work on children any more than it does on adults. I've found that the best behaved children are those who are never hit, and I'm not talking about those awful 'passive parents' either. There are ways to convey boundaries without physical abuse.
Btw, are you sure those women really enjoy being 'spanked', or are they just pretending to because they think it pleases their partner?

I'm 100% sure they like to be spanked.

PhilX

Sure you are. They were probably just good actors. If a man 'spanked' me in bed I would punch his lights out.

[Philosophy Explorer]

'Spanking' doesn't work on children any more than it does on adults. I've found that the best behaved children are those who are never hit, and I'm not talking about those awful 'passive parents' either. There are ways to convey boundaries without physical abuse.
Btw, are you sure those women really enjoy being 'spanked', or are they just pretending to because they think it pleases their partner?

I'm 100% sure they like to be spanked.

PhilX

Sure you are. They were probably just good actors. If a man 'spanked' me in bed I would punch his lights out.

Do I hear a note of doubt? I once felt the same way you did. No more. As to why, you would need to ask them. Some women would rather stay with an abusing husband than leave him. Why? "Because I love him!!!" among other reasons.

PhilX

[The Voice of Time]

If you need discipline you've already done something wrong. Children obey if they trust your word, if you are untrustworthy you're gonna be ignored and you'll have to start working on your trust.

It's important that you as a parent can be a symbol of dependency, someone who can be depended upon to secure a child's continuous sense of welfare and well-being. I'm tempted to call it a kind of invicible contract, but it's really more to do with simple human relational dynamics: we like to be with those we believe make us feel good, and stay away from those we believe make us feel bad.

Therefore, things such as love, respect, kindness, modesty, humour, cheerfulness, and desirable skills and features, are necessary focus-points.

Love, intimate like hugs, spending moments together, talking and building an aura of close and mutual understanding (empathy) will teach the person to enjoy your company. Kids are very open to this and this is therefore one of the ways we become symbols of dependency.

Respect, that we value who and what they are, are open to cooperation, do not act in spite of their beliefs and values, and here also a mutual understanding in an intellectual form is necessary to interpret situations in a manner that gets across what they actually mean by what they say, and what we actually mean. If you are arrogant, you'll easily get across confusing messages, and fail to understand their meanings out of disinterest or self-absorption.

Kindness, that we are willing and able to give them what they need to feel- and become empowered and to feel joy and pleasure. That we give them a fair or necessary share of our priorities to make them feel good and help them with their problems.

Modesty, that we don't exaggerate, or underestimate, in our dealings with the person. That we are able to keep a balance of what is needed rather than what we may feel like giving in the moment.

Humour, no truly good life can be based on heavy thoughts only. Love can get too much and become a problem and drain instead of empowering. We need the ability to trivialize that which becomes too great for us, be it pain or pleasurable methods that end up beyond pleasure and becomes numb, unpleasant or burdensome. Humour is good for so many things, and can also be damaging when it targets the wrong things or goes to excess so nothing really matters. But it must be there so that the person can trust that you don't take everything too seriously, and that everything which should have some trivial elements, should get some trivial elements. It's stress-relief, rebalance of values, creativity and comforting to heavy hearts.

Cheerfulness, while jokes help, often we really just need to smile, have an eye for the positive, enabling, empowering, and pleasures of life. To be cheerful is to empower them with knowing your way of beating life's imperfections with an orientation towards the gaining of good feeling and what leads to well-being. To be cheerful is essentially to "know how to be happy in the moment", to know how to use the world for the good of yourself and others. Like humour, it trivializes, but while humour merely trivializes, like a big artillery gun bombing to sunder a problem, cheerfulness is like leaving the problem entirely and going to the good party. And knowing when to leave the bad and go towards the good, is important for they to trust that you are actually a beacon of light and not some pit of despair.

As for desireable skills and features, we must try to bend ourselves towards what is going to be the case, the situations, we end up in. In those situations we need to be ready to deal with them. Everybody likes to have a hero, and for children if we are gonna be their hero in whatever may be the problem, then we gotta arm ourselves and be prepared for the deeds of heroism. Whether this is help with schoolwork, sorting out a social problem, managing to secure them a good, or just being a really nice person to be around and socialize with.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Children will instinctively behave as is expected of them. If you expect them to behave well they will. If you have no expectations they will behave badly. So many time's I've been bombarded at the supermarket etc. by a badly behaved child making horrible offensive noises of whining, grizzling, or attention-seeking screeching. EVERY time I have also seen a parent, who must be selectively stone deaf, completely ignoring it. It's the parent's job to ensure their children are socially acceptable, and that it's not acceptable to assault others with bad behaviour. I suppose what it boils down to is that idiot, clueless parents will have idiot, clueless children.

[The Voice of Time]

Children will instinctively behave as is expected of them. If you expect them to behave well they will. If you have no expectations they will behave badly. So many time's I've been bombarded at the supermarket etc. by a badly behaved child making horrible offensive noises of whining, grizzling, or attention-seeking screeching. EVERY time I have also seen a parent, who must be selectively stone deaf, completely ignoring it. It's the parent's job to ensure their children are socially acceptable, and that it's not acceptable to assault others with bad behaviour. I suppose what it boils down to is that idiot, clueless parents will have idiot, clueless children.

Tyranny only works on the weakest of kids, therefore this is not true of kids with guts. And as kid's guts usually grow with age, this is why you have teenage rebellions.

Weak kids are easily manipulated, but strong kids need real incentive. So if you don't want to give them real incentive, you'll have to ensure they stay weak for this method of yours to work for the maximum amount of time, if your tyrant ambitions are lucky it'll remain beyond adulthood.

And no, you didn't say tyranny, but the expectation need to be communicated in some way, and unless that way is the way of incentive, you will have to resort to tyrannical methods.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Children will instinctively behave as is expected of them. If you expect them to behave well they will. If you have no expectations they will behave badly. So many time's I've been bombarded at the supermarket etc. by a badly behaved child making horrible offensive noises of whining, grizzling, or attention-seeking screeching. EVERY time I have also seen a parent, who must be selectively stone deaf, completely ignoring it. It's the parent's job to ensure their children are socially acceptable, and that it's not acceptable to assault others with bad behaviour. I suppose what it boils down to is that idiot, clueless parents will have idiot, clueless children.

Tyranny only works on the weakest of kids, therefore this is not true of kids with guts. And as kid's guts usually grow with age, this is why you have teenage rebellions.

Weak kids are easily manipulated, but strong kids need real incentive. So if you don't want to give them real incentive, you'll have to ensure they stay weak for this method of yours to work for the maximum amount of time, if your tyrant ambitions are lucky it'll remain beyond adulthood.

And no, you didn't say tyranny, but the expectation need to be communicated in some way, and unless that way is the way of incentive, you will have to resort to tyrannical methods.

How does that relate to anything I have said? It's actually true of all children. I'm not sure what you mean by 'weak' and 'strong' children either. 'The expectation has to be communicated in some way'. It can be communicated simply by setting a good example. What's wrong with telling a child to stop making horrible noises in the supermarket? Is that 'tyranny'? Give me a break. I never felt the need to smack my children, and I never once had to put up with a tantrum or embarrassing scene in public. Don't ask me how they knew how to behave. Clearly it was communicated somehow.

[thedoc]

You just need to find out what is important to the child and use it against them.

My grandson turned 3 and decided that he was a "Big Boy" and big boys don't take naps. We all went along with it till at 3 years 10 months he was still in diapers and didn't show any signs of being interested in not wearing diapers. I had been taking care of him since he was born and was tired of changing diapers, so one Wednesday after changing a dirty diaper I decided that enough was enough, and he was going to learn to use the potty. I told him "Big boys don't take naps, but big boys poop in the toilet. He had just pooped in his diaper, so he was a 'little boy' and he was taking a nap." I put him down on the couch and made him take a nap. I kept up the routine Thu. and Fri. and over the weekend his mom and dad said he was using the potty and hasn't had an accident since. I guess he really didn't want to be a "Little Boy" and take naps.

The funny thing is that his sister (4 years younger) at age 3, announced that she wanted to start using the potty, and with a little encouragement and reminders, she potty trained herself. But at almost 5 she will still lay down and take a nap, sometimes she will lay down on the couch with me, and I can't think of anything better to do.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You just need to find out what is important to the child and use it against them.

My grandson turned 3 and decided that he was a "Big Boy" and big boys don't take naps. We all went along with it till at 3 years 10 months he was still in diapers and didn't show any signs of being interested in not wearing diapers. I had been taking care of him since he was born and was tired of changing diapers, so one Wednesday after changing a dirty diaper I decided that enough was enough, and he was going to learn to use the potty. I told him "Big boys don't take naps, but big boys poop in the toilet. He had just pooped in his diaper, so he was a 'little boy' and he was taking a nap." I put him down on the couch and made him take a nap. I kept up the routine Thu. and Fri. and over the weekend his mom and dad said he was using the potty and hasn't had an accident since. I guess he really didn't want to be a "Little Boy" and take naps.

The funny thing is that his sister (4 years younger) at age 3, announced that she wanted to start using the potty, and with a little encouragement and reminders, she potty trained herself. But at almost 5 she will still lay down and take a nap, sometimes she will lay down on the couch with me, and I can't think of anything better to do.

You mean you didn't take him to a 'therapist'? Damn, that's child abuse!

[The Voice of Time]

How does that relate to anything I have said? It's actually true of all children. I'm not sure what you mean by 'weak' and 'strong' children either. 'The expectation has to be communicated in some way'. It can be communicated simply by setting a good example. What's wrong with telling a child to stop making horrible noises in the supermarket? Is that 'tyranny'? Give me a break. I never felt the need to smack my children, and I never once had to put up with a tantrum or embarrassing scene in public. Don't ask me how they knew how to behave. Clearly it was communicated somehow.

Is it possible we could agree that they trusted you then? And yes, setting an example is a good way, but the "incentive" hidden behind that example is that what you are doing actually leads to something good. If they notice that your setting of an example leads to ridicule for instance, they might not be as inclined or find it problematic to do the same as you.

But I don't know what you are saying to your kids. Some parents scare their kids into believing the world is a dangerous place and the parents are the child's only way of attaining good situations, if that happens your kids could overly rely on you for normful behaviour. But it could also just be that, as I said, the kids trust you and find your ways a reasonably secure way.

And please don't act as if I didn't just tell you how it related, it's annoying when you play stupid like that.

[Blaggard]

'Spanking' doesn't work on children any more than it does on adults. I've found that the best behaved children are those who are never hit, and I'm not talking about those awful 'passive parents' either. There are ways to convey boundaries without physical abuse.
Btw, are you sure those women really enjoy being 'spanked', or are they just pretending to because they think it pleases their partner?

And your scientific basis for this is what?

Or is it just an opinion?

I once found my ass and my elbow and knew the difference, but I am damn sure it made me no greater authority on anything than: my ass.

Personally I think some kids are such nightmares that there is little more you can do than reprimand them physically. I hope you never have such a child. Some kids just don't listen to reason. Expecting them to is somewhat foolish. Let each parent do what works, don't relegate what works to the bin because you have always succeeded in using reason. Don't judge other parents just because you can control your own narrow world.

Try using love, respect, empathy around a child who was born a psychopath, who doesn't understand it, try using reason when an ADHD child has lost all of that faculty, because he can't concentrate for any length of time. Deal with emotionally disturbed kids, and then accept that there is no one way you can control children that is a hard and fast rule. And then when you have done that, you should probably get over yourself.

It’s been established for some time that genes play a significant role in the makeup of those individuals eventually diagnosed with such conditions as Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD, sometimes also now termed Dissocial Personality Disorder or DPD). And while the concepts of psychopathy and sociopathy have been around for a long time, neither has been recognized as an official disorder (although it’s likely that the upcoming revision of the official diagnostic manual will include the key aspects of psychopathy as a variant form of APD). Historically, the evidence for a genetic predisposition to APD has come from studies of monozygotic (identical) twins reared apart. The fact that the twin of an individual with an antisocial behavior history is more likely to show the same kind of behaviors despite being raised in a different environment argues for a genetic predisposition to the disorder. And it’s of particular interest that twin studies have shown that the key component of psychopathy (i.e. lack of guilt or remorse and callous use and abuse of others rooted in empathy deficits) also appears to be influenced by biological factors. The “concordance” rate between twins reared apart for the various traits associated with APD, DPD, psychopathy and sociopathy is not strong enough to confirm a strictly genetic basis, but there can be no doubting a strong biologically-based predisposition. And one fairly recent study on monozygotic twins reared apart demonstrated that the biological predisposition toward empathy deficiency shows up even in children as young as 7 years old (see: Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk for Psychopathy in 7-Year Olds).

http://www.manipulative-people.com/is-p ... y-genetic/

How do you show love to a child who simply does not understand it, does not know how to empathise with others, and has no guilt or remorse for his actions?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It used to be considered ok and it was perfectly legal for men to physically 'discipline' their wives too (and rape them). Times change. Anyway, assaulting children has been outlawed here, so it's not an option for abusive parents any more. Of course, the christians were those who were the most pissed off about the law. What a surprise.