I read about "hot saucing" on the internet

[dirtywick]

Suppose you parked in a no parking zone, but there was no sign saying one couldn't park there. You get a ticket. Would that seem fair to you? You would learn it was a no parking zone. But you learned through punishment which followed an unfair expectation. Would you see the ticket as just a learning experience? Or would you learn the city was unreasonable?

Wouldn't park there again, that's for sure.

I get what you're saying, but I think that an adult who can't spank without being angry is going to be angry during any...I don't want to say punishment so whatever it is...teaching method.

Okay, please explain to me, the exact steps to take to ensure spanking does not inflict pain. I would love to know. And if it doesn't inflict pain, how does the child even know your doing it? And if it feels pleasant how does the child know its a punishment?

The mental contortions people use to justify this are amazing.

" It is hitting, but you can't call it hitting. "

" You can do it without causing pain."

" It is not very effective, but i still want to use it **** it!"

The exact steps is to not hit hard, it's pretty simple and I do it frequently when I'm mock wrestling with my daughter. She doesn't have that same restraint however and it's cost me, but it's fun. The child knows because they wear these big diapers that make a big poof when you hit them, it's like a giant pad that makes noise. It's a bit stunning for the kid and obvious that something happened they didn't expect or like, but there's no harm done and the point's driven home I believe. Once they're older it's hardly necessary because you can just tell them things and they are able to speak English and whatnot.

I don't want to talk to you anymore if you're going to use fake quotes to mock me by the way.

 

[Region Rat]

So it is not correct then to say the child associates spanking pain with a dangerous behavior. There is no special learning that [X] is dangerous. There is general learning that Mom/Dad hit me if I do [X].

Not what I said. Small children don't understand 'dangerous'. The learning at that particular level of understanding is that there are unpleasant results of doing action X.

See my above post. Shouldn't the child have a chance to learn not to do something before the child is punished for simply being naturally curious?

You're jumping back to a child of an age who is able to understand and learn by reasoning. By that age, reasoning is used. Before a child can understand reasoning, other methods are required.

Yet you were specifically addressing something I said about spanking!. You be careful.

I started in when you were discussing deterrence, not punishment. You are bringing up spanking as a punishment method. I am not. Deterrence and punishment are not the same.

Even if spanking is not the main form of discipline, the message is Mom/Dad are angry at the child. The message is not, [X] is dangerous.

Same as above. I am not discussing angry parents and discipline.

This is a silly thing to debate. Kids do dangerous things because they don't know better. Let's leave it there where we agree.

I agree.

Like I said, the chance benefit that spanking a child is going to then protect the child in the future when supervision lapses (and I agree, the parent is unlikely to be perfect) is minimal. And the minimal benefit is outweighed by the consistent benefit that non-spanking teaching methods are superior teaching tools.

I don't think I said that contacting your child was the only teaching method. I have and am saying that making physical contact with your child on some occasions is warranted and effective.

The parent who removes the child from danger or removes the danger from the child is going to be just as likely (probably more likely) to perform that act as the child is likely to recognize a danger because they were spanked in a previous experience.

It seems that you are agreeing with me? Possibly I don't understand your statement.

There is also another false assumption going on here that removing the hazard is not also teaching the child. My dogs learned to piss outside. I did not have to hit my dogs to teach them that. When they peed in the house as puppies, I put them outside. I also tried to take them outside before they peed. If you stop your child from playing with the electrical cord, they don't learn to investigate the cord when you aren't looking. They learn, I'm not supposed to play with the cord.

I don't think I assumed that.

People are assuming only pain and/or fear motivates a child. Children are naturally motivated to please their parents. Nurture that natural behavior and your kids learn internal gratification for good behavior. Teach children using fear/pain and as soon as they are big enough not to fear you, what is there left to motivate them to behave?

'People' may. However, I don't think I've given the impression that I do. That's a problem with discussions like this. You hate spanking. It is very obvious. You think it has no value. Therefore, anyone who wishes to discuss the positive results of that action are SPANKERS, and they spank their kids at the drop of a hat. I am sorry if I've given you that impression.

It would appear you've gone back to discussing spanking.

sigh. No, I used the words smack, in reference to smacking a kids hand to deter them from doing an action that could damage them, not taking a child over my knee and spanking their bottom raw for displeasing me.

Yes, smacking a hand away is lazy. It takes more effort to say, no, and offer an alternative. However, the laziness I'm referring to is in not taking the time to learn better parenting skills.

You seem to assume that a hand is smacked with no verbal communication or other activities. I'm sorry you got that impression from what I typed. I just didn't feel like sharing my entire child rearing experiences. Please don't assume the worst of people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wouldn't park there again, that's for sure.

I get what you're saying, but I think that an adult who can't spank without being angry is going to be angry during any...I don't want to say punishment so whatever it is...teaching method.....

Given the example, a child investigating electrical cords, I don't think that necessarily angers a parent. I can imagine a hypothetical example of a parent thinking they need to hit the child to teach, "no". It's a common myth.

But I also agree that despite what has been repeatedly claimed in this thread and in a past thread on the same subject, a child not 'obeying' naturally frustrates parents. And frustration leads to anger in a lot of cases. But still, I'd rather be angry and discipline a child without using pain/fear, than to be angry and also spank as a tool.

 

[dirtywick]

But I also agree that despite what has been repeatedly claimed in this thread and in a past thread on the same subject, a child not 'obeying' naturally frustrates parents. And frustration leads to anger in a lot of cases. But still, I'd rather be angry and discipline a child without using pain/fear, than to be angry and also spank as a tool.

Yeah, spanking is probably the worst option for somebody who loses their temper easily or to use when angry, young parents especially. Unfortunately those are the ones who probably have few other tools.

 

[sadhatter]

Wouldn't park there again, that's for sure.

I get what you're saying, but I think that an adult who can't spank without being angry is going to be angry during any...I don't want to say punishment so whatever it is...teaching method.



The exact steps is to not hit hard, it's pretty simple and I do it frequently when I'm mock wrestling with my daughter. She doesn't have that same restraint however and it's cost me, but it's fun. The child knows because they wear these big diapers that make a big poof when you hit them, it's like a giant pad that makes noise. It's a bit stunning for the kid and obvious that something happened they didn't expect or like, but there's no harm done and the point's driven home I believe. Once they're older it's hardly necessary because you can just tell them things and they are able to speak English and whatnot.

I don't want to talk to you anymore if you're going to use fake quotes to mock me by the way.

But we are not talking about play fighting, we are talking about spanking, how about replying to how one effectively spanks a child to instill discipline but does not cause pain.

Your comment makes about as much sense as saying slitting someones throat is okay, because i can do it with a fake knife and not hurt them. Your simply making **** up at this point to try and make the non existent point that spanking, in regards to discipline can be done without pain.

And if you don't want to talk to me because i strip away all the christmas wrapping of your silly arguments, go ahead. It simply shows that you have no argument, which is pretty apparent at this point.

 

[Cainkane1]

I'd rather be hot sauced than be slapped like I saw a father do his ten year old son. The kid was in class and the teacher asked him to take some money to the principal. Apparently some or all of the money never got there. The kid was caught and the money returned and the principal called the father at work.

The father got off work and came to the school and in front of the teacher and principal the father slapped him and slapped him and slapped him. The boy was sent home where I imagine the kid was punished even more. The next day the kid had a swollen lip and bruising on his face.

Several weeks later the teacher sent the boy to the principal with money again and this time all the money got there.

I think the father overdid the punishment. Theres other ways this could have been handled.

 

[sadhatter]

I'd rather be hot sauced than be slapped like I saw a father do his ten year old son. The kid was in class and the teacher asked him to take some money to the principal. Apparently some or all of the money never got there. The kid was caught and the money returned and the principal called the father at work.

The father got off work and came to the school and in front of the teacher and principal the father slapped him and slapped him and slapped him. The boy was sent home where I imagine the kid was punished even more. The next day the kid had a swollen lip and bruising on his face.

Several weeks later the teacher sent the boy to the principal with money again and this time all the money got there.

I think the father overdid the punishment. Theres other ways this could have been handled.

To use this as an example. If i were to describe this story to someone, does anyone think i would say " A kid stole some money, and his dad hit him in front of the principal. ". No, , because the word hit does not convey the cruelty, or force that the father used. It brings to mind the father slapping the kid, maybe once, sure something that i ( and a good amount of others.) don't agree with, but not anything that would indicate the abuse the kid suffered.

 

[MMead]

The Worst of all Bad Habits

People used to think it was necessary to "spank" adult members of the community, college students, military trainees, and prisoners. In some countries they still do. In our country, it is considered assault and battery (sexual battery at that) if a person over the age of 18 is "spanked", but only if over the age of 18.

Recommended by professionals:

Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson

NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor MD and Adah Maurer PhD


Most current research:

Spanking Kids Increases Risk of Sexual Problems
(University of New Hampshire)

Use of Spanking for 3-Year-Old Children and Associated Intimate Partner Aggression or Violence
(American Academy of Pediatrics)

Spanking Can Make Children More Aggressive Later
(Tulane University)

Spanking Children Can Lower IQ
(University of New Hampshire)

Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child "spanking" isn't a good idea:

American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
American Psychological Association,
Center For Effective Discipline,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
United Methodist Church
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.

In 31 nations, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US also has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The US states with the highest crime rates and the poorest academic performance are also the ones with the highest rates of child corporal punishment.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that child bottom-battering instills virtue.

 

[Ryokan]

MMead, welcome to the forum!

I also recommend this site: http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/

 

[Cainkane1]

To use this as an example. If i were to describe this story to someone, does anyone think i would say " A kid stole some money, and his dad hit him in front of the principal. ". No, , because the word hit does not convey the cruelty, or force that the father used. It brings to mind the father slapping the kid, maybe once, sure something that i ( and a good amount of others.) don't agree with, but not anything that would indicate the abuse the kid suffered.

This happened at Greenleaf elementary school in 1957 in San Antonio Texas. I was also ten.

 

[Drysdale]

Hey, my kid bet he could eat the pepper. I didn't want to see him in pain just because I offered him $20 if he could.

And I gave him $10 consolation.


On a more serious note, I don't think it is sadism, it is controlism. Parents want control.

Not to say you're wrong at all, but I would have let him do it.
Sometimes you need to learn to keep your mouth shut.

Even if he did make an easy $20.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not to say you're wrong at all, but I would have let him do it.
Sometimes you need to learn to keep your mouth shut.

Even if he did make an easy $20.

What do you mean, let him do it? He did. He couldn't get it down and had to spit it out. That's why I gave him the $10. It was a very hot pepper.

 

[BTMO]

People used to think it was necessary to "spank" adult members of the community, college students, military trainees, and prisoners. In some countries they still do. In our country, it is considered assault and battery (sexual battery at that) if a person over the age of 18 is "spanked", but only if over the age of 18.

Recommended by professionals:

Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson

NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor MD and Adah Maurer PhD


Most current research:

Spanking Kids Increases Risk of Sexual Problems
(University of New Hampshire)

Use of Spanking for 3-Year-Old Children and Associated Intimate Partner Aggression or Violence
(American Academy of Pediatrics)

Spanking Can Make Children More Aggressive Later
(Tulane University)

Spanking Children Can Lower IQ
(University of New Hampshire)

Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child "spanking" isn't a good idea:

American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
American Psychological Association,
Center For Effective Discipline,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
United Methodist Church
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.

In 31 nations, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US also has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The US states with the highest crime rates and the poorest academic performance are also the ones with the highest rates of child corporal punishment.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that child bottom-battering instills virtue.

Quite right. Mental cruelty, isolation and water boarding work better.

 

[Drysdale]

What do you mean, let him do it? He did. He couldn't get it down and had to spit it out. That's why I gave him the $10. It was a very hot pepper.

Ahh,sorry then.

I misunderstood. I thought you gave him $10 to not try it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ahh,sorry then.

I misunderstood. I thought you gave him $10 to not try it.

No, I gave him $10 to ease the Mom guilt. I made the $20 bet with him in the first place.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Or to make my point in a simplier manner.

I don't hit my girlfriend, i just spank her when she gets out of line. Is non acceptable.

Yet.

I don't hit my kids, i just spank them when they get out of line. Is.

Try this.
I have sex with my girlfriend.
Not bad
I have sex with my kids
Bad.

Your context-empty point ... isn't one.

When you compare apples to apples you'll get a better response.

 

[bigred]

I'm against this mostly because it will train children to associate hot sauce with bad things.

First intelligent answer in the thread.

Indeed. This is the only real cruel part about this. But if you ask enough people you'll find any discipline of children is cruel in someone's opinion.

There's the second.

I've never done it and IMO it's a dumb idea, but I see a lot of ridiculous, hypersensitive overreactions here. Good grief people. Hot sauce on a kid's tongue? Boo hoo, sob, sniffle, the horror. If this country (if not the world to a large extent) hasn't become completely emasculated, we're damned close. Whatever happened to a common sense middle ground? There are other choices besides being way too harsh, beating the crap out of a kid etc or being way too soft and spineless and scarcely disciplining/confronting them at all.

Common sense has become the ultimate oxymoron and IMO perhaps nowhere is this clearer than child rearing today.

/rant

PS props to you DR, but as you may already know, you're wasting your time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

if you ask enough people you'll find any discipline of children is cruel in someone's opinion.

There's the second. [intelligent answer in the thread]...

This kind of answer is analogous to theists claiming science is just another religion and theists claiming ID and evolution are equally both scientific positions.

The difference between using pain and fear to affect children's behavior and using methods that are aimed at natural consequences but not pain and fear is not a matter of arbitrary opinion. There is a substantive difference.

I agree using methods to inflict pain and fear like hot sauce and cold showers are not different from hitting, slapping, spanking or whatever you want to call it.

But there is an entire body of data demonstrating the difference between pain and fear avoidance forms of discipline, and natural consequences related to desired and undesired behavior that don't involve fear and pain.

Whether the child who is spanked turns out well behaved or the child who is not spanked but whose parents are ineffective turns out not so well behaved, are different issues.

Not all spanked children are harmed by the parenting technique. That still doesn't make it the best or most desirable parenting method.

Not all parents are skilled at positive discipline techniques. That still doesn't make it a worse option or an equally bad option as spanking. It makes it important that parents have an opportunity to learn parenting skills.

 

[Ove]

Fun to se that debate still going on over there. Over here in the civilized world we have off course banned spanking and any other sorts of violence against children long time ago and actually it is a criminal offence.

I don't believe that sane people in the year 2011 stil can argue that it is OK to hit children.

And "i was spanked as a child and i grew up OK" is NOT a valid argument.

 

[bigred]

This kind of answer is analogous to theists claiming science is just another religion and theists claiming ID and evolution are equally both scientific positions.

No, actually, it's nothing like that at all. Also I have to wonder about people who repeatedly go well out of their way/the thread's way to rip on theists/religion/etc. Reminds me of people who rip on homosexuality every chance they get; you have to wonder what's really behind all their bravado. Can we stick to the topic please?

The difference between using pain and fear to affect children's behavior and using methods that are aimed at natural consequences but not pain and fear is not a matter of arbitrary opinion. There is a substantive difference.

I assume by "natural consequences" you mean positive reinforcement-? Regardless, this is also an invalid analogy, ie the fact that there IS a difference just states the obvious. How those differences manifest are and esp how they are good/bad is very much subjective, however.

The rest of your post was mostly absolutes and oversimplifications; there is no "the" way to raise or discipline kids. If positive reinforcement works, great. The key is that it works, however. What if it doesn't? What if a kid is belligerant/out of control (PS that doesn't automatically mean he/she has "ADD" etc ) ie all the cuddly touchy-feely "intellectual" stuff doesn't work? Some kids are more headstrong and need a firmer hand. Sadly, many alleged parents today are so emotionally fragile and afraid or uneasy about the slightest confrontation that they just avoid it, which of course only makes it worse. Or they assume their kids are as fragile and will fall apart at the slightest confrontation, so just keep using methods that clearly aren't working, or worse, don't do anything and just let the kid run out of control. IMO not enough discipline is every bit as much child abuse as too much, but only the overly harsh parents are demonized, while the morons spoiling their kids rotten and not giving them the discipline they are desperately crying out for are pitied. Most kids are a lot tougher than I think most parents realize. They aren't going to fall to pieces or be "emotionally scarred" unless they are raised that way. But the tendency now largely is to spoil and over-protect. It's all quite nauseating, if not practically insane.

I guess my main point is that again no one way or method is right; it varies from kid to kid and situation to situation. You have to take all that into account and act accordingly, using the minimal amount of discpline necessary that works. Again key point being that it works.