magichands Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 You call that intense pleasure? Don't make me hurt ya. I was hoping you were going to spank me. I didn't choose to have you either - the condom ruptured. Sorry, son, you must go. Get in the trash can before I decide to throw you to the aligators! Nice try, but it's your birth canal, and you bear the consequences of letting someone ejaculate in it - rubber or not. If you want me to go, then I'm leaving this world the "opposite" way I came in. Are you ready?
Lostgurl Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 I don't agree with this. You should have the right to disipline your own flesh and blood. You are responsible for raising them, and when they get out of hand and take other disiplinary measure lightly, sadly you have to resort to something that is a tad bit harsher than putting them in the corner or giving them timeouts. Yes at certian times, children need a light spanking. I have spanked my girls. I don't use it as a disiplinary measure ALL the time, but at times i see no other choice.
Porn_Guy Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 I don't agree with this. You should have the right to disipline your own flesh and blood. You are responsible for raising them, and when they get out of hand and take other disiplinary measure lightly, sadly you have to resort to something that is a tad bit harsher than putting them in the corner or giving them timeouts.. agreed...if a parent is required by law to feed, clothe and provide shelter and education to their child then the parent should be allowed to punish their child in whichever manner they choose as long as its reasonable.
magichands Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Yes at certian times, children need a light spanking. I have spanked my girls. I don't use it as a disiplinary measure ALL the time, but at times i see no other choice. It's so true. The only language they will understand - pure and simple. Withholding the chocolate ice cream is just plain... cruel.
Author ahsumgurl909 Posted January 22, 2007 Author Posted January 22, 2007 IMO spanking a child that doesnt know better about fire, electric, and onther dangerous things while they are the most fearless of all humans at that point. A child learns to walk and then run once they learn to run they run without fear, and would run right off a cliff without fear. Cause they dont know the end result. When spanking LIGHTLY at such an age on the HAND or diapered bottom when they are 1 and over is a must. You can tap a child that young and say No stearnly and that will do the trick. Once they learn as they grow WHY they were spanked (I think every kid ends up doing the thing we try to keep them from doing eventually by getting burned, shocked etc.) And then they see why we would spanked them when they would try to do it. And say "No wonder Mommy hit me when I tried to that IT HURTS!" I thinks its all about the child and the parents indivisual personalities and living inviroment. Every situation is different. And some situations need a long arm to keep some children safe. But like someone mentioned usually they are the families and not always but mostly involved in socical services. They as a service need to do their job which is to be aware of these in home problems. It is crazy to pass a law like this because it will be mainly a Money maker for the Government. And the child being removed from the home and the parent going to jail will either make the child have guilt or make the child an arrogant bastard and start controling the parent once they return. Sounds like a lose lose situation. BUT HOW DO WE PROTECT THE INNOCENT CHILDREN? That are murdered by the hands of their parents everyday?
lindya Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 BUT HOW DO WE PROTECT THE INNOCENT CHILDREN? That are murdered by the hands of their parents everyday? I think before you can even start figuring that out, you have to have a good awareness of the existing measures that professionals already use to protect, and promote the welfare of, children in your area. You could approach your local social services dept and ask if they know of any forthcoming seminars aimed at educating the public about the work they do. They might be happy to give you some written information to help you understand what's involved in a child protection investigation. That puts you in a better position to consider how the existing procedures might be improved upon. We had a tragic case here (UK) several years ago when a little girl called Victoria Climbie was murdered. That resulted in a real overhaul and tightening up of the systems used for investigating cases of suspected abuse.
tinktronik Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 I am not for punishment of children using physical force . However , I think to take away a parents right to discipline their child because of unfortunate circumstances involving the death of a few children is uncalled for . It is a horrible thing to have a child die from abuse , however it is nothing new and it should not enable the state to become involved in families lives statewide or country wide in order to protect the few . IMO , this country already has overstepped its boundaries in reguards to how the average parent parents their children . To the poster who said you own your child , sorry thats not true in this country either , the state owns your children , not you . Thats why they can either allow you to parent your child or not . Courts first and foremost own our children . Perhaps if we had to be liscensed to have children we would all know our own laws reguarding them too?
Author ahsumgurl909 Posted January 27, 2007 Author Posted January 27, 2007 Tink I agree with you about the government over stepping their boundries. Absolutely. But some parents just dont know how to raise a child proprerly and end up getting frustrated with them . And then the child pays the price. My thought about this is, lamaze classes are great. I think anyone who is becoming a first time mother, (young ones mostly) should be given a parenting class once a year each year until the child is 5. Then the child can have established good manners, parental respect, and values. Parenting isnt easy at all. But being eduacated would help I think. the child grows and changes and so does the parent. So keeping the educational class manditory for first time mothers only would be better then what they are trying to do. Any feed back on that idea?
Teacher's Pet Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 I dunno... There was a time, 40, 50, 60 years ago when a parent would spank an unruly child. A spanking, and be done with it. The kid learned his/her lesson, and that's that. The last 30 or so years, because of all the crap "child psychology" books (Hey Dr. Spock, what happened to YOUR kid?), it's "wrong" to spank a child. You are supposed to use "psycho babble" and "time outs" and crap like that. What else have we had in the last 30 years? Teen gang violence Teen drug use on the rise Teen alchoholism Teen abortions (well, to the point where it's looked upon as "not a big deal") A media flooded with empty heads like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton that are encouraging young girls to be, I'll say it.. whores. A sexually-charged culture that encourages young boys to "be a pimp" and just "take what they want" from "the bitches". I know I sound like an "old white man" by putting it in those terms, but I think I'm right. Most teen boys have absolutely NO respect for women, and a lot of it you can thank music for. Now, before you say it, I'm about as socially liberal as someone in my category (moderate Republican) can get. I don't think music should be censored at ALL. I don't think abortion should be outlawed. But, how many times have you seen kids listening to rap music on the streets with the constant "Smack my bitches", "Pop a cap in his ass" lyrics? All that force-fed on kids CAN'T be a good thing, no matter how you look at it. I just think that kids should be taught a little more "right from wrong" at home, as opposed to "figuring it out for themselves" on the streets. Parents need to take a little more control over their kids. I don't believe in beating a kid into unconsciousness, but a little more "direct" punishment seemed to work well back in the old days. "You can't play your XBox for one whole day" just doesn't cut it. My kids will be allowed PLENTY of freedom... choose their own music, their own friends, what video games they might want to play, their own path, so to speak, but I'll be damned if any daughter of mine becomes a Paris Hilton wannabe, or any son of mine DARES to lay a finger on a girl because some piece of crap rapper "rhymes" about how good it is to dominate women. My kids will be taught right from wrong at a young age, and will be taught that what they see in the media is ENTERTAINMENT, not EDUCATION. -tp still has strap marks on his ass, but that was just from last night
Author ahsumgurl909 Posted January 28, 2007 Author Posted January 28, 2007 I like your point of view. That sounds logical and matter of fact it is. But today parents are all about work work work and money money money and keeping up with the Jones. I myself shop at thrift stores for my clothes. I find brand new jeans there that are in style all the time I save myself so much money doing that. I believe if you dont give your kid everything they want when they whine about it they will soon quit whining. Most parents will hand their child ANYTHING TO SHUT THEM UP. I have seen some way out stuff her in Cali. I have seen women slap their little kids in the face in wal-mart. Way to hard for such a sweet little girl who was doing nothing but saying mama over and over again because she wanted to ask her something. And the woman wasnt talking to anyone just starring into space while she was waiting in line. Thats the crap that gets me mad. Poor childs little lip was bleeding. And she said ouch Mommy. And the mom said. You think that hurt wait til I get you home. I was livid. I wanted to follow her and get her licence plate #. So I could call on her. But I didnt. I always wonder what happened to that little girl.
vluna00 Posted February 4, 2007 Posted February 4, 2007 I am a firm believer of "you spare the rod you spoil the child" Does this mean that you walk around hitting your child for every little thing they do? No it absolutely doesn't. But when the moment that a "sit on the naughty chair" isn't going to cut it. I have a 5 year old that loves to test his boundaries and see if he can get away with murder. If he runs in the middle of the street when there is a car coming, I'd probably will swat his bottom and send him inside. Does that make me less of a parent if a cop drives by that very moment? But if I don't do anything about it and he gets hit by a car because the "Johnny that is a no no" method didn't work. I am in trouble with the law as well. It is a lose/lose situation
CardPlay3r Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Why do you people believe that spanking is real discipline and nothing else cuts it is beyond me... here's a link to people that suffered from it testimonies : http://www.nospank.net/victims.htm And to the ones that believe in it, where do you draw the line between spanking and abuse? I mean how hard do you spank, how many, with/without implements with/without clothing etc.
vluna00 Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 And to the ones that believe in it, where do you draw the line between spanking and abuse? I mean how hard do you spank, how many, with/without implements with/without clothing etc. I don't spank hard, I don't go on a spanking spree, I don't use objects, most of the time he gets swat on the hands and once in a while (if running in middle of the street) he would get a swat on the butt with clothes on. I go through a list of reprimands before the swat. First I explain to him what he is doing, second time I would send him in his room to think about it, 3rd time the swat. I don't spank if I am angry either...I DONT believe in doing that
RecordProducer Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Think for a second of what hitting a child really is: it's violence. It doesn't matter how non-painful physically it is - it's emotionally painful. I've hit my kids and they have forgiven me, but I feel awfully guilty. I didn't hit them because it helped them behave. And it didn't. I hit them because I was unstable at the moment and couldn't control my anger. That's what any form of abuse is. It defines the abuser, not the victim. There is no excuse for hitting, spanking, slapping, beating... it's all violence. What's the difference between hitting a child and hitting a woman or a man? Why is everything except hitting a woman acceptable? What if a husband just slaps a woman lightly on her face? Let's say she keeps flirting with guys even though her husband told her many times how much it hurts him. A slap on her face might work. Why not? It's Ok to hit anyone unreasonable, isn't it? Hitting, yelling, calling names, and humiliating are WRONG. They create huge emotional scars in a child's psyche. They don't discipline anyone, they help the parent let his or her anger out and take it out on the child. Think of the reasons why you were spanked as a kid or why you hit your child, if you did. Were they good reasons? I bet you don't even remember them. But you remember the violence! Regarding the law... laws are rigid. In order to protect the worst form of abuse, they can't afford to be flexible. It can't state that using your hands is OK as long as you don't use your feet. Or you can use your feet if you're barefoot or have soft slippers on, but not if you have boots or snickers on.
RecordProducer Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 II think to take away a parents right to discipline their child because of unfortunate circumstances involving the death of a few children is uncalled for . It is a horrible thing to have a child die from abuse , however it is nothing new and it should not enable the state to become involved in families lives statewide or country wide in order to protect the few . The few?! By that logic, schools also shouldn't use the severe protection system because of the few abductions or murders that happen once every so often. Many more children die from abuse of their own family members than from strangers' violence in schools. If you married a violent man (or a woman) and divorced him immediately upon discovering his dark side, would you feel good about your children not being protected from his physical abuse? How would you put a restraint order on him if the state allows violence? You would have no grounds for that. You would say that their lives are in danger, but he would say that it's just disciplinary spanking. If you knew that there was a disease that attacked only a few children, wouldn't you want your child protected from that disease anyway? You don't think of other children, because yours are not in danger from you or their father. But the state has to think of all its children and protect them equally. I, as someone who came to America recently, state that this is a country that protects human rights like no other country in the world. You take it for granted, I don't. Why would women be protected from sexual harassment or domestic violence, but not children? Why do you think the law should protect you from a man hitting you, but not a child from a parent who hits it? Who on earth will protect a small, helpless child from his or her own parents if the state closes its eyes? To the poster who said you own your child , sorry thats not true in this country either , the state owns your children , not you . Nobody owns anybody and this is not about owning your body. The state only owns the prerogative to protect children's rights.
Blue Phoenix Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 --"Parents need to take a little more control over their kids. I don't believe in beating a kid into unconsciousness, but a little more "direct" punishment seemed to work well back in the old days"-- I dont agree my father use to beet me with a leather belt it dident teach me anything except how to hurt others. This is 2007 I would hope we have evolved some since the "old days" Yes I agree children are running wild a bit but part of it has to be put on the parents shoulders as well is it all just the kids?? Are they all bad kids or is it that theres a boom in broken homes and dysfuncional familys that cirtanly cant be blamed on the children can it?? We are liveing in complicated times most kids are useing computers before they are out of diapers just about. So you realy cant compare now to say even 30 or 20 years ago there was just as maney probs back then just diffrent ones. And prob not as massivaly broadcast as they are now what with all the meida we have now adays. I belive that violence only teaches more violence in the end realy..
CardPlay3r Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Yeah people are bringing the "good old days" argument, when if you were a woman you had to stay home and cook, if you were gay you had to hide it, if you were a minority you didn't have alot of rights, and if you were beaten like hell at home noone would help you.
tinktronik Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 The few?! By that logic, schools also shouldn't use the severe protection system because of the few abductions or murders that happen once every so often. Many more children die from abuse of their own family members than from strangers' violence in schools. If you married a violent man (or a woman) and divorced him immediately upon discovering his dark side, would you feel good about your children not being protected from his physical abuse? How would you put a restraint order on him if the state allows violence? You would have no grounds for that. You would say that their lives are in danger, but he would say that it's just disciplinary spanking. If you knew that there was a disease that attacked only a few children, wouldn't you want your child protected from that disease anyway? You don't think of other children, because yours are not in danger from you or their father. But the state has to think of all its children and protect them equally. I, as someone who came to America recently, state that this is a country that protects human rights like no other country in the world. You take it for granted, I don't. Why would women be protected from sexual harassment or domestic violence, but not children? Why do you think the law should protect you from a man hitting you, but not a child from a parent who hits it? Who on earth will protect a small, helpless child from his or her own parents if the state closes its eyes? Nobody owns anybody and this is not about owning your body. The state only owns the prerogative to protect children's rights.Yep , the few . Through the tears the laws in this country have been changed to allow "parens perenti" (it means that the state owns your children ,and they can enter your home and take your children away without legal cause ) The laws were changed using fear tactics , the must protect the poor abused children fear theory . However it allows the law to overstep into the populations lives , on theory of an event , not on an actually event. I don't think mainstream population should have their freedom to raise their children modified because of a few. It would be different if the system worked differently , or was more well funded or hired educated and incredibly well trained people , but to be honest the system ends up with people who work under too much stress , with too little training , and come from an abusive background themselves ( and could not maintain the job without imprinting their own experiances ) . Like I said the system is broken , and it is a horrible idea to use the fear of the few who actually kill their children in order to open the doors of everyday familys and reach in on a theory to seize children. I wanted to add to this that the situation of foster parents is many times worse than the situations with the original parents . ... So you take a child from the parents because they spanked her . So ... she goes to foster care ( because everyone just wants to help) 18 months later she's been through 7 foster homes and in two she was spanked just the same as at home .... but in the 7th she is stuck in a closet and dies there ( this happened very recently in a foster home with a young boy) . But the system tried didn't they. Not to mention that she was shuffled around from home to home , to people who could not form attachments to her because they knew she would be moved on to the next home soon . So which is worse?
tinktronik Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 I, as someone who came to America recently, state that this is a country that protects human rights like no other country in the world. You take it for granted, I don't. Thats interesting to assume , as you don't know me or what I take for granted . But it is a tactic to invalidate whatever I have to say ... very republican approach there RP .
CardPlay3r Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Well there are degrees to spanking, and the effects it has on the kids depends on each individual. I certainly don't think parents that make spanking a ritual and common, or the ones that use belts/paddles on their kids should be allowed to keep them. And I don't know how many % of foster homes are good, how many bad, but you certainly can not let a child that's being abused with his abusive parents just because the foster parents might be worse.
tinktronik Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Well there are degrees to spanking, and the effects it has on the kids depends on each individual. I certainly don't think parents that make spanking a ritual and common, or the ones that use belts/paddles on their kids should be allowed to keep them. And I don't know how many % of foster homes are good, how many bad, but you certainly can not let a child that's being abused with his abusive parents just because the foster parents might be worse.Perhaps you should know ? The question is what is abuse? A parent who swats their kids on the butt? A parent who spanks with a paddle? Or a parent who beats their child bloody? The problem is that parents do not have to be found guilty in a court of law in order to have their children removed forever , their can just be a claim of abuse . It is a civil matter.
CardPlay3r Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Well to me is abuse anything of the parents' doing that makes a child sad, depressed, fearful of the home environment etc. . Of course you'll get all that if you belt your kid's ass as discipline. I think they have to be taken away before the parents being found guilty because of the urgency of the situation, you can't keep an abused kid in an abusive home until the courts get done which could take years. I do believe there should be a strong cause to take them away so to reduce the chance of mistakes to a minimum, the children themselves should be the prime cause of that because kids hardly ever lie about stuff like that... And again I do think tough measures need to be taken because it seems abuse is very widespread, emotional and phisical, and it makes the kids depressed, shy, anxious, having low self esteem etc. I speak that from the experience of myself some time ago and recently talking to young people it seems far too many are abused, and they have loads of problems because of it...maybe you should try speaking with say 10 young people getting to know them and ask them about that and ask them how they felt and if they had any problems from it, the internet is a great tool to do that
tinktronik Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 Well to me is abuse anything of the parents' doing that makes a child sad, depressed, fearful of the home environment etc. . Of course you'll get all that if you belt your kid's ass as discipline. I think they have to be taken away before the parents being found guilty because of the urgency of the situation, you can't keep an abused kid in an abusive home until the courts get done which could take years. I do believe there should be a strong cause to take them away so to reduce the chance of mistakes to a minimum, the children themselves should be the prime cause of that because kids hardly ever lie about stuff like that... And again I do think tough measures need to be taken because it seems abuse is very widespread, emotional and phisical, and it makes the kids depressed, shy, anxious, having low self esteem etc. I speak that from the experience of myself some time ago and recently talking to young people it seems far too many are abused, and they have loads of problems because of it...maybe you should try speaking with say 10 young people getting to know them and ask them about that and ask them how they felt and if they had any problems from it, the internet is a great tool to do that i have my own young people . but thanks . I do not spank and was raised i an abusive home myself . The opinion that I hold is an educated opinion , knowing both sides and having as much of the full picture as I am capable of . The state does not take children away before prosocuting the adult . Except in criminal cases . My point was that the state can and does take children away without and proof or criminal charge , and does not ever have to charge you woth a criminal charge of abuse at all , they can just claim it. Who decides what a strong charge is? If children were taken away whenever they were made sad by their parents , none of us would have children, they would all grow up in institutions.
Recommended Posts